Attacks + Threats

Key Threats & Potential Obstacles to 2024 Ballot Measure Victories

In the wake of significant ballot measure victories reflecting the power of the people,
opponents of specific initiatives and direct democracy at large are exploring paths to
challenge the successful measures. Such opponents include state lawmakers, elected
officials, business interests, and more. While a handful of legal challenges and legislative
threats have begun to trickle in, BISC anticipates that number will grow as effective dates
and legislative sessions approach.

Democracy: Elections, Government, and Judiciary 

Economic Justice

  • Missouri Proposition A: Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave (CI)
    • Missouri will gradually increase the state’s minimum wage by $1.25 per hour each year until 2026, when the minimum wage would be $15.00 per hour and adjust thereafter based on changes in the Consumer Price Index each January beginning in 2027. Workers will also earn one hour of paid sick leave for every thirty hours worked. 
      • The initial minimum wage increase to $13.75/hour is now in effect as of January 1, 2025.
    • McCarty, et al. v. Missouri Secretary of State, et al.: Originally filed by business interest groups that were ultimately dismissed by the Missouri Supreme Court, the lawsuit seeks to overturn the voter-approved Proposition A. The remaining individual plaintiffs argue that because the labor justice measure increases minimum wage and allows workers to earn paid sick leave, it violates the state’s single-subject rule for ballot initiatives. The Missouri state supreme court appointed County Circuit Judge Josh Devine as a commissioner to review the evidence and report his findings.
      • Notably, Prop. A opponents filed the lawsuit one month after it was overwhelmingly passed by Missouri voters rather than prior to Election Day, for example during the qualification or ballot finalization phases.
    • Legislative Threat: A Missouri Senate committee has voted to pass House Bill 567, a policy designed to gut the voter-approved Prop. A. The legislation combines four bills to push the $15/hour minimum wage increase from 2026 to 2028, remove the ability to raise it in the future to keep up with the cost of living, and remove the paid sick leave piece altogether. The bill’s sponsor,  Rep. Sherri Gallick (R-Belton) claims that hardworking Missourians would “abuse” their right to earn paid sick leave that can be used to heal when they are unwell or care for sick family members. The bill now heads to the full Senate for consideration, making it that much closer to reaching the governor’s desk and possibly being signed into law.

Healthcare

  • Nebraska Initiative 437: Medical Cannabis Legalization and Nebraska Initiative 438: Medical Cannabis Regulation
    • The related initiatives respectively legalize possession of up to five ounces of cannabis for medical purposes with a written recommendation from a health care practitioner and establish a Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission to regulate its use. The purchase of medical cannabis in Nebraska will remain illegal until the now-authorized Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission is able to write rules and regulations by the July 1, 2025 deadline.
    • Kuehn v. Evnen, et al.: Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen and former state senator John Kuehn are suing to nullify the voter-approved medical cannabis legalization and regulation ballot measures, Initiatives 437 and 438. Opponents of the measures have argued that neither should have qualified for the ballot due to evidence of signature fraud on some of the petitions. Though a district court judge previously ruled that the petitions were valid, the Nebraska Supreme Court agreed to take up the appeal. Kuehn has since amended his lawsuit to add several parties. The additions are a strategy to stop the individuals tasked with implementing the laws from doing so.
      • The three commissioners of the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission who will serve on the new Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission.
      • State Treasurer Tom Briese and Tax Commissioner Jim Kamm, who will oversee the new collection of sales taxes on medical cannabis. 
      • CEO Steve Corsi of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, whose department handles oversight of medical practitioners.
    • Kuehn v. Pillen, et al.: An unsuccessful last-minute lawsuit by former state senator John Kuehn sought to block Gov. Pillen from declaring by December 12 the success of Initiatives 437 and 438, as required by Nebraska law. Kuehn argued that the overwhelmingly popular, voter-approved measures violate the Nebraska and U.S. constitutions, and as such the governor could not be compelled to declare them as state law.

Reproductive Freedom

  • Arizona Prop. 139: Right to Abortion
    • Creates a constitutional right to an abortion up until the point of viability, with exceptions for the life and physical or mental health of the pregnant person.
    • Legislative Threat: Prop. 139 expressly prohibited government interference in abortion rights before fetal viability. However, HB2681 proposes an unnecessary burden for abortion providers and their patients by requiring in-person exams and in-person follow-up appointments.
    • Legal Victory: A Maricopa County Superior Court judge has permanently blocked Arizona’s 15-week abortion ban following a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood Arizona and two OB-GYNs that argued the ban was unconstitutional due to Prop. 39’s victory. The judge’s order declared the 2022 law “immediately and permanently and forever enjoined.”
  • Maryland Question 1: Right to Reproductive Freedom
    • Enshrined in their state constitution’s Declaration of Rights the essential freedoms to access abortion, contraception, and other reproductive health services.
    • Legislative Threat: Carried over from the 2024 legislative session, a bill seeks to ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected.
    • Legislative Victory: A bill that sought to require a 24-hour waiting period between a patient’s ultrasound and an abortion procedure was ultimately withdrawn by its sponsor.
  • Missouri Amendment 3: Right to Reproductive Freedom 
    • Prohibits the government from denying or interfering with a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom (including abortion, childbirth, IVF, contraception, and more) up until the point of fetal viability. Thereafter, an abortion is permitted if advised by a healthcare professional to protect the life or physical/mental health of the patient.
    • Legal Victory: Immediately following the success of Amendment 3, Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers filed a lawsuit challenging Missouri’s various TRAP laws. All have been temporarily blocked by a circuit court judge, and a January 2026 court date has been set to decide whether to block them permanently.
    • Legislative Threats: Though the Missouri House Majority Leader previously said his party would respect the will of the voters, legislators have already filed over a dozen proposals to limit the effects of the abortion rights amendment — or overturn it altogether, including:
      • Thirteen bills would ask voters to ban abortions with very limited exceptions,
      • Three joint resolutions would ask voters to amend the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception, effectively classifying abortion as murder and endangering in vitro fertilization,
      • Two joint resolutions would ask voters to ban abortions after a heartbeat is detected,
      • Two bills assert that the U.S. Constitution prohibits abortion, thus the Missouri state constitution can’t allow it either.
  • Montana CI-128: Right to Abortion
    • Affirms the state’s constitutional right to make decisions about one’s pregnancy, including the right to abortion up to the point of viability.
    • Legislative Threat: Immediately following CI-128’s success on Election Day, HB 316 was filed for a constitutional amendment to define “person” as beginning at conception or fertilization, effectively classifying abortion as murder and endangering in vitro fertilization. It has passed out of the House and is now awaiting its hearing in Senate Judiciary Committee.

State of Legislative Attacks on the Ballot Measure Process

2025 Attacks on Direct Democracy

BISC is currently tracking 151 active pieces of legislation related to direct democracy, at least 79 of which seek to limit the People’s Tool. Lawmakers opposed to direct democracy are again trying to limit the People’s Tool and have already filed dozens of bills attacking the ballot initiative process. See below for a selection of notable examples. As 2025 legislative sessions move forward, BISC will continue to track legislation affecting direct democracy as part of our critical work to Defend Direct Democracy.

Examples of 2025 Legislative Attacks on Direct Democracy:

  • Arkansas
    • [PASSED] House Bill 1222 prohibits the standard practice of submitting multiple versions of an initiative to the state attorney general simultaneously in order to ensure that at least one will pass muster. Campaigns must now wait until Version A is rejected before submitting Version B. Additionally, the state attorney general will be tasked with reviewing initiative language for conflicts with the U.S. constitution or federal statutes, likely related to a trend of bills arguing that the U.S. constitution prohibits abortion.
    • [PASSED] Senate Bill 207 requires canvassers to inform signers that petition fraud is a Class A misdemeanor. If the canvasser fails to do so, they can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor themself.  
    • [PASSED] Senate Bill 210 requires that petition signers read the complete ballot language in the presence of a canvasser or have it read to them. If they don’t — perhaps because they have already done their research — that canvasser could be charged with a misdemeanor.
    • [FAILED] Dubiously titled the ‘Protect the Constitution Act’, Senate Bill 586 would have required a 67% supermajority threshold for constitutional amendments to pass, making it all but impossible for grassroots groups to succeed at the ballot box. While the bill failed on the Senate floor with a number of Republicans joining Democrats in rejecting it, the proposal could still be revived before the legislative session ends on April 16.
  • Florida
    • Two bills, HB 1205 and SB7016 could severely hinder the state’s ballot initiative process by drastically reducing the signature submission timeline, increasing filing fees (including requiring campaigns pay a $1 million bond), permitting criminal investigations into volunteer canvassers, and creating a complicated signature verification process for petitions which would burden election offices.
    • In his call for a 2025 special session, Gov. DeSantis asked legislators to crack down on citizen-led ballot initiatives. His requests included prohibiting standard signature collection, authorizing the Secretary of State to de-certify an initiative if that person determines that there aren’t enough valid signatures, and requiring that an initiative’s fiscal impact statement be drafted solely by the governor’s appointees.
  • Idaho
    • [FAILED] House Bill 2 would have required ballot initiatives to earn at least 60% of the vote in order to pass.
    • [FAILED] House Bill 85 could have allowed the governor to veto voter-approved citizen initiatives.
  • Missouri
    • House Joint Resolution 55 would require both a statewide majority and a majority vote in each of at least 86 counties in order to pass a constitutional amendment. A technicality like that could kill a ballot measure even if it had supermajority support. 
    • House Joint Resolution 68 would require citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to earn votes equal to at least half of the total registered voters in the state. Essentially, that means every voter who doesn’t turn out to vote in a particular year or chooses not to vote on an issue would effectively be counted as a “No” vote. 
    • Senate Bill 22 would prohibit anyone but the legislature or the Missouri Secretary of State from making edits to an LRCA’s ballot language.
  • Montana
    • [FAILED] Senate Bill 13 would have replaced the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction for ballot review with District Court jurisdiction, likely due to a years-long legislative campaign to weaken Montana Supreme Court power over allegations that its justices are too liberal.
    • [PASSED] House Bill 201 requires that paid signature collectors wear a badge stating that they are paid and disclosing the state where they live.
  • Oklahoma
    • Senate Bill 1027 would mandate that no more than 10% of the total number of signatures required for a ballot initiative petition can be from a county with >400,000 residents — a prohibition that specifically targets voters in Oklahoma City and Tulsa. And among other requirements is one that signature collectors must display conspicuous signage indicating if they’re being paid and by whom.
  • South Dakota
    • [PASSED] House Joint Resolution 5003 will now ask voters to approve a requirement that constitutional amendments to receive 60% of the vote to pass.
    • [VETOED] House Bill 1169 would have required campaigns for citizen-initiated amendments to gather petition signatures from each state senate district.
  • Utah
    • [PASSED] Senate Bill 73 holds citizen-proposed state statutes to the same standard as legislatively-referred constitutional amendments by requiring campaigns to publish initiative text in at least one newspaper in every Utah county. At an estimated cost of $1.4 million, such a requirement would make it all but impossible for citizens and grassroots campaigns to lead a ballot initiative effort.
    • [PASSED] Senate Joint Resolution 2 will now ask voters to approve a requirement that any initiative that would raise taxes must receive at least 60% voter approval in order to pass.

Why are these attacks happening?

The national fight over ballot measures began to pick up around a decade ago when a coordinated push happened across the country to use the ballot initiative process to expand Medicaid and enact other popular, progressive policies that fare well with voters across the political spectrum. We have seen another steep escalation in legislatively-referred attacks since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and voters in Red, Blue, and Purple states have been using the power of direct democracy to enshrine reproductive freedom into their state constitutions.

In 2015, BISC began implementing a proactive, long-term strategy co-created with state leaders and grassroots organizers to achieve progressive policy wins and build lasting, equitable power on the ground through ballot initiatives. We’ve been successful, so it’s no surprise that we’ve been seeing a steep rise in ballot measure process bills in state legislatures.