Unlike in most democratic countries, United States citizens cannot weigh in on policy questions through a national referendum. But roughly half of American state constitutions do afford their citizens some version of this power, known as “direct democracy,” allowing citizens who collect enough signatures to place statutory or constitutional proposals on the ballot and pass them by popular vote.
This direct democracy right, which gained traction during the Progressive Era of the early 1900s, was instituted as a popular check on legislative power. In recent decades, lawmakers have tried to regain their policymaking monopoly by proposing a variety of new hurdles for citizen initiatives, including increased signature requirements, restrictions on who can collect signatures, and limits of the scope of an initiative. Most of these efforts have been rejected by voters or courts.
This year, irked by recent successful citizen initiatives on issues ranging from health care to labor laws to government ethics, the Arizona and North Dakota legislatures tried this tactic. Voters said no.
Direct democracy has played a unique role in Arizona history. Arizona is one of only two states where women gained the right to vote through a citizen initiative, years before the right was added to the U.S. Constitution. In recent years, voters have used initiatives to raise the minimum wage, as well as to raise tax revenue for funding schools, health care, and childhood development programs.
This year, the legislature placed a measure on the ballot — Proposition 134 — that would have made future citizen initiatives virtually impossible. Under the current rules, initiative sponsors must gather signatures amounting to 10 percent of qualified voters to propose a statute for the ballot, and 15 percent to propose a constitutional amendment. The legislature’s measure would have required that threshold to be met in each of the state’s 30 districts, essentially giving any one of those districts veto power. Notably, the Idaho supreme court struck down a lower district threshold requirement (6 percent) as “effectively nullify[ing]” that state’s direct democracy.
The Arizona legislature also proposed that opponents be permitted to challenge citizen initiatives in court before the election, which would have set up yet another expensive hurdle before voters had a say. Arizona voters rejected both measures overwhelmingly. They also rejected a legislative proposal that would have taken away their right to vote judges out of office.
In North Dakota, voters have recently turned to ballot initiatives as a check on their elected representatives, enacting ethics reforms and term limits for legislators and the governor. As in Arizona, these efforts drew a backlash this election cycle. State Sen. Janne Myrdal (R) complained that the state constitution was “standing naked on Main Street in North Dakota, and anyone . . . from California or New York can throw a dart and play the game for $1 million to change the law in North Dakota.” (Although the senator was correct that some progressive initiatives attract out-of-state funding, the broader truth is that, any time initiatives of national interest are on a state ballot, out-of-state individuals and groups of all political stripes donate funds to support or oppose that initiative.) She sponsored and the legislature passed a measure that would have restricted future initiatives in a number of ways.
First, the measure would have increased the number of signatures required and prohibited nonresident circulators from collecting signatures. Second, it would have authorized the secretary of state to review the initiative and reject it if they found it overly broad. Finally, it would have required an initiative to be approved by voters twice before it could take effect. Had this initiative passed, it would have made initiatives harder to pass once, and it also would have enhanced the power of special interest opponents by enabling them to concentrate their funding on measures that qualified for a second vote. A clear majority of voters, 56.5 percent, rejected the legislature’s proposal.
These tactics are not new. In many states that allow citizen initiatives, legislators regularly propose measures that would narrow or block the path for future initiatives. Even though these measures fail far more often than they pass, they are virtually costless for legislators to put forward. And occasionally they do succeed. Voter education will continue to be key to preserving direct democracy against such efforts in future elections.
