Trends Watcher

2025 Emerging Trends

As BISC continues to support our state partners in three main issue areas (Direct Democracy, Direct Democracy, Economic Justice, and Reproductive Freedom), we are closely tracking emerging trends that could impact the ballot initiative process or our election processes at large — both for better and for worse.

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
    • 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.
  • Idaho Senate Joint Resolution 101
    • Increases signature requirements to meet 6% of voters in each of the state’s 35 legislative districts.
  • Missouri House Bill 575
    • Should a court order a change that substantially alters the content of the official ballot title, all signatures collected prior to the change would be invalidated. 
    • Requires that signature collectors be U.S. citizens, a Missouri resident or physically present in the state at least 30 consecutive days prior to collection.
  • Montana House Bill 201
    • Requires paid signature collectors to wear a badge communicating 1) that they are paid and 2) the state where they legally reside.
  • Nebraska Legislatively-Referred Constitutional Amendment 23
    • Pushes back the petition deadline by one full year: from four months prior to Election Day to 16 months prior.
  • Oklahoma Senate Bill 116
    • No more than 5% of the total number of signatures required could originate from any one county, effectively silencing electors from more populous areas including Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Norman.
  • South Dakota House Bill 1267
    • Prohibits the use of paid petition circulators. Punishable as a Class 5 Felony. 

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.

Anti-Trans Legislators Weave Attacks on Gender-Affirming Care into Anti-Abortion Bills

It comes as no surprise that a slate of bills have been filed that propose overturning Missouri’s 2024 reproductive freedom initiative, Amendment 3. But found within the text of several such bills — including HJR47, HJR54, HJR63, HJR73, SJR5, SJR9, SJR33 — are explicit proposals to prohibit gender-affirming care for minors. 

The language for each bill is carefully crafted, and the placement of the GAC ban in proposed ballot language is equally strategic. For some, the ban receives top billing while for others it is the last line a voter would read before selecting Yes or No on the legislatively-referred constitutional amendment at the ballot box.

The pairing of the two topics is nefarious and strategic: the bill sponsors hope to draw out anti-trans voters to secure a defeat of abortion rights, and anti-abortion voters to secure a victory against the health and well-being of trans youth. On the whole, the issue underscores the importance of reproductive freedom and LGBTQ+ rights advocates working together to defend bodily autonomy for all.

Amid Nationwide Attacks on Direct Democracy, Some Lawmakers Fight to Introduce Initiative Process to Their State

Following recent years of progressive ballot initiative wins across the country, nearly one hundred legislative attacks on direct democracy have been filed already this year. Yet there is also considerable work being done to introduce — or restore — the ballot initiative process in several states. In addition to a recent call from Wisconsin Gov. Evers for legislators to create an initiative process in his state, BISC is currently monitoring 17 bills that would provide some form of direct democracy in 11 states from Connecticut to Hawai’i to Texas. 

But not all such proposals are necessarily proactive. Mississippi’s HCR 30, for example, would only restore a very limited version of the citizen’s initiative process to the state following a 2021 Mississippi Supreme Court decision that effectively voided the previous one. For example, HCR 30 would bar citizens from proposing any initiative concerning abortion and require campaigns to collect signatures from 12% of the total state electorate — a threshold considerably higher than most other states with an initiative process. This simply is not a true restoration of the process if there are such stringent limits on what can be brought to voters and how.

Direct Democracy Legislative Landscape: 2025 Outlook

As of April 11, BISC is monitoring 151 active bills related to direct democracy filed in legislatures across 28 states and Washington D.C.. Of these, at least 79 feature some level of attack on the People’s Tool.

These bills reflect a range of legislative efforts, from increasing barriers to the ballot measure process — such as increased signature collection requirements, higher vote thresholds, and additional oversight — to proactive initiatives aimed at expanding or refining direct democracy systems. Below are highlights of notable bills and initiatives:

Increased Signature Collection Requirements

  • Several states, including Arkansas (SB 102, SB 212), Missouri (HB 551, HB 575, HJR 10, HJR 55, HJR 80), and Oregon (HJR 3, HJR 11, SJR 30), have proposed stricter rules for signature collection.
  • These bills often include residency requirements, bans on per-signature payment models, and heightened verification processes.
  • Some measures, such as Montana’s LC 1636, require petition signers to be “active” registered voters, potentially invalidating signatures of those registered voters who have not participated in recent elections.

Higher Vote Thresholds for Passage

  • Many states are pushing for higher thresholds to pass ballot measures, particularly for constitutional amendments.
  • Missouri (HJR 11, HJR 16, HJR 18, HJR 52, HJR 78, HJR 80, SJR 10, SJR 30, SJR 47), Idaho (H 2), North Dakota (HCR 3003), Oklahoma (HJR 1013, SJR 5), and South Dakota (HJR 5003) are among those advocating for 60% or more voter approval.
  • Some proposals are more complicated. For example, in  Missouri one proposal (HJR55) would require that a measure be passed by both a statewide majority and by a majority of voters in a majority of counties while another (SJR47) would require constitutional amendments to pass by a statewide majority and by a majority of voters in each of at least three-quarters of congressional districts.

Legislative and Executive Control Over Ballot Measures

  • Some bills demonstrate growing tensions between legislative, executive, and judicial branches of state government. Others are conspicuous efforts by lawmakers to weaken the power of voters.
  • In Arizona, there is a proposal (SB 1534) for ballot language to be prepared and approved by a Legislative Council, rather than Secretary of State and Attorney General. Notably, the Arizona legislature has held a Republican-majority in both the House and the Senate for more than thirty years, while the positions of secretary of state and attorney general are each currently held by Democrats.
  • Idaho (H 85) would grant the governor the power to veto voter-approved initiatives.
  • Montana (SB 47) would require additional legislative committee review for ballot measures deemed legally sufficient by the courts.

Restrictions on Foreign Funding and Campaign Contributions

Challenges to Ballot Language and Judicial Oversight

  • Missouri (HB 402, HB 414, HB 551, HB 575) and Arkansas (HB 1222) introduce stricter rules on ballot language, limiting the ability of courts or advocates to challenge misleading summaries.

Introduction of New Initiative Processes in Some States

  • Several states, including Iowa (HJR 5), New Jersey (SCR 60), New York (A 4239, S 3132), and South Carolina (S 95), are proposing proactive legislation to create or expand citizen-led ballot measure processes.

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].