• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Election Reform Measures on the 2004 Ballot

November 17, 2004

Background

Over the past decade, election issues have been among the most prominent ballot measures in the states.  A typical election has featured 30 or so ballot measures dealing with a wide array of election-related proposals.  This year there are fewer election measures on the ballot, but several of them are very high-profile, including Colorado’s proposal to change how the state allocates its presidential electoral votes, and proposals in California and Washington to change the primary election systems.  Another issue on the ballot in multiple states is the initiative process itself—voters in Alaska, Arizona, Florida and Nebraska will consider measures to change the way petition signatures are gathered, the timing of filing petitions, or the Legislature’s power to amend or repeal laws passed by initiative.  And the issue of term limits, a regular on ballots throughout the 1990s, makes an appearance on the ballot this year in Arkansas and Montana, where voters will consider relaxing the current limits on legislators.

What’s on the ballot this year?

There are 18 election measures on the ballot in 14 states this year.  Eight of these measures were referred by legislatures, and six are citizen initiatives.

Source:  National Conference of State Legislatures, October 2004

How does this compare to previous years?

This year is a little quieter for election reform ballot measures than the last few years.  This is due in part to the departure of campaign finance reform from the ballot scene this year.

• 2002 was a big year for election-related ballot measures, with 33 measures on the ballot in 22 states.  Among the hot issues were election day registration, which was on the ballot and failed to pass in California and Colorado, mail ballot elections, which failed to pass in Colorado, and changes to the initiative process itself, on the ballot in five states.  View a summary of the 2002 election-related ballot measures.
• In 2000, there were 36 election-related measures on the ballot in 16 states.  California, Colorado, Nebraska and Oregon each had four or more election measures on the ballot, and Oregon alone had seven, all dealing either with campaign finance reform or the initiative process.
• In 1998, there were 41 election-related measures on the ballot in 23 states.
• In 1996, there were 60 election-related measures on the ballot in 26 states.  Many of these measures dealt with campaign finance reform or term limits.

State-by-State Summaries of 2004 Election Reform Measures

Alaska

There are two election-related measures on the ballot in Alaska.  Measure 1 was referred by the legislature, and would change the way initiative petition signatures are gathered.  Currently signatures must be gathered in 27 of the state’s 40 voting districts.  This measure would raise that number to 30, and would require that the signatures gathered in each district be equal to 7% of those who voted in the last general election.  Under current law, a single signature from a district is sufficient.

Measure 4 is a citizen initiative.  It would remove the governor’s authority to appoint a temporary replacement when there is a vacancy in the office of U.S. Senator.  Instead, the office would remain vacant until a special election is held to fill the seat.  The controversy over the governor’s appointment of his daughter to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy led to this measure’s appearance on the ballot.

Arkansas

Arkansas voters will have another chance to vote on term limits this year.  Their limits for legislators have been in effect since 1998, and are the nation’s strictest.  A person is limited to serving six years in the House and eight in the Senate; Amendment 1 proposes extending the limits to twelve years in each chamber.  This measure was referred to the ballot by the Legislature.

Arizona

There are three elections measures on the ballot in Arizona this year.  The most controversial of these is Proposition 200, an anti-immigration initiative with a voting component.  It would require everyone registering to vote in Arizona to prove their U.S. citizenship, and would require all voters to show ID at the polls. 

Propositions 101 and 104 both deal with the initiative process and were referred to the ballot by the Legislature.  Prop. 101 would require any initiative that proposes new spending to identify a revenue source to pay for the program.  The revenue source could not be the state’s general fund.  Mississippi has a similar requirement.  The issue of how to pay for initiated proposals is probably the most difficult aspect of the initiative process for legislatures to deal with—it’s common for an initiative to mandate a new, high-dollar program, but not suggest how the state pay for it.  This leaves the legislature in the difficult position of trying to fund continuing programs and services and find money to fund a new program too.

Prop. 104 would limit how long an initiative petition can be circulated to 27 months before the general election.  Under current law, there is no limit.  Most states limit circulation time, with limits ranging from six months to four years.  Twelve months is about average.  It would also change the deadline for filing petitions.  Currently, they must be filed 120 days before the election; Prop. 104 would change that to seven months before the election.

California

California has two measures dealing with primary elections on the ballot.  Proposition 60 was referred by the Legislature and would keep the current closed primary system.  Proposition 62 is an initiative, and would change the state’s primary to a modified blanket type primary.  Until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 2000, California used a blanket primary, in which all voters receive the same primary ballot and all candidates are listed on that single ballot.  A voter could vote for candidates of any party, and the top vote-getter from each party advanced to the general election.  The court said that this violated the rights of political parties to select their own candidates.  The modified blanket primary proposed under Prop. 62 is similar to the old blanket primary system, with one exception:  instead of advancing the top vote-getter from each party, it advanced the two top vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation.  Therefore, it’s possible that this type of primary could advance two candidates of the same party to the general election ballot.  Currently, Louisiana operates their primary in this style.  In fact, it’s often called a “Louisiana-style primary.”

Colorado

Colorado has one of the most-watched initiatives this year—Amendment 36 would change how the state allocates its presidential electoral votes, and would affect this year’s presidential race if it passes.  Currently, Colorado allocates its electors in the same manner as 48 other states, in what’s called a winner-take-all system.  Whoever wins the statewide popular vote gets all nine of Colorado’s electoral votes.  Under the provisions of Amendment 36, the electoral votes would be apportioned according to the popular vote.  If Colorado votes for the Republican candidate by a fairly narrow margin (as they generally do), that candidate would receive five electoral votes and the Democrat would get four. 

Should Amendment 36 pass, this year’s electoral votes would be allocated proportionately, and Colorado could cast the deciding vote in the presidential election if it’s close nationwide.  This would certainly result in litigation.  The measure is ripe for challenge over its retroactivity (and in fact has already been challenged on these grounds), and over the question of whether it’s permissible to change the electoral college via the initiative process.  The U.S. Constitution says that state legislatures have the power to decide how a state will allocate its electoral votes, so it’s questionable whether it can be done with an initiative. 

For more information on the Electoral College, visit NCSL’s overview.

Florida

Amendment 2 would move the deadline for filing initiative petitions with the state from three months before the election to the February before the election, and would require the state’s supreme court to render an advisory opinion on each measure’s validity by April 1.

Montana

Like Arkansas, Montana voters will have another chance to vote on term limits this year.  Their limits for legislators have been in effect since 2000, and limit service to eight years in each chamber. C-42 proposes extending the limits to twelve years in each chamber.  This measure was referred to the ballot by the Legislature.

Nebraska

Initiative 418 would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to amend or repeal any law passed by initiative.  Ten other states have similar restrictions on the Legislature’s ability to amend or repeal initiated laws.  This measure was submitted as part of a package of pro-gambling measures, and is intended to prevent the Legislature from undoing the new gambling laws, should they pass.

Nevada

Question 7 was referred by the Legislature and seeks to change language in the state’s constitution.  Currently, an “idiot or insane person” is prohibited from voting.  This measure would change that language to refer to “a person who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, unless restored to legal capacity.”  Should this measure pass this year, it would have to go on the ballot and be passed again in 2006 before it can take effect.

New Mexico

Amendment 3 would allow municipalities with a population of 20,000 or more to conduct run-off elections in municipal races.

Oregon

Measure 31 was referred to the ballot by the Legislature and would allow for the postponement of an election when a candidate dies.  Under current law, the name of a candidate who has died remains on the ballot, and if that candidate wins, either the incumbent remains in office until a successor is elected, or a vacancy results.

South Dakota

Amendment A would abolish elections for circuit court judges and implement an appointment and retention election procedure.

Washington

Like California voters, Washington voters will have the chance to decide what kind of primary elections their state will hold in future years.  Washington also used the blanket primary (see the description above under California) until the courts ruled it unconstitutional.  Washington voters were generally displeased (some might say outraged) with the limited open primary they used this year, which resulted in this year’s Initiative 872.  It proposes a modified blanket primary, identical to that proposed by California’s Prop. 62.  According to analysis by the Washington Secretary of State, it’s likely that the modified blanket primary would occasionally send two candidates of the same party on to the general election.  Of the 676 legislative races over the past ten years, 25 would have resulted in two winning candidates from the same party—13 would have sent two Republicans on to the general election, and 12 would have sent two Democrats.

For More Information

For more information on initiative and referendum, contact Jennie Drage Bowser in NCSL’s Denver office, or visit our I&R 2004 web site.

For more information on elections, visit NCSL’s elections web site.