|
|
Home | Contact Us | Press Room | Site Overview | Help | Login | Register |
![]() |
![]() |
| About NCSL | State & Federal Issues | Legislatures | Legislative Staff | Meetings | Bookstore | Legislators & Staff Only |
| NCSL Home > State & Federal Issues: Issue Areas > Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting > | Add to MyNCSL |
It’s a Bad Day to be an InitiativeNovember 9, 2005 Of the 18 citizen-initiated measures on ballots nationwide yesterday, just two met with voter approval, both in Washington state—Initiative 900, which would require audits of state and local government agencies, and Initiative 901, which expands prohibitions on smoking in public places and workplaces. Visit NCSL’s ballot measures database for a full run-down on how all measures fared yesterday. This year’s 11% passage rate for initiatives is just one more remarkable feature of what has been an unusual odd-year election for ballot measures. In the past six years, passage rates for initiatives nationwide have ranged from a low of 40% in 1999 to a high of 75% in 2001. The average passage rate for 1999 – 2004 is 51.1% Another unique feature of this year’s election was the number of citizen-initiated measures on the ballot. Most states restrict initiatives to even-year general elections, so the number of initiatives on the ballot in an odd year typically tops out around half a dozen. In 2003, there were 6, in 2001 there were 4, and in 1999 there were 5. This year, there were 18 citizen-initiated measures on the ballot, a remarkably high number. This is attributable to the combined 12 measures in California and Ohio. Normally, California’s eight measures would have appeared on the March primary election ballot—it was the calling of a special election this November that bumped them all up. In Ohio, initiatives haven’t appeared on an odd-year ballot since 1991 (as far back as NCSL’s ballot measure database goes). Voter Fatigue?Is it any coincidence that all 12 of the initiative measures on the ballot in California and Ohio failed to pass? Perhaps voters simply said “no” out of exhaustion. Californians are used to a lengthy ballot in even-year general elections and even in primary elections. Ohio voters don’t typically face more than one or two initiatives in an even-year general election, and odd-year initiatives were a novelty this year. It’s possible that voters in these two states just threw up their hands and said “enough already!” Popular ReferendaPopular referenda are citizen-initiated measures that seek to overturn laws passed by the legislature. This year, there were two—one in Maine to overturn a gay rights law, and one in Washington to overturn a gas tax increase. Both efforts failed. The failure to repeal the gas tax increase in Washington is perhaps the biggest surprise this election day—with record-high gas prices, many observers predicted Washington voters would favor their pocketbooks over the transportation projects that would be funded by the tax increase. This was the third time Maine voters had weighed in on a proposal to include sexual orientation in the list of categories protected under the state’s anti-discrimination laws. Both times in the past (1998 and 2000), voters agreed to repeal the law. This year, the law withstood the repeal attempt and will stay on the books. Other InitiativesMedical malpractice, a hot issue in 2004, was on the ballot in Washington this year. Voters faced two competing initiatives, and rejected both. It’s not uncommon for voters to reject competing measures—it happened with the two prescription drug discount initiatives on the California ballot yesterday too. When voters are presented with two similar but different measures on the same complex subject, they often decline to pass both. In fact, deliberately qualifying a competing measure is a tactic that opponents of an initiative have used before—it muddies the issue, confuses voters, and successfully kills the both measures. A package of four election reform proposals in Ohio all failed. They were hailed by proponents as a solution to the problems that plagued Ohio in the 2004 presidential election. Combined, the measures would have restructured the state’s campaign finance laws, setting much lower contribution limits than the law currently allows; removed the secretary of state’s authority to administer elections and vest it in a new bipartisan board whose members could not actively campaign for candidates or raise campaign funds; allowed voters to cast an absentee ballot without documenting certain conditions; and created an independent board to conduct redistricting (California voters failed a similar redistricting measure). Either voters didn’t agree with the initiatives’ proponents that Ohio’s election laws needed an overhaul, or they were simply overwhelmed by the unusually long odd-year ballot. Bond and Revenue MeasuresBond measures generally fared well this year. The only bond that failed to pass was Colorado’s Referendum D, a proposal to fund transportation and school construction projects (voted on last week on Nov. 1). Voters in Maine passed a package of five bond measures that would fund everything from land conservation to economic growth and job creation. A $2 billion bond measure to fund economic growth and job creation passed in Ohio also. New York voters approved a $2.9 billion transportation bond measure. Other Legislative ReferendaNew Jersey voters approved the creation of an office of lieutenant governor. New Jersey’s first lieutenant governor will be elected jointly with the governor in 2009. Voters in neighboring New York declined to give the legislature more authority in the budgeting process. And Texas voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage, continuing a trend that started last year with 13 states voting to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. Read a summary of last year’s same-sex marriage measures. For More InformationFor more information on election results and initiatives, contact Jennie Drage Bowser in NCSL’s Denver office. |
© 2008 National Conference of State Legislatures, All Rights Reserved
Denver Office: Tel: 303-364-7700 | Fax: 303-364-7800 | 7700 East First Place | Denver, CO 80230 | Map
Washington Office: Tel: 202-624-5400 | Fax: 202-737-1069 | 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 | Washington, D.C. 20001