2005 Ballot Measures

Voters in eight states will consider a total of 41 ballot measures on Election Day in 2005 (November 1 in Colorado; November 8 in all other states). Among these, 18 were initiated by voters; the other 23 were referred to the ballot by state legislatures. For a full listing of all measures on the ballot, visit NCSL’s Ballot Measures Database.

Issue Trends
Two of last year’s high-profile issues have made a comeback this year – gay rights and medical malpractice. Other trends this year include several budget measures, a pair of redistricting measures, several election and campaign finance issues, and transportation issues.

Gay Rights
A total of 13 states voted on same-sex marriage restrictions in 2004 (11 on November 2, and two in primary elections), and every single one of them passed. Read a summary of last year’s gay rights measures.

This year, gay rights are on the ballot in three states. Texas voters will consider a same-sex marriage ban placed on the ballot by the legislature, and Maine voters will consider a popular referendum which seeks to reject a new law passed earlier this year by the legislature that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation. Earlier this year, Kansas voters passed a same-sex marriage ban in a special election.

Medical Malpractice
In 2004, there were nine medical malpractice measures on the ballot in four states. They addressed the issue in a variety of ways, and five of the nine passed. Read a summary of last year’s medical malpractice measures.

This year, there are two medical malpractice measures on the ballot in Washington. Initiative 330 would change malpractice laws in a number of ways, including limiting attorney fees and capping non-economic damages to $350,000. It is similar in some respects to 2004’s Question 3 in Nevada (which passed), Oregon’s Measure 35 and Wyoming’s Amendment D (both of which failed). Initiative 336 would establish a state-run supplemental malpractice insurance program and would also revoke a doctor’s license after three malpractice incidents. Last year, Florida’s Amendment 8 prohibited licensing doctors with three or more incidents of malpractice, and it passed overwhelmingly.

State Budgets
There are several major budget issues on the ballot this year. Probably the most high-profile is Colorado’s battle over TABOR, or the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights. There are also measures on the ballot in California and New York.

Colorado’s TABOR amendment caps the amount of revenue the state is allowed to keep each year, and requires the state to return any excess revenue to taxpayers through a variety of refund programs. Other states have TABOR measures, but Colorado’s is unique in one aspect – it has what’s been called a “ratchet down” effect – when revenues decline, the cap declines along with them. The legislature and the governor say that thanks to the post-9/11 recession, the state budget has suffered major cutbacks and TABOR prevents it from recovering. Referendum C, referred to the ballot by the legislature, would allow the state to keep excess revenue above the cap for the next five years, and would re-set the cap based on the highest amount of revenue collected over the next five years. The additional money would be spent on health care, public education, transportation, and local police and fire pensions.

California and New York’s budget measures are dramatically different from each other. California’s Proposition 76, an initiative sponsored by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, would give the governor more authority in the budget process by allowing him to reduce certain appropriations in the budget. It would also add a new state spending limit (California has had a state spending limit since 1979; the new proposal sets much stricter limits) and change the minimum funding guarantees for K-12 education and community colleges.

New York’s budget proposal shifts budgetary powers to the legislature. It would remove the requirement that the legislature act on the governor’s appropriations bills prior to the start of the fiscal year, and allow the legislature to adopt a multiple appropriation bill.

Redistricting
This issue is a relative newcomer to the initiative process. There’s been just one initiative on redistricting before this year – in 2000, Arizona voters approved Prop. 106, creating an appointed bipartisan commission to draw legislative and congressional district lines. This year, California voters will consider Prop. 77 (another initiative sponsored by Governor Schwarzenegger), and Ohio voters will consider Issue 4. Both measures would create a panel to handle redrawing legislative and congressional lines. California’s panel would consist of three retired judges; Ohio’s would be a five-member panel chosen partially by sitting judges and partially by existing members or by lot. California’s panel would have to draw new lines before next year’s primary elections (March 2006); Ohio’s wouldn’t have to act until 2007. The Ohio proposal requires the panel to use competitiveness as a primary criterion in creating districts.

Elections and Campaign Finance
Voters in Ohio and California will consider changes to campaign finance laws, and Ohio voters will face two measures dealing with the conduct of elections.

The California measure, Proposition 75 (another initiative sponsored by Governor Schwarzenegger), would require public employee labor unions to obtain written consent from members on an annual basis in order to use their dues for political purposes. Dubbed “paycheck protection” by its proponents, this type of campaign finance reform has been on the ballot before. Washington voters approved an initiative in 1992, and Oregon and California voters failed paycheck protection measures in 2000 and 1998, respectively. At least five other states have similar laws on the books.

Ohio’s campaign finance reform measure is much broader. Issue 3 would set new, lower limits on contributions to candidates and PACs, regulate independent expenditures, and expand disclosure requirements for candidates and committees.

Issue 2 in Ohio would allow no-excuse absentee voting. Under current Ohio law, only voters who meet certain conditions may vote by absentee ballot. Issue 5 would remove the authority to oversee elections from the Secretary of State and vest it in a newly created State Election Board. Board members would be prohibited from political fundraising or otherwise being involved in political campaigns.

Transportation
There are six transportation-related measures on the ballot this year (including a September special election measure in Oklahoma).

Gas Tax Increases – Oklahoma voters turned down a gas tax increase that would have funded transportation improvements in a September special election. A popular referendum in Washington seeks to overturn a fuel tax increased passed by the legislature in 2005 to fund transportation projects.
Bond Measures – Maine, $33.1 million; New York, $2.9 billion; both for various transportation improvement projects
Dedicated Revenue – A New Jersey measure would expand the use of a currently dedicated revenue source to reduce air pollution from diesel engines. Amendment 1 in Texas would create the Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund and permit the state’s Transportation Commission to issue and sell obligations to fund rail improvements.

Other Notable Measures

California Prop. 73 would restrict access to abortion by minors.
California Prop. 74 would change the tenure process for public school teachers.
California Props. 78 and 79 are competing measures creating prescription drug discount plans.
California Prop. 80 would end the deregulation of California’s electric industry.
New Jersey Public Question 1 would create the office of Lieutenant Governor.
Washington Initiative 901 would prohibit smoking in public places and places of employment.

Unusually High Number of Initiatives on the Ballot
The number of citizen-initiated measures on the ballot this year is remarkably high. Typically, there are roughly half a dozen citizen-initiated measures on odd-year ballots. This year, there are 18. This is partially attributable to the eight initiatives California voters will consider in the November 8 special election this year. Had Governor Schwarzenegger not called this special election, these measures would have appeared on the 2006 primary election ballot. Ohio also has an unusually high number of initiatives on the ballot this year. While it is common for Ohio voters to consider one or two legislative measures in an odd-year election, it is not common to see an initiative in an odd year. NCSL’s database of initiatives on the ballot goes back to 1990, and during the period of 1990 -2004, there were no odd-year initiatives in Ohio.

Ballot Measures in Odd-Year General Elections

2005

2003

2001

1999

Citizen-Initiated

18

6

4

5

Legislative

23

15

29

39

Other

0

1

0

0

Total

41

22

33

44

For more information, contact Jennie Bowser in NCSL's Denver office.

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2005