Trends Watcher

Emerging Trends

BISC closely tracks emerging trends that could impact the ballot initiative process or our election processes at large — both for better and for worse.

When Voter Oppression Masks as Voter Protection

  • “Protection” in Missouri: During a September special session, some Missouri legislators felt called to “protect” voters from the tool that’s recently won them better wages, expanded healthcare access, restored abortion rights, and more. Passed in the state legislature largely along party lines and referred to the November 2026 ballot for voter approval, the so-called “Protect Missouri Voters” amendment seeks to dramatically weaken the People’s Tool. Under the amendment, citizen-led initiatives would have to pass in each of the state’s eight congressional districts in order to succeed. In other words, a single district failing to pass an initiative would mean total statewide loss. (Legislatively-referred measures, on the other hand, would still require only a simple majority.) There are no aspects of the amendment detailing how the majority of Missouri voters would be protected in the event that minority rule overrode an otherwise popular measure. The amendment’s sponsor, Rep. Ed Lewis emphasized that the concurrent majority requirement would require that a citizen-led initiative (and again: only citizen-led initiatives) have “broad geographic support” rather than the kind of broad support typically understood to be associated with election outcomes (popular vote, majority will, etc).
  • “Concern” in Utah: Frustrated by their repeated failed attempts to ignore the redistricting requirements put in place by a 2018 citizen-led ballot measure, some extremist Utah politicians are hoping to take their revenge on the initiative process itself. After a district court judge recently rejected a gerrymandered map drawn by the legislature, Gov. Cox said he had “deep, deep concerns” about direct democracy. Lawmakers have threatened to pursue a legislatively-referred amendment to limit the power of citizen-led initiatives
  • “Securing” Elections in Maine, “Repairing” the Vote in Nevada: Last fall, Maine voters soundly rejected an initiative that claimed to secure state elections through a series of voting restrictions that would have disproportionately affected older voters and voters with disabilities, rural residents, and shift workers. Proponents claimed the changes were “common sense” and “minor”, but included everything from requiring voters to show certain forms of photo ID to shortening the absentee voting period and to strictly limiting the number of ballot drop-off boxes. For the initiative’s architects, “securing” elections also meant barring family members from requesting absentee ballots for their elderly or disabled loved ones and banning prepaid postage from absentee ballot return envelopes. On the other side of the country, a Nevada group called Repair the Vote is attempting to pass their own voter ID initiative. A legislative compromise that would have required voter ID but also expanded the number of ballot drop boxes was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Lombardi, a voter ID proponent, who claimed continued concerns about the security of voting by mail. State law requires that constitutional amendments pass in two general elections; because the initiative received 73% of the vote in 2024, it needs just one more win this November to become law. Despite these continued attempts to pass voter ID ballot measures the fact remains that such laws disproportionately affect marginalized and underrepresented groups. And to what end? Studies have repeatedly shown that voter fraud is ‘infinitesimally rare’ (for example, analysis of more than 25 million ballots across six states in 2020 found that less than 0.000019% showed any signs of being suspect).

So what are we to make of these ironic calls to protect voters by eroding their rights? Or supposed concerns about respecting the will of the people? Or these bad faith efforts to secure elections from the very voters who try to engage in them? These kinds of concerted efforts to sow distrust in the People’s Tool specifically and our elections generally, are part of a larger movement by some lawmakers to undermine our entire democracy. These attacks are branded as necessary defenses in order to deceive voters and to convince us that authoritarian rule is the solution to the chaos those same authoritarians have sown. 

But there is hope, too. BISC’s November 2025 polling on authoritarianism revealed voters are interpreting attempts to restrict ballot initiatives as tied to rising authoritarianism. That’s especially true for those already feeling increasingly concerned about the state of our democracy. As more Americans understand these oppressive efforts for exactly what they are, we must stand together against those who want to make ballot initiatives and our democratic systems harder to use, and protect our power to make real change for our communities. 

Increasingly Authoritarian Tactics Deployed Against Citizen-Led Initiatives

It was just over a year ago that officials with Gov. DeSantis’ office ordered the Florida Department of Health to threaten TV stations with criminal charges for airing paid campaign ads for Amendment 4, a citizen-led initiative that nearly restored abortion rights in the state. That news shocked free speech and election integrity advocates across the country last fall, but lately these kinds of authoritarian antics almost seem par for the course:

  • Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway is siccing I.C.E. on workers gathering signatures for the citizen-led referendum effort to repeal the legislature’s gerrymandered redistricting map. Without providing evidence to back up her claims, Hanaway alleged that the campaign’s signature collection firm is using undocumented immigrants to gather initiative petition signatures. She’s requested that immigration officials investigate whether the firm is creating “an environment for exploitation and human trafficking to thrive.” Her office is demanding details on all of Advanced Micro Targeting workers since July 2023 — everything from identity documents to payroll records and internal emails. Richard von Glahn, director of the People Not Politicians campaign behind the referendum effort, calls the state attorney general’s actions “just the latest example of desperate politicians seeking to silence the voices of Missourians. It is outrageous and dangerous.”
  • A Utah judge is facing threats of impeachment — and threats of violence — for upholding a 2018 voter-approved ballot initiative that created an independent, nonpartisan commission for drawing congressional district maps. This fall the GOP-controlled legislature proposed a map that would once again solely favor Republican candidates. But Judge Gibson ruled their map failed to abide by Proposition 4 and instead selected a map drawn by grassroots groups that features one Democratic-leaning district and three Republican-leaning districts. (A map that Utah Senate President Stuart Adams insists is the “most partisan and thus the most gerrymandered map in the history of the state”.) In response to Gibson’s ruling, Rep. Matt MacPherson announced that he was in the process of drawing up articles of impeachment against Gibson. Utah judges can be impeached if the state legislature determines that they have committed high crimes, misdemeanors, or other misconduct while in office. Lawmakers’ outrage soon spilled over into the public sphere, forcing the Utah Judiciary to make a rare public statement after Gibson and other court officials began receiving violent threats.
  • A federal court judge has ruled against several new anti-initiative laws in Arkansas, repeatedly stressing concerns about free speech violations. U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks has blocked state officials from enforcing six new laws that would have made it nearly impossible for Arkansans to use the ballot initiative process. These include an affidavit requirement that the judge called ‘draconian’, an 8th grade reading level requirement that’s already been weaponized against several initiative campaigns this year, and unnecessary burdens placed on voters trying to sign petitions. In his 77-page ruling, Brooks wrote, “The State does not have an interest in infringing First Amendment rights for the duration of this litigation merely because an election lurks in the distance.”

Following the success of citizen-led initiatives that have improved millions of lives with improved working conditions and benefits, expanded access to Medicaid, restored reproductive rights, and more, some lawmakers have only doubled down on their attempts to sabotage the People’s Tool. It’s all part of a wider authoritarian scheme to silence voters’ voices and undermine our democracy. 

But state-based advocates are fighting back. Already, groups in Missouri, Montana, and Nebraska have launched citizen-led initiative campaigns to shore up their right to the ballot measure process. And no matter what authoritarian tactics may crop up, BISC remains committed to defending direct democracy not just as a critical means of collaborative governance but as a tool for re-imagining what American democracy can and should be.

State Officials Using Legal Tactics to Stall the Initiative Process

Legal battles are nothing new for ballot initiative campaigns, but they’ve earned more than a few headlines in recent months. 

Take for example the proposed referendum to repeal Missouri’s new gerrymandered redistricting map, which is already at the center of two legal battles just weeks after the campaign kicked off. People Not Politicians Missouri has been left with little choice but to sue Secretary of State Denny Hoskins over his refusal to count many of the campaign’s collected petition signatures. While Hoskins claims the campaign was legally prevented from gathering signatures before Gov. Mike Kehoe signed the gerrymandered map into law, legal precedent in the state says otherwise. Meanwhile, Attorney General Catherine Hanaway has filed a lawsuit to block any citizen-led effort to repeal the assembly’s map. She argues that a referendum would violate both the state and federal constitutions, despite Missourians having a constitutional right to petition the government.

In Montana, groups behind two competing campaigns for non-partisan courts took Attorney General Knudsen to court, accusing him of injecting bias into the ballot language for their respective initiatives in order to mislead voters. The Montana Supreme Court ultimately ruled that he’d overstepped his authority in rewriting the ballot language. “Montana voters have ample experience with nonpartisan elections — the last 90 years of nonpartisan judicial elections being but one example.”

The legal maneuvers can extend well beyond the qualification phase and oftentimes are wielded during a voter-approved initiative’s implementation. Despite a resounding victory for reproductive rights in Missouri, former state Attorney General used a newly-passed bill this spring to file legal challenges against a court ruling that had allowed abortion care to resume in the state. The case continues to be pursued by his successor, Attorney General Hanaway.

These kinds of procedural taps and bad-faith legal interpretations on the part of state lawmakers are strategically used to drain time, money, and momentum from grassroots efforts. But as we’ve seen time and again, ballot measure campaigns and direct democracy defenders aren’t giving in without a fight.

Sour Candy: The Role of ‘Ballot Candy’ in Disguising Bad Policy

All too often, a ballot measure will be drafted with one or two popular features as an attempt to distract from its less savory — or downright controversial — aspects. It’s a tactic often referred to as ‘ballot candy’: a means of sweetening the deal in order to convince voters to support a measure they may otherwise oppose. The insidious practice takes advantage of crowded ballots and voter fatigue, with careful marketing to ensure voters associate a measure with only its most desirable aims. 

November’s Question 1 initiative in Maine is one such example. Touted as simply a voter ID measure by its proponents, its scope further includes a laundry list of anti-voting proposals ranging from shortening the absentee voting period to terminating ongoing absentee status for many voters. (Learn more about why voter ID is itself anti-voting!) Next year, Missourians will be asked to decide two legislatively-referred proposals similarly laced with ‘ballot candy’. Amendment 3 (2026) focuses almost entirely on overturning voter-approved abortion rights in the state, but attempts to appeal to anti-trans voters by including a constitutional ban on gender-affirming care for minors — care already prohibited by statute. This tactic uses transgender people as scapegoats in a deceitful ploy to enact another extremist abortion ban in a state where many don’t understand the importance of hormone therapy or puberty blockers to trans youth. In September, Missouri lawmakers referred a measure that would make it nearly impossible to pass citizen-led initiatives while touting a ban on initiative funding by foreign adversaries (which is already illegal under federal law). And in Nebraska, one group is pursuing a ballot initiative that would raise teacher salaries to $50,000 while pushing for two others that would slash taxable property values in half and cap property tax revenue growth, potentially stripping Nebraska schools and counties of billions of dollars in public revenue. As the president of the Nebraska State Education Association said, “They are trying to use teacher compensation as the sweetener to make this sound like it’s actually good.”

As the prevalence of ‘ballot candy’ grows, good faith voter education efforts will need to follow suit. Campaigns — proponents and opponents alike — will need to be diligent with their voter engagement to ensure that communities understand the true impacts of a ballot measure beyond the carefully selected highlights featured in ads and headlines. 

The Long Arm of Authoritarianism: Illegal Gerrymandering and Attacks on Direct Democracy

While calling for a special session to focus on illegal gerrymandering at the behest of the Trump administration, Gov. Kehoe has also instructed legislators to use this time to attack Missouri’s initiative petition process. It’s no coincidence that legislators are taking advantage of the national focus on redistricting battles as a smoke screen to distract from their attacks on direct democracy. Whether it’s by creating the country’s highest vote threshold for citizen-led amendments — by requiring majority approval in each of the state’s congressional districts according to HJR 3 — or by dismantling MO-5 in Kansas City, these efforts are about weakening the power of Missourians and further concentrating it in the hands of politicians. 

  • Missouri House Joint Resolution 1
    • Requires that citizen-led amendments receive approval from a majority of all registered voters in the state, regardless of whether they voted in the election or on the measure itself. 
    • Lowers the signature collection requirement by a single percentage point for initiated amendments. 
    • Only US citizens registered to vote in Missouri can vote.
    • This bill is the same as HJR 68 (2025) and HJR 177 (2024), both of which failed to pass.
  • Missouri House Joint Resolution 2
    • Requires that citizen-led amendments receive approval from a majority of all registered voters in the state, regardless of whether they voted in the election or on the measure itself. 
    • Lowers the signature collection requirement by a single percentage point for initiated amendments. 
    • Only US citizens registered to vote in Missouri can vote.
    • This bill is the same as HJR 68 (2025) and HJR 177 (2024), both of which failed to pass.
  • Missouri House Joint Resolution 3
    • Citizen-led ballot measures must be approved by a majority of votes in each congressional district.
      • In theory, an initiated amendment could receive a 93% statewide approval and still fail if it doesn’t win in one of the eight districts.
    • Gives the state attorney general exclusive criminal jurisdiction to prosecute those convicted of petition signature fraud. Violations warranting a class A misdemeanor include a voter mistakenly signing a petition twice for the same measure or a signature collector submitting a petition sheet that includes a fraudulent signature.  
    • The Secretary of State must host at least one hearing on an initiative before it is confirmed to the ballot. 
    • Requires complete text of citizen-led initiative be provided with every ballot.
    • No ballot measure committee contributions from foreign adversaries.
  • Missouri House Joint Resolution 4
    • Constitutional amendments require two-thirds approval to pass.
    • This bill is similar to HJR 85 (2025), which would have required amendments to pass in each of three-quarters of the state’s counties.

Unfortunately, this assault on voters’ power in Missouri isn’t unprecedented. This year alone, the Republican-majority legislature has dramatically weakened Proposition A (which received 57% of the vote) and sent to the 2026 ballot an amendment to overturn voter-approved abortion rights. Five years ago, the legislature put forth a measure that undermined a previously voter-approved citizen-led ballot initiative to create fair legislative districts, confusing voters during a pandemic. They tried again after voters approved Medicaid expansion. Republican state legislators have introduced bills to weaken the initiative process every legislative session since 2018. Rather than listen to their constituents, some Missouri politicians continuously undermine the will of the people and this latest effort is an attempt to put the nail in the coffin.

When political parties cannot win on the merits of the issues, they too often resort to tilting the playing field — changing the rules of the system to entrench their power. These efforts are not simply administrative — they are politically-motivated efforts to suppress popular reforms like raising the minimum wage, expanding Medicaid, and protecting reproductive rights. A visible symptom of this democratic erosion is the coordinated assault on the citizen-led initiative petition process. If left unchecked, this growing hostility toward ballot initiatives by elected officials in Missouri may permanently weaken one of the last remaining tools citizens have to effect change outside of partisan gridlock. Protecting the integrity of the initiative petition process is not simply about defending specific policies, it is about safeguarding the principle that democracy should represent and be responsive to the people it serves.

Voter ID Requirements Eroding the Spirit of the Voting Rights Act

Sixty years after the groundbreaking passage of the Voting Rights Act, Americans continue to face contrived barriers to engaging in our democracy. One especially pernicious anti-voting trend: voter ID requirements. 36 states currently have such laws in place and three ballot initiatives plus one legislatively-referred measure are looking to enshrine requirements in their state constitutions. 

  • California Initiative 25-0007: Voter Identification and Voter List Maintenance Requirements Initiative (CI) (2026)
    • Would require government-issued identification to vote in person or last four-digits of a unique government-issued identifying number with mail-in ballot. The initiative would also require the secretary of state and county election officials to maintain accurate voter registration lists, including verifying citizenship attestations and reporting what percent of voter rolls have been citizenship-verified.
  • Maine Question 1: An Act to Require an Individual to Present Photographic Identification for the Purpose of Voting (CI) (2025)
    • Would change Maine election laws to eliminate two days of absentee voting, prohibit requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, end ongoing absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, ban prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes, limit the number of drop boxes, require voters to show certain photo ID before voting, and make other changes to our elections.
  • Nevada Question 7: Voter ID Requirement (CI) (2026)
    • This amendment would mandate that Nevada residents must present a form of photo identification to confirm their identity when voting in person, or use the last four digits of their driver’s license or social security number to verify their identity when voting by mail.
    • Note: Question 7 also appeared on the November 2024 ballot. Nevada law requires that constitutional amendments receive voter approval in two elections in order to pass.
  • North Carolina Senate Bill 921: An act to amend the North Carolina constitution to require all voters to present photographic identification (2026)
    • The amendment would require photographic identification to vote, including for those not voting in person.

An October 2024 poll by NPR, PBS, and Marist revealed that many Americans (including 86% of Republicans) are concerned about voter fraud but according to the Brennan Center for Justice, research has shown that such fraud is ‘infinitesimally rare’. And what many might see as a necessary step in defending our elections against this assumed widespread election fraud is just another form of voter disenfranchisement because access to an approved form of voter ID is far from universal. A study published in 2023 by University of Maryland’s Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement in partnership with VoteRiders revealed that nearly 29 million potential voters lacked a valid driver’s license, while more than 7 million lacked any form of valid government-issued photo identification. The issue was especially prominent among voters of color, young voters, voters with disabilities, and seniors. Barriers to identification access go far beyond a long line at the DMV: would-be voters may not have the documentation required to apply for an ID (e.g. a valid copy of their birth certificate), may face harassment regarding updated gender markers, may not be able to afford the fees for a driver’s license or identification card, and more.  

At best, voter ID requirements are red tape limiting voter turnout but at worst they are a nefarious attempt to concentrate the power of those voters deemed most desirable.

Defend the Ballot, Defend Democracy: Resisting the Authoritarian Creep

The health of American democracy is deteriorating under the weight of rising authoritarianism, political gridlock, and institutional sabotage — conditions that create fertile ground for fascist ideologies to take root. A visible symptom of this democratic erosion is the coordinated assault on citizen-led ballot initiatives. In nearly half the states, lawmakers have introduced or passed bills to restrict the ballot measure process by tightening signature requirements, shortening campaign timelines, imposing confusing legal standards, and more. These efforts are not simply administrative — they are politically-motivated efforts to suppress popular reforms, particularly those favoring progressive causes. When institutions designed to empower people are dismantled, faith in democratic participation wanes, leaving a vacuum for authoritarian alternatives that promise strength, order, and control over complexity.

In states like Ohio and Oklahoma, anti-democratic legislation exemplifies how weakened civic processes can pave the way for more coercive governance. Ohio’s Senate Bill 153 and House Bill 233, buried in hundreds of pages of technical jargon, function as veiled threats to grassroots movements by criminalizing common organizing practices and expanding state surveillance over petitioners. Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 1027 caps the number of signatures per county and compresses campaign timelines to near-impossible limits, effectively disempowering urban organizers and diluting collective power. These are not random policy changes, they are strategic efforts to undermine pluralism and prevent dissent. When democratic tools become inaccessible, the state monopolizes political expression, setting the stage for fascist tendencies: centralized control, suppression of opposition, and the framing of democratic dissent as a threat to the republic.

This democratic decay does more than limit ballot access — it opens the door to fascism by normalizing executive overreach, legislative complicity, and public disillusionment. When citizens are cut off from shaping their own governance, the state consolidates power under the guise of unity and order — an all-too-familiar path to authoritarian rule. Thus, defending the ballot is not just about preserving a process — it’s about resisting a future where democracy is hollowed out in favor of control.

Citizen Initiatives Fill the Gap in Infrastructure Investments

The use of citizen-led initiatives to fund public works projects and affordable housing has emerged as a grassroots response to the chronic underfunding of infrastructure at state and federal levels. As government budgets tighten and political gridlock stalls large-scale investment, communities are increasingly taking matters into their own hands through ballot initiatives, local bond measures, and participatory budgeting. These citizen-driven efforts not only secure critical funding for essential infrastructure — such as transportation upgrades, water systems, and broadband internet — but also empower residents to shape development priorities that reflect local needs related to renter protections, public works projects, and recycling to name a few. 

Recent measures such as Texas House Joint Resolution 7 exemplify this trend which will allocate a portion of sales tax revenue to a dedicated water fund, addressing long-standing gaps in water infrastructure investment that are particularly acute in drought-prone regions. Through this type of earmarked funding, voters can ensure that vital public services receive sustained support, even when competing priorities strain general budgets. Similarly, Texas House Joint Resolution 203 will create a state fund to provide resources for healthcare workforce education at eligible higher education institutions. Amid growing shortages of healthcare professionals, this initiative represents a strategic community-driven approach to public workforce investment, circumventing traditional budgetary battles and fostering cross-sector collaboration between educational institutions, healthcare providers, and the state. 

And lastly, affordable housing, in particular, has become a focal point for citizen initiatives due to escalating housing costs and stagnant federal support. Local ballot measures have successfully generated billions in funding for low-income housing projects, leveraging tools like property tax adjustments, bond issuance, and development impact fees. These initiatives fill vital gaps in housing policy by fostering collaboration between governments, non-profits, and private developers under community-guided mandates. Importantly, citizen-led financing can also circumvent political resistance to housing reforms, allowing for more responsive and equitable urban planning. As infrastructure demands grow, citizen initiatives represent a vital, decentralized strategy to meet unmet needs while reinforcing local democratic participation.

Voter ID Marketing Masks Broader Vote Suppression

Why is it that Maine’s new ballot initiative has been branded by many as simply a ‘Voter ID’ measure despite its laundry list of other anti-voting proposals? The answer could lie in the banal acceptance of voter ID requirements. Across the country, 36 states already require voters to present some form of identification at the polls and on April 1, nearly 63% of Wisconsin voters opted to enshrine such a requirement in their state constitutions. Many see it as an easy (it’s not) and sensible step to protect against widespread election fraud (of which there is no sound evidence), but nothing about this initiative should be interpreted as easy or sensible. From ending ongoing absentee status for seniors and people with disabilities to shortening the absentee voting period to limiting the number of ballot drop boxes, this measure is committed to making voting infinitely more challenging. 

Seeing through the veiled attempts by its sponsors to limit voting rights, Maine Sec. of State Shenna Bellows drafted ballot language enumerating the impacts otherwise overshadowed by the voter ID aspect. However, supporters of the measure have taken the issue to court and are hoping to have the language overturned. The lawsuit accuses Bellows of “obscuring the initiative’s primary aims by stressing everything other than the voter identification requirements” and calls the voter suppression tactics included in the measure “minor things”.

The Specter of Non-Citizen Voting

While non-citizens have been expressly prohibited from voting in federal elections for over a century (punishable by both imprisonment, fines, or deportation), states have historically been permitted to decide for themselves whether to allow non-citizens the right to vote in local or state elections. However, unfounded claims of widespread non-citizen voting fraud have resulted in both a recent executive order from the Trump Administration and a slate of proposed (and passed) ballot measures that seek to address this non-issue.  

But while the claims may be based in fiction, the potential impacts are very much a reality. A 2024 survey revealed that proving citizenship can be a challenge for 1 in 10 U.S. citizens and worse: more than 3.8 million people don’t have any form of proof of citizenship documentation, whether that be a birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate or a certificate of citizenship. Additionally the lack of documentation “disproportionately affects marginalized racial and ethnic groups,” with 11% of respondents of color unable to readily access such documents compared to 8% of their white counterparts. As state legislatures look to further limit voting rights, they are both threatening voter accessibility for U.S. citizens and stripping undocumented community members of their ability to weigh in on state and local issues as previously permitted.

Voting rights advocates are fighting back. On March 27, a group of pro-democracy organizations including the Brennan Center for Justice, ACLU, NAACP, League of Women Voters of the United States, and the Legal Defense Fund wrote to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission urging commissioners against taking action in accordance with Trump’s executive order. Those groups have since joined with others in filing a lawsuit challenging the legality of that order.

Examples of potential and confirmed legislatively-referred measures regarding citizenship requirements include:

  • Arkansas House Joint Resolution 1018: The Citizens-Only Voting Amendment
    • Prohibits non-citizens from voting in a state or local election in Arkansas.
  • Kansas House Concurrent Resolution 5004: Require voters to be U.S. citizens [PASSED]
    • Asks voters to require individuals to be citizens of the United States, at least 18 years of age and a resident of the voting area in order to vote.
    • This requirement is already present in the Kansas state constitution, and the amendment makes only minor grammatical and tonal changes.
      • In particular, the language would switch from saying voters with certain qualifications shall be deemed qualified electors to saying that no voter will be considered a qualified elector unless they meet those requirements.
  • Montana Senate Bill 185: To require that only a citizen can vote
    • Montana’s constitution already requires that voters be a U.S. citizen, but this proposed amendment would change that rule from saying that ‘any’ citizen of the U.S. can vote (so long as they meet other age and state residence requirements) to ‘only a’ citizen of the U.S. can vote.
    • State law requires that this bill receive at least a two-thirds majority vote between the House and Senate in order to be sent to Montana voters for approval. 
  • Texas House Joint Resolution 49: Requiring submission of proof of citizenship to county registrar
    • Should legislators pass this resolution, Texans could be asked to approve a requirement that individuals submit an application with proof of citizenship to their county registrars in order to register to vote.
  • Texas House Joint Resolution 161: Adding non-citizens to list of classes prohibited from voting
    • Another potential constitutional amendment that could be sent to voters, this joint resolution would add ‘persons who are not citizens of the United States’ to the list of classes prohibited from voting.
      • Other classes include persons under 18, persons determined ‘mentally incompetent’, and persons convicted of any felony.
  • West Virginia Senate Joint Resolution 8: Citizenship requirement to vote
    • This potential amendment would add non-citizens to the list of groups prohibited from voting in the state.

The Devil is in the Details

BISC is tracking a number of potential referred constitutional amendments across the country that feature selective ballot language likely intended to mask unsavory proposals. Take for example Missouri’s Senate Joint Resolution 60. Its drafted ballot language highlights a foreign spending prohibition and a ban on lawmakers accepting gifts from lobbyists before mentioning the increased vote threshold that would require both a statewide majority support and majority support in a majority of congressional districts. Additionally, the ballot language proposes banning legislators from repealing voter-approved laws — but makes zero mention of its exception for legislative repeals of voter-approved constitutional amendments (like 2024’s abortion rights Amendment 3, which anti-abortion legislators are currently attempting to repeal). And despite the ballot language for Louisiana’s Amendment 2 being only 77 words long, the true length of the measure comes to a total of 115 pages. Which begs the question: What isn’t being said? A legal challenge seeking to block the measure argues that the highlighted positives in the ballot language bely other aspects of concern. In other words: “None of the unappealing changes are included. The ballot language is all dessert, no vegetables.”

As the saying goes, the devil is in the details and BISC is committed to uncovering attempts by lawmakers and others to deceive voters at the ballot box by burying dangerous proposals in the fine print.

Attacks on Ballot Initiative Signature Collection 

In legislatures around the country, lawmakers are proposing higher or broader collection requirements, superfluous canvasser protocols, and tighter deadlines. Though bill sponsors and their proponents claim the demands are necessary to prevent petition fraud, they’re a thinly veiled effort to stymy ballot initiative efforts before voters have a chance to weigh in on an issue. Examples include:

  • Arkansas Senate Bill 207 [PASSED]
    • 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 theirself.  
    • Sen. Jamie Scott (D-North Little Rock) named SB 207 and similar anti-initiative proposals as being a form of voter suppression not unlike the literacy tests and poll taxes that historically targeted marginalized communities.
  • Florida House Bill 1205 [PASSED]
    • Requires canvassers to be Florida residents, clear a criminal background check, and complete a training provided by the state.
    • Petitions would have to be turned in within 10 days of signature (down from 30 days currently) or face significant fines ranging from $50 to $100 for each day late.
    • Creates a complicated signature verification process for petitions which would burden election offices.
  • Montana House Bill 201 [PASSED]
    • Requires paid signature collectors to wear a badge communicating 1) that they are paid and 2) the state where they legally reside.
  • Oklahoma Senate Bill 1027 [PASSED]
    • Severely limits how many signatures can be counted from any single county for ballot initiative petitions. The law  will take power away from rural and urban voters alike: in the state’s smallest county, for example, a maximum of 152 voters could have their petition signatures counted.
    • Sen. Regina Goodwin (D-Tulsa) remarked, “It would almost be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. This is not about transparency. This is about suppressing a process.”

The trend doesn’t end at signature collection; those attacking the ballot initiative process have also set their sights on other pre-Election Day opportunities including removal of signature cure periods, increased Attorney General scrutiny, and exorbitant fees. 

Voter ID Measure as a Tool for Increasing Conservative Voter Turnout

Not unlike trending voter citizenship requirements, voter ID proposals prey upon largely unfounded fears of election fraud and serve as a popular platform for Republican lawmakers in particular. Voters in Wisconsin are facing one such example in the state’s April 1 election. Given that photo identification is already required under Wisconsin law, it would seem unnecessary to enshrine it in the state constitution. However, the April 1 ballot features a more pressing issue: the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. At 4-3, the court currently has a slim liberal majority and the GOP is likely hoping to shift the tides in their favor. If they’re able to draw out enough conservative voters to weigh in on the legislatively-referred photo ID amendment, an increase in votes for the conservative judicial candidate could follow. Notably, the candidate being backed by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin was the lead attorney in an unsuccessful lawsuit that challenged the current voter ID law in 2011.

Types of Ballot Measures:

There are several types of key ballot measure issue areas, including:

  • Direct Democracy: Laws governing ballot measures and the initiative process
    • Signature Gathering 
    • Language Development 
    • Protection and Implementation of Ballot Measures
  • Reproductive Freedom: Policies and legal protections to act on decisions regarding pregnancy
    • Reproductive Health: A continuum of physical, mental and social-emotional care pertaining to the reproductive system at all stages of life. 
    • Reproductive Rights: Largely focused on abortion, contraception, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) legal policies.
  • Economic Justice: Systemic policies that end the cycle of poverty and prevent wealth inequality
    • Worker Rights
    • Wages and Benefits 
    • Paid Sick Leave 
    • Paid Family Leave  
    • Fair Lending 
    • Housing
  • Democracy: Policies that pertain to our governing systems 
    • Voting Rights 
    • Elections 
    • Campaign Finance
    • Redistricting
  • Fiscal Policy: Policies that pertain to taxation and government spending
    • Income Taxes 
    • Property Taxes 
    • Corporate and Business Taxes 
    • State Budgets 
    • Education Funding 
  • Civil Rights: Guarantees of equal social opportunities and protection under the law, regardless of race, religion, or other characteristics
    • Racial Equality 
    • Gender Equality 
    • Marriage Equality 
    • Criminal Legal Reform
  • Health Justice: Access to equitable and affordable quality health care for all
    • Medicaid Expansion 
    • Universal Healthcare 
    • Cost Transparency 
    • Full-Body Healthcare 
  • Education: Policies in the educational sphere that govern the operation of education systems
    • Public Education Funding and Vouchers
    • School-to-Prison Pipeline 
    • Curriculum
    • School Choice 
  • Environmental Protection: Policies that impact the protection of the natural environment, conservation of natural resources and the existing natural environment
    • Oil & Gas 
    • Mining 
    • Air Quality 
    • Recycling 
    • Land Use 
  • Immigration: Policies that influence migration for permanent settlement, temporary labor migration, migration for family reunification and migration of highly skilled workers

BISC’s Resource Library houses ballot measure information ranging from past campaign materials to campaign debriefers to memos highlighting best practices, serving as a unique resource for campaigns to build their own strategies. To request access to the library, please email [email protected].