Most initiatives that qualify for the ballot are approved by voters. true or false

Q: What is the name of the process by which citizens propose legislation or constitutional amendments through petition followed by popular vote?

The referendum process allows citizens to refer” laws passed by the Legislature to the ballot so voters can approve or repeal the legislation.

Laws and procedures

Ballot law

State laws
Initiative law Recall law Changes to law
Court cases and lawsuits
Local laws
Local ballot measure laws
Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker

Contents

1 Laws and procedures
1.1 Crafting an initiative
1.1.1 Single-subject rule
1.1.2 Subject restrictions
1.1.3 Competing initiatives
1.2 Starting a petition
1.2.1 Applying to petition
1.2.2 Proposal review/approval
1.2.3 Petition summary
1.2.4 Fiscal review
1.3 Collecting signatures
1.3.1 Number required
1.3.2 Distribution requirements
1.3.3 Restrictions on circulators
1.3.4 Electronic signatures
1.3.5 Deadlines for collection
1.4 Getting on the ballot
1.4.1 Signature verification
1.4.2 Ballot title and summary
1.4.3 Withdrawal
1.5 The election and beyond
1.5.1 Election dates
1.5.2 Supermajority requirements
1.5.3 Effective date
1.5.4 Litigation
1.5.5 Legislative alteration
1.5.6 Re-attempting an initiative
1.6 Funding an initiative campaign
1.7 State initiative law
2 Changes in the law

Citizens of California may initiate legislation as either a state statute or a constitutional amendment. In California, citizens also have the power to repeal legislation via veto referendum. The California State Legislature may also place measures on the ballot as legislatively referred constitutional amendments or legislatively referred state statutes. Referred amendments require a 2/3 vote of each chamber.

Inhaltsverzeichnis Show

Laws and procedures
Crafting an initiative
Single-subject rule
Subject restrictions
Veto referendums on emergency legislation
Competing initiatives
Starting a petition
Applying to petition
Proposal review/approval
Public review period
Petition summary
Fiscal review
Collecting signatures
Number required
Distribution requirements
Restrictions on circulators
Electronic signatures
Deadlines for collection
Getting on the ballot
Signature verification
Ballot title and summary
The election and beyond
Election dates
Supermajority requirements
Effective date
Legislative alteration
Re-attempting an initiative
Funding an initiative campaign
State initiative law
External links
Changes in the law
Proposed changes by year
What is the initiative process in California?
How many of the 50 states grant their citizens the power of initiative?
What is the name of the process by which citizens propose legislation or constitutional amendments through petition followed by popular vote?
What is a referendum question?

Crafting an initiative

Of the 24 states that allow citizens to initiate legislation through the petition process, several states have adopted restrictions and regulations that limit the scope and content of proposed initiatives. These regulations may include laws that mandate that initiatives address only one topic, restrict the range of acceptable topics for proposed laws, prohibit unfunded mandates and establish guidelines for adjudicating contradictory measures.

Single-subject rule

Subject restrictions

See also: Subject restrictions (ballot measures)

In California, an initiated measure may not apply differently to different political subdivisions (cities, counties, etc...) based on the approval/disapproval of the measure in those subdivisions. Similarly, a measure may not treat subdivisions differently based on the percentage of voters approving or disapproving of the measure.

More generally, a measure may not make any of its provisions dependent on a certain percentage of voters approving or disapproving of the measure.

See law: California Constitution, Article II, Section 8 (d, f)

Veto referendums on emergency legislation

In California, veto referendums cannot be used on emergency legislation.

See law: California Constitution, Article II, Section 9(a)

Competing initiatives

See also: Superseding initiative; "Poison pills"; List of California ballot measures

If two or more measures conflict, the measure receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes supersedes the other. This provision was clarified in Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Political Practices Commission (1990). The court determined that:

When two or more measures are competing initiatives, either because they are expressly offered as "all-or-nothing" alternatives or because each creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme related to the same subject, section 10(b) mandates that only the provisions of the measure receiving the highest number of affirmative votes be enforced.[1]

The court argued that combining initiatives piecemeal could lead to outcomes unintended by voters. A notable example of such unintended consequences occurred in Oregon in 1908.

See law: California Constitution, Article II, Section 10 (b) and Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Political Practices Commission

Starting a petition

Each initiative and referendum state employs a different procedure for filing petition applications. Some states require preliminary signatures while others do not. In addition, several states review each proposed statute, verifying that the law conforms to the style and conventions of state law and recommending alterations to initiative proponents. Some of these states also review the law for more substantive considerations of content and consistency. Also, many states conduct a review of the ballot title and summary, and several states employ a fiscal review process which analyzes proposed laws to determine their impact on state finances.[2][3][4]

Applying to petition

See also: Approved for circulation and California Assembly Bill 1100 (2015)

Prior to circulation, proponents must submit the full text of the measure to the California attorney general's Initiative Coordinator along with a request for a summary, contact information, a signed statement certifying that the proponents are qualified electors and a $2,000 deposit, refundable upon qualification for the ballot. They must also sign and submit a statement promising not to use the signatures for any purpose except the initiative.

An example of a petition application can be found here. (Certifying statements are not included.)

See law: California Election Code, Section 9001

Proposal review/approval

Public review period

After the initiative is submitted, there must be a 30-day public review period in which citizens can give input and discuss the initiative. Proponents are allowed to alter the initiative according to suggestions and discussion.[5]

Petition summary

Fiscal review

Collecting signatures

Each initiative and referendum state employs a unique method of calculating the state's signature requirements. Some states mandate a certain fraction of registered voters while others base their calculation on those who actually voted in a preceding election. In addition, many states employ a distribution requirement, dictating where in the state these signatures must be collected. Beyond these overarching requirements, many states regulate the manner in which signatures may be collected and the timeline for collecting them.

Number required

See also: California signature requirements

In California, the number of signatures needed to place a measure on the ballot is based on the total number of votes cast for the governor in the preceding election.

The following are the requirements for the types of citizen-initiated measures in California:

initiated constitutional amendment (ICA): 8 percent of the votes cast for governor
initiated state statute (ISS): 5 percent of the votes cast for governor
veto referendum (VR): 5 percent of the votes cast for governor

Individuals who sign a petition for a citizen-initiated measure must be a registered voter in California.

Below are the signature requirements that initiative proponents must meet to get their initiatives on the ballot for election years in four-year increments from 1912 to 2022. In 1911, voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing for citizen-initiated measures beginning in 1912. The table also includes the minimum percentage of registered voters that need to sign a petition for a citizen-initiated measure to make the ballot.

Note: The California secretary of state determines the number of signatures required for an individual initiative based on the initiative's filing date. Therefore, initiatives filed before a gubernatorial election but intended for the following general election would use the previous requirement.

Elections	Gubernatorial votes	Registered voters	Signatures for amendment	Registered voters for amendment	Signatures for statute/referendum	Registered voters for statute/referendum
2019-2022	12,464,235 (2018)	19,696,371 (2018)	997,139	5.1%	623,212	3.2%
2015-2018	7,317,581 (2014)	17,803,823 (2014)	585,407	3.3%	365,880	2.1%
2011-2014	10,095,185 (2010)	17,285,883 (2010)	807,615	4.7%	504,760	2.9%
2007-2010	8,679,416 (2006)	15,837,108 (2006)	694,354	4.4%	433,971	2.7%
2003-2006	7,476,311 (2002)	15,303,469 (2002)	598,105	3.9%	373,816	2.4%
1999-2002	8,385,196 (1988)	14,969,185 (1988)	670,816	4.5%	419,260	2.8%
1995-1998	8,665,375 (1994)	14,723,784 (1994)	693,230	4.7%	433,269	2.9%
1991-1994	7,699,467 (1990)	13,478,027 (1990)	615,958	4.6%	384,974	2.9%
1987-1990	7,443,551 (1986)	12,833,920 (1986)	595,485	4.6%	372,178	2.9%
1983-1986	7,876,698 (1982)	11,559,099 (1982)	630,136	5.5%	393,835	3.4%
1979-1982	6,922,378 (1978)	10,129,986 (1978)	553,790	5.5%	346,119	3.4%
1975-1978	6,248,070 (1974)	9,928,364 (1974)	499,846	5.0%	312,404	3.1%
1971-1974	6,510,072 (1970)	8,706,347 (1970)	520,806	6.0%	325,504	3.7%
1967-1970	6,503,445 (1966)	8,340,868 (1966)	520,276	6.2%	325,173	3.9%
1963-1966	5,853,232 (1962)	7,531,211 (1962)	468,259	6.2%	292,662	3.9%
1959-1962	5,255,777 (1958)	6,752,421 (1958)	420,462	6.2%	262,789	3.9%
1955-1958	4,030,368 (1954)	5,885,237 (1954)	322,429	5.5%	201,518	3.4%
1951-1954	3,796,090 (1950)	5,244,837 (1950)	303,687	5.8%	189,805	3.6%
1947-1950	2,558,399 (1946)	4,383,963 (1946)	204,672	4.7%	127,920	2.9%
1943-1946	2,234,545 (1942)	3,820,776 (1942)	178,764	4.7%	111,727	2.9%
1939-1942	2,651,463 (1938)	3,611,416 (1938)	212,117	5.9%	132,573	3.7%
1935-1938	2,329,722 (1934)	3,140,114 (1934)	186,378	5.9%	116,487	3.7%
1931-1934	1,385,129 (1930)	2,245,228 (1930)	110,811	4.9%	69,257	3.1%
1927-1930	1,144,112 (1926)	1,912,862 (1926)	91,529	4.8%	57,206	3.0%
1923-1926	965,787 (1922)	1,532,384 (1922)	77,263	5.0%	48,289	3.2%
1919-1922	688,670 (1918)	1,203,898 (1918)	55,094	4.6%	34,434	2.9%
1915-1918	926,689 (1914)	1,219,345 (1914)	74,136	6.1%	46,335	3.8%
1912-1914	385,713 (1910)	N/A (1910)	30,858	N/A	19,286	N/A

See law: California Constitution, Article II, Section 8 (b)

Distribution requirements

Restrictions on circulators

Circulator requirements

Pay-per-signature

Out-of-state circulators

See also: Residency requirements for petition circulators

California does not require circulators to be state residents.

Until 2013, California required signature gatherers to be qualified state voters and, thus, residents. In 2013, Senate Bill 213 was passed removing the requirement that circulators be qualified state voters.

See law: California Election Code, Section 9021

Badge requirements

Electronic signatures

See also: Electronic petition signatures

Since electronic signatures are an emerging technology, the constitutionality of bans on e-signatures and the legality of e-signatures in states without bans is largely untested. However, in June 2011, the California First District Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Ni v. Slocum prohibiting electronic signature collection in California. Verafirma founder Michael Ni filed the suit, challenging San Mateo County's rejection of an electronic signature in favor of Proposition 19. In its decision, the court ruled that the term "affix," as used in California law, implies a physical signature.[11][12][13][14]

See law: California Election Code, Section 100 and NI v. SLOCUM

Deadlines for collection

See also: Ballot measure petition deadlines and requirements, 2018 and California suggested deadlines

Once petition sponsors have received the summary from the attorney general, they have 180 days to collect signatures and file their petitions. If sufficient signatures have been gathered, the measure is presented to voters at the next general election at least 131 days after the measure is certified for the ballot.

California signatures can be checked by random sampling or by a full count, depending on the outcome of the random sample check. If the signatures require a full check, the verification process will take additional time. In 2008, for example, the deadline for submitting signatures for the November ballot was April 21. However, if a full check was required, the operative deadline was in February. Given the uncertainties involved in the verification process, sponsors in California must allow time for the process as they plan their initiative campaign.[15]

Signatures for veto referendums must be submitted within 90 days of the enactment date of the targeted legislation.

See law: California Election Code, Sections 9014 and 9016

Getting on the ballot

Once signatures have been collected, state officials must verify that requirements are met and that fraudulent signatures are excluded. States generally employ a random sample process or a full verification of signatures. After verification, the issue must be prepared for the ballot. This often involves preparing a fiscal review and ballot summary.

Signature verification

Ballot title and summary

Withdrawal

Initiative proponents may withdraw an initiative from the ballot at any time before certification as officially qualified for the ballot, which occurs on the 131st day before the next general election.[5]

The election and beyond

Ballot measures face additional challenges beyond qualifying for the ballot and receiving a majority of the vote. Several states require ballot measures to get more than a simple majority. While some states mandate a three-fifths supermajority, other states set the margin differently. In addition, ballot measures may face legal challenges or modifications by legislators. If a ballot measure does fail, some states limit how soon that initiative can be re-attempted.

Election dates

See also: California Senate Bill 202 (2011)

Beginning in 2011, when Senate Bill 202 was approved, statewide initiatives and referendums are required to go on general election ballots on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in Novembers of even-numbered years.

See law: California Election Code, Section 9016

Supermajority requirements

Effective date

In California, approved measures take effect on the fifth day after the secretary of state certifies election results, unless a different effective date is specified by the measure.

Prior to June 2018, the default effective date was the day after the election. Voters approved Proposition 71 to change the default effective date by a vote of 78 percent.

See law: California Constitution, Article II, Section 10 (a)

Litigation

Legislative alteration

Re-attempting an initiative

California does not limit how soon an initiative can be re-attempted.[18]

See law: California Constitution, Article II, Section 8

Funding an initiative campaign

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

Some of the notable features of California 's campaign finance laws include:

California defines a group of individuals in support or opposition of a ballot measure as a committee, a group led by an elected official as a controlled committee, and a group that send direct mail to defeat four or more ballot measures as a slate mailer committee.
California has strict laws on how groups can spend funds in the effort to support or defeat a referendum.
There is an optional expenditure limit with the California secretary of state.
California has a law against slander and libel in campaign advertisements.

State initiative law

Article II of the California Constitution addresses initiatives.

Article II, California Constitution

Division 9 of the California Elections Code governs initiatives.

California Elections Code

External links

California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide"
California Secretary of State, "Ballot Measures Information"
California Secretary of State, "How to Qualify an Initiative"

Footnotes

↑ Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Political Practices Commission, Opinion, November 1, 1990
↑ NCSL, "Drafting the Initiative Proposal," accessed May 19, 2011
↑ NCSL, "Preparation of a Fiscal Analysis," accessed May 19, 2011
↑ NCSL, "Preparation of a Ballot Title and Summary," accessed May 19, 2011
↑ 5.0 5.1 LegiScan, "Senate Bill 1253 text," accessed November 30, 2021
↑ California Secretary of State, "Statewide Initiative Guide"
↑ "California elections code - Sec. 104" accessed November 29, 2021
↑ "California Elections Code, Sec. 9021," accessed November 30. 2021
↑ California Elections Code, Sec. 100-106
↑ California Elections Code, Section 9030-9035
↑ Metropolitan News-Enterprise, "C.A. Rejects Bid to Count Online Signature on Initiative Petition," July 5, 2011
↑ Ballot Access News, "California State Court of Appeals Construes Election Code to Bar Electronic Signatures on Petitions," July 1, 2011
↑ Ballot Access News, "Electronic Signatures on Petitions Case Argued in California State Court of Appeals," May 10, 2011
↑ Mercury News, "Attention, voters. You better start practicing your e-signature," May 7, 2010
↑ "Suggested Deadlines to Qualify Initiatives," accessed November 29, 2021
↑ California Secretary of State, "About Ballot Arguments," accessed March 3, 2012
↑ NCSL, "Preparation of a Ballot Title and Summary," January 2002
↑ NCSL, "Banning Same or Similar Measures from the Ballot for a Specified Period of Time," May 2009

v • e Laws governing ballot measures

Laws governing ballot measures	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Laws governing initiatives	Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • New Mexico • Nevada • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming

Laws governing recall	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Florida • Georgia • Idaho • Illinois • Kansas • Louisiana • Maine • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Rhode Island • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Laws governing local ballot measures	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Signature requirements	Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Washington, D.C. • Wyoming

Lawsuits	2022 litigation • 2021 litigation • 2020 litigation • 2019 litigation • 2018 litigation • 2017 litigation • 2016 litigation • 2015 litigation • 2014 litigation • 2013 litigation • 2012 litigation • 2011 litigation • 2010 litigation • 2009 litigation • 2008 litigation • Ballot title litigation • Lawsuit news • Pay-per-signature litigation • Petitioner access • Post-certification signature challenges • Prohibited subjects • Signature challenges • Signature recovery lawsuits • Single-subject lawsuits • Superseding initiatives

Signature regulations	Access • Badges • Ballot title issues • Initiative petition circulation periods • Deadlines • Defining a signature • Distribution • Pay restrictions • Signature withdrawal • Residency • Signature numbers • Single subject • Signature transcription

Changes	2007 changes • 2008 changes • 2009 changes • 2010 changes • 2011 changes • 2012 changes • 2013 changes • 2014 changes • 2015 changes • 2016 changes • 2017 changes • 2018 changes • 2019 changes • 2020 changes • 2021 changes • 2022 changes

Terms	Ballot summary • Petition • Initiative petition circulation periods • Circulator • Paid circulator • Volunteer circulator • Circulator affidavit • Petition signer • Valid signature • Forged signature • Fraudulent signature • Invalid signature • Electronic petition signature • Legislative alteration • Registered voter

School bond and tax laws	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • District of Columbia • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Laws governing campaign finance	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • District of Columbia • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Petitions to impanel grand juries	Laws governing citizen grand juries in Kansas • Laws governing citizen grand juries in Nevada • Laws governing citizen grand juries in North Dakota • Laws governing citizen grand juries in New Mexico • Laws governing citizen grand juries in Nebraska •Laws governing citizen grand juries in Oklahoma

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2022 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Changes in the law

Contents

1 Laws and procedures
2 Changes in the law
2.1 Proposed changes by year
2.1.1 2022
2.1.2 2021
2.1.3 2010
2.1.4 2019
2.1.5 2018
2.1.6 2017
2.1.7 2016
2.1.8 2015
2.1.9 2014
2.1.10 2013

The following laws have been proposed that modify ballot measure law in California. If a box is empty for any given year, it means Ballotpedia did not track any ballot measure or recall-related laws in that year.

Proposed changes by year

2022

See also: Changes in 2022 to laws governing ballot measures

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

California Assembly Bill 2582 was designed to require "a local recall election to include only the question of whether the elected officer sought to be recalled should be removed from office."

California Assembly Bill 2584 was designed to "increase the total number of proponent signatures required to be included on a notice of intention to recall a state or local elected officer."

California Senate Bill 1360 was designed to make multiple changes to election law in the state, including requiring "voters to sign the petition only after viewing certain disclosures regarding the top contributors to the initiative, referendum, or recall, as specified" and making "additional changes to requirements regarding the form, content, and presentation of initiative, referendum, and recall petitions."

California Assembly Bill 1416 was designed to "require the ballot label for statewide measures, and, at the option of a county, the ballot label or similar description on the ballot of county, city, district, and school district measures, to include a listing of nonprofit organizations, businesses, or individuals taken from the signers or the text of ballot arguments printed in the voter information guide that support and oppose the measure, as specified."

California Assembly Bill 241 was designed to require both ballot initiatives and veto referendums to appear together on the ballot in the order in which they qualified for the ballot instead of listing ballot initiatives first and veto referendums last.

California Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 was designed to "transfer from the Attorney General to the Legislative Analyst the duty of preparing the title and summary for a proposed initiative or referendum."

California Senate Bill 443 was designed to create a specific order for ballot measures to appear on the ballot:

(a) bond measures, including those proposed by initiative, in the order in which they qualify;
(b) constitutional amendments, including those proposed by initiative, in the order in which they qualify:
(c) legislatively referred measures, other than those described in subdivision (a) or (b), in the order in which they are approved by the legislature; and
(d) initiative and referendum measures, other than those described in subdivision (a) or (b), in the order in which they qualify.

California Senate Bill 663 was designed to set rules for access to recall petition signatures for the purpose of asking registered voters to remove their signatures from the petition and make other changes to laws governing recall.

California Senate Bill 752 was designed to require petition sheets to identify top contributors to initiative, referendum, and recall petition campaigns and instruct people to only sign the petition if they have reviewed the list of top contributors.

California Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 was designed to require the ballot language for veto referendums to be written so that a "yes" vote opposes/repeals the targeted law and a "no" vote supports/upholds the targeted law, meaning veto referendum petitioners would be advocating for a "yes" vote rather than a "no" vote.

California Senate Constitutional Amendment 3 was designed to change recall law in order to list recalled officers as a candidate on the recall election ballot unless the officer resigns following the certification of the recall petition and to make the office vacant if the officer does resign.

California Senate Constitutional Amendment 6 was designed to require a separate election to replace recalled officials and require the lieutenant governor to become governor if the governor is recalled.

2021

See also: Changes in 2021 to laws governing ballot measures

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

California Senate Bill 152 was designed to allow the secretary of state to certify a recall petition before, rather than after, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee has submitted an election cost estimate, thereby allowing recall elections to be called more quickly. The bill was also designed to make other changes to election law and to appropriate funds for the 2021 gubernatorial recall election.

Vetoed California Senate Bill 660 was designed to ban paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures they collect, a payment method called pay-per-signature.

The California Legislature passed a bill in 2019 banning pay-per-signature and requiring 10% of signatures requiring for a ballot initiative to be collected by volunteer circulators. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed the bill, however. The California Legislature passed pay-per-signature bans in 2018 and 2011 as well, but both were vetoed.

California Assembly Bill 152 was designed to limit what special local elections could be consolidated with the 2021 gubernatorial recall election.

California Senate Bill 443 was designed to create a specific order for ballot measures to appear on the ballot:

(a) bond measures, including those proposed by initiative, in the order in which they qualify;
(b) constitutional amendments, including those proposed by initiative, in the order in which they qualify:
(c) legislatively referred measures, other than those described in subdivision (a) or (b), in the order in which they are approved by the legislature; and
(d) initiative and referendum measures, other than those described in subdivision (a) or (b), in the order in which they qualify.

2020

See also: Changes in 2020 to laws governing ballot measures

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

California Assembly Bill 2140 was designed as implementing legislation for a constitutional amendment to transfer from the attorney general to the legislative analyst the duty of preparing the title and summary for a proposed initiative or referendum.

California Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 was designed to amend the state constitution to "transfer from the Attorney General to the Legislative Analyst the duty of preparing the title and summary for a proposed initiative or referendum."

California Assembly Constitutional Amendment 20 was designed to amend the state constitution to transfer from the attorney general to the legislative analyst the duty of preparing the title and summary for a proposed initiative or referendum.

California Senate Bill 636 was designed to require the names of those who sign the official arguments for ballot measures included in voter guides to be listed on the ballot as supporters and opponents.

California Senate Bill 684 was designed to prohibit initiative proponents from asking for their initiatives to be withdrawn if certain conditions are met and require the secretary of state to reject any conditional withdrawals.

California Senate Bill 1014 was designed as implementing legislation for a constitutional amendment related to recall elections.

California Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 repeal a 1950 initiated constitutional amendment in order to allow housing projects that are intended for low-income people and that receive government funding or assistance to be developed, constructed, or acquired without a local referendum.

California Senate Constitutional Amendment 2 was designed to make changes regarding the recall process for certain elected officials.

2019

See also: Changes in 2019 to laws governing ballot measures

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

California Senate Bill 359 was designed to require a summary of a local veto referendum on petition sheets written by referendum petitioners and approved by the city attorney. Going into 2019, the law required the full text of the ordinance or part of the ordinance being targeted for repeal to be included on the petition sheets by the referendum petition.

Vetoed California Assembly Bill 1451 was designed to do the following:

- require at least 10 percent of the required signatures for an initiative or referendum petition to be collected by volunteer (unpaid) circulators;
- ban paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures gathered (pay-per-signature);
- change the timeline for local elections officials to verify signatures for initiative and referendum petitions;
- require petitions to include information about whether the circulator is paid or volunteer; and
- make other changes regarding signature verification, circulators, and petition rules.

California Assembly Bill 698 was designed to "prohibit the invalidation of a signature on an initiative or referendum petition because of a variation of the signature caused by the substitution of initials for the first or middle name, or both, of the person signing the petition."

California Senate Bill 47 was designed to require any committees sponsoring initiative or referendum petition efforts to provide certain information about top donors in a certain form.

California Senate Bill 151 was designed to allow the party preference of an elected official subject to a recall election to be displayed on the ballot and specify formatting.

California Senate Bill 681 was designed to allow proponents of local initiatives to withdraw their measures up to 88 days before the election.

California Assembly Bill 116 was designed to remove the voter approval requirement for bond issues by the enhanced infrastructure financing districts of cities and counties.

California Senate Constitutional Amendment 2 was designed to make changes regarding the recall process for certain elected officials.

2018

See also: Changes in 2018 to laws governing ballot measures

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in California

California Assembly Bill 187 was designed to "require a committee to file a report each time it makes contributions or independent expenditures aggregating $5,000 or more to support or oppose the qualification of a single local initiative or referendum ballot measure" and to prescribe rules for such reporting.

California Assembly Bill 2881 was designed to reinstate the ability to examine recall petitions through a random sampling instead of each signature individually.

California Senate Bill 1394 was designed to "provide that it is a misdemeanor for a person to pay or to receive money or any other thing of value based on the number of signatures obtained on a state or local initiative, referendum, or recall petition, and it would prescribe civil and criminal penalties for this crime."

California Senate Constitutional Amendment 15 was designed to amend the state constitution to include the exercise of initiative power in the definition of local government, thereby requiring the same voter approval thresholds and election timing for tax-related initiatives as for tax-related proposals brought by other governing bodies. Constitutional amendments require voter approval.

Vetoed California Assembly Bill 1947 was designed to prohibit paying initiative signature gatherers according to the number of signatures collected. The state legislature approved this bill, but the governor vetoed it.

The legislature passed a pay-per-signature ban in 2011, and the governor vetoed it then as well.

California Assembly Bill 2147 was designed to extend the signature submission deadline for a certain type of local school proposition petition from December 10 to December 15.

California Assembly Bill 3151 was designed to require the legislative counsel to prepare the ballot title and summary of initiatives instead of the attorney general if they affect the authority of the attorney general.

California Assembly Constitutional Amendment 3 was designed to "transfer from the Attorney General to the Legislative Analyst the duty of preparing the title and summary for a proposed initiative or referendum" and "require, for each measure that appears on a statewide ballot, that the Legislative Analyst to prepare the ballot label, and the ballot title and summary for the ballot pamphlet."

California Senate Bill 1153 was designed to allow proponents of a local initiative to withdraw the initiative up to 88 days prior to an election.

California Assembly Bill 2848 was designed to make an exception for certain tax disclosures on the ballot for local bond issues.

California Assembly Bill 112 was designed to make certain changes regarding the recall process.

California Senate Constitutional Amendment 22 was designed to amend the state constitution to allow local measures renewing, increasing, or enacting a special parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value—to be approved by a 55 percent supermajority vote (instead of the two-thirds (66.67 percent) supermajority vote required as of 2018) upon certain conditions.

California Assembly Bill 14 was designed to amend campaign finance restrictions and reporting requirements and other aspects of campaign disclosures.

California Assembly Bill 6 was designed to add requirements to the ballot language used for certain local ballot measures.

2017

See also: Changes in 2017 to laws governing ballot measures

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in California

California Assembly Constitutional Amendment 17 was designed to delay the effective date for approved ballot measures from the day after the election to "five days after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote for the election." ACA 17 was set to go before voters for ratification at the June 2018 ballot.

California Assembly Bill 249 was designed to amend campaign finance restrictions and reporting requirements and other aspects of campaign disclosures. Click here for details.

California Assembly Bill 195 was designed to extend certain ballot forms required for local initiatives to local measures proposed by local governing bodies.

California Assembly Bill 1367 was designed to make it a crime for any "company, organization, company official, or other organizational officer in charge of a person who circulates an initiative, referendum, or recall petition who knowingly directs or permits the person to make a false affidavit concerning the initiative, referendum, or recall petition or the signatures appended to the petition," where previously state law made it a crime for a person to make a false affidavit without referring to companies or organizations.

California Assembly Bill 606 was designed to make certain changes to how the internet is used to send information pamphlets to voters and set certain requirements about the accessibility of information online.

California Assembly Bill 765 was designed to "require that the election for a county, municipal, or district initiative measure that qualifies for the ballot be the next statewide or regular election, as applicable, unless the governing body of the county, city, or district calls a special election." Going into 2017, whether county or municipal initiatives were on general or special election ballots was determined by the number of signatures on petitions, and elections for district initiatives depended on whether petitions contained a specific request.

California Senate Bill 96 made changes to the state's process for recall petitions.

California Assembly Bill 1729 required local county elections officials to retain signature records for a longer period of time.

California Senate Bill 665 was designed require proponents or opponents of a ballot measure that are submitting official arguments for or against the measure to also submit additional information to election officials.

California Assembly Constitutional Amendment 3 was designed to make the office of the legislative analyst instead of the attorney general responsible for drafting the official ballot title and summary for initiatives and referendums. The ballot title and summary are presented on petition forms during circulation.

Vetoed California Assembly Bill 890 was designed to require local citizen initiative proponents to submit their initiatives to county planning commissions, which would have determined if the initiatives have the potential to directly or indirectly affect the environment. If the commission determined the initiative in question would have such an effect, the initiative would have been deemed unsuitable for the initiative process, and the governing body—either the city council or the county board of supervisors—would have held a public hearing at which they would have either approved or rejected the proposed law. This bill was approved by the legislature, but it was vetoed by the governor.

California Senate Bill 651 was designed to do the following:

require a disclosure statement concerning a signature gatherer's volunteer or paid status on initiative, referendum, and recall petitions;
require a disclosure statement about the top three donors of at least $50,000 or more to the committee behind the initiative, referendum, or recall petition.

California Senate Bill 609 was designed to require city and county elections officials to directly place local initiatives or veto referendums on the next legally available election ballot upon the certification of the sufficiency of the petition and then remove the measure from the ballot upon approval by the local legislative body (city council or board of supervisors). Going into 2017, state law required local elections officials to certify the sufficiency of the petition to the local legislative body upon verification of signatures, but they did not officially certify it for the ballot until the legislative body took action on the initiative or referendum in question.

California Assembly Bill 112 was designed to provide for a 30-day period during which voters could withdraw signatures from a recall petition, to provide for the estimation of costs of a recall election before signatures are certified, to authorize the Department of Finance to direct the controller to provide money to affected counties, and to prohibit the use of random sampling for verifying recall petition signatures.

California Assembly Bill 14 was designed to amend campaign finance restrictions and reporting requirements and other aspects of campaign disclosures.

2016

See also: Changes in 2016 to laws governing ballot measures

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in California

California Assembly Bill 700: Was designed to reform election campaign advertisement disclosure laws.
California Senate Bill 283: Was designed to require the state's legislative analyst to prepare the ballot title and summary for any ballot measure instead of the state's attorney general.
California Assembly Bill 1296: Was designed to establish direct initiative for cities, counties and special districts instead of an indirect process. In other words, under AB 1296, any local initiative petition that was certified by the appropriate elections official to have a sufficient number of valid signatures would have gone directly before voters, rather than having the possibility of first being approved by the relevant local legislative body.
California Assembly Bill 884: Was designed to apply to "statewide initiatives that the Attorney General has determined would likely result in a violation of an individual’s constitutional rights." This bill was designed to require signatures to be included in public records and accessible to public inspection. It was also designed to require the Attorney General to include his opinion that the initiative would violate constitutional rights in the ballot label and ballot title on the petition and requires a statement explaining that a signature attached to the petition would be subject to the California Public Records Act. It also removed a provision in California elections law that prohibits petition signatures from being used for any other purpose than to qualify an initiative for the ballot. This proposal was introduced partly in response to the “Sodomite Suppression” Initiative filed in 2015.
California Assembly Bill 535: "Existing law requires the Attorney General to provide a ballot label and a ballot title for each measure to be submitted to the voters at a statewide election. Existing law requires the Attorney General to prepare a summary of the chief purposes and points of each statewide ballot measure as part of the ballot title. This bill would impose specified requirements with respect to the content of the ballot title and summary required to be prepared by the Attorney General." (Official summary)
California Senate Bill 611: Was designed to make "technical, nonsubstantive changes" to the section of law addressing circulation requirements for initiative and referendum petitions.
- Vetoed California Senate Bill 1094: Was designed to "require a person who solicits signatures for a proposed initiative measure and does not receive money or other valuable consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting signatures of electors to make additional declarations, as specified."
California Assembly Bill 2265: Was designed to authorize the county counsel to prepare a 75-words-or-less summary that explains what a "yes" and "no" vote for a local county ballot measure would mean.
California Assembly Bill 2045: Was designed to make "technical, nonsubstantive changes" to portion of law addressing initiative petitions filings.
California Senate Bill 965: Would make "technical, nonsubstantive changes" to portion of law addressing circulating the title and summary of initiatives.
California Assembly Bill 1457: Would make "technical, nonsubstantive changes" to portion of law addressing petition circulators, certifications, and the use of signatures.

2015

See also: Changes in 2015 to laws governing ballot measures

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in California

Note: Several bills proposing technical, non-substantive changes to language found in laws governing ballot measures were also introduced.

Assembly Bill 1535: "Existing law authorizes a voter who has signed an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to remove his or her name from the petition by filing a written request to do so with the appropriate county elections official prior to the day the petition is filed. This bill would require the written request filed with the elections official to include the voter’s name, residence address, and signature."
Assembly Bill 1100: "Existing law requires a fee of $200 to be paid by the proponents when a proposed ballot initiative or referendum is submitted to the Attorney General for preparation of a circulating title and summary. This bill increased the filing fee from $200 to $2,000."This proposal was a response to the “Sodomite Suppression” Initiative filed in 2015.[1]
California Assembly Bill 700: Was designed to reform election campaign advertisement disclosure laws.
Senate Bill 283: Would require the state's legislative analyst to prepare the ballot title and summary for any ballot measure instead of the state's attorney general.
Assembly Bill 1296: Would establish direct initiative for cities, counties and special districts instead of an indirect process. In other words, under AB 1296, any local initiative petition that was certified by the appropriate elections official to have a sufficient number of valid signatures would go directly before voters, rather than having the possibility of first being approved by the relevant local legislative body.
Assembly Bill 884: "For statewide initiatives that the Attorney General has determined would likely result in a violation of an individual’s constitutional rights," this bill would require signatures to be included in public records and accessible to public inspection. It would also require the Attorney General to include his opinion that the initiative would violate constitutional rights in the ballot label and ballot title on the petition and would require a statement explaining that a signature attached to the petition would be subject to the California Public Records Act. It would also remove a provision in California elections law that prohibits petition signatures from being used for any other purpose than to qualify an initiative for the ballot. This proposal is in response to the “Sodomite Suppression” Initiative filed in 2015.[1]
Assembly Bill 535: "Existing law requires the Attorney General to provide a ballot label and a ballot title for each measure to be submitted to the voters at a statewide election. Existing law requires the Attorney General to prepare a summary of the chief purposes and points of each statewide ballot measure as part of the ballot title. This bill would impose specified requirements with respect to the content of the ballot title and summary required to be prepared by the Attorney General."

↑ 1.0 1.1 Orange County Register, "Preserve state initiative process," April 9, 2015

2014

See also: Changes in 2014 to laws governing ballot measures

The following bills were introduced in the California State Legislature:

SB 1294: Requires the California Legislative Analyst, instead of the California Attorney General, to prepare the ballot label and the ballot title and summary for all measures submitted to the voters of the state. Claims to further the purpose of the Political Reform Act of 1974. It died in chamber.[1]
ACA 12: Requires petitioners to submit an initiative or referendum petition to the California Secretary of State and requires the secretary of state prepare title and summary, rather than the attorney general. It died in chamber.
AB 2093: Officially clarifies and specifies that a petition signature deadline that falls on the weekend or a holiday is extended to the next business day. It was introduced in 2014.[2]
SB 1253: Requires more comprehensive information available for voters about initiatives, including clear summary on Secretary of State website, list of top ten donors on Secretary of State website, public hearings on each initiative at least 131 days before the election. It would also allow initiative proponents to withdraw the initiative at any time prior to certification. It was introduced in 2014.[3][4]
AB 1117: Requires the Secretary of State to provide on the agency's Web site an electronic mail address at which the proponent of a proposed initiative or referendum measure may submit a copy of the petition for the measure in portable document format. Provides that, after receiving the petition, the petition is to be made available to the public through a hyperlink on the Web site that can be downloaded and printed. Requires a specified disclaimer that makes the petition available to the public. This bill was carried over from 2013. It died in chamber.[5]
AB 882: Amends existing provisions regarding recall petition. Provides that if 500 or more signatures are submitted to the elections official, the election official may verify, using a random sampling technique, either 3% of the signatures submitted or 500 signatures, whichever is greater. This bill was carried over from 2013.[5]
SB 477: Declares the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would prohibit a political campaign committee from accepting large contributions made for the purpose of supporting a statewide initiative ballot measure until the committee has first received a significant number of small individual contributions made for the same purpose. This bill was carried over from 2013.[5]
AB 400[6]: Requires a state or local initiative, referendum, or recall petition circulated by a paid circulator who is paid by a committee to include a disclosure statement identifying the persons from whom the committee received the 5 largest cumulative contributions in support of the measure and the name of their employer, if 2 or more of these contributors have the same employer. Requires this disclosure statement to be updated as specified. This bill was carried over from 2013. It was vetoed by the governor.[7]
ACA 6: Increases the vote requirement of votes cast for the electors to amend the Constitution by an initiative measure to 55%. Permits the electors to repeal a previously adopted initiative or legislative amendment to the Constitution, including certain subsequent amendments to the constitutional amendment, by an initiative measure passed by a majority vote. This bill was carried over from 2013. It died in Chamber.
AB 510: Requires that a committee file a report if they pay any amount to an individual for his or her appearance in an advertisement to support or oppose the qualification, passage, or defeat of a ballot measure if the advertisement states or otherwise communicates that the individual is a practitioner or member of a profession having expertise or specialized knowledge relating to the subject of the measure. This bill was carried over from 2013.
SCA 6: Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit an initiative measure that would result in a net increase in state or local government costs, from being submitted to the electors or having any effect unless and until the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance jointly determine that the initiative measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs. This bill was carried over from 2013. It died in chamber.
SB 121 Requires a corporation that has shareholders located in this state and that makes a contribution or expenditure to, or in support of or in opposition to, a candidate, ballot measure campaign, or a signature-gathering effort on behalf of a ballot measure, political party, or political action committee to issue a report on the political expenditures of the corporation in the previous fiscal year, and to notify shareholders prior to each political contribution.[5][8]
AB 2219: Makes changes to the notices to the California Secretary of State required during the signature verification process and alters the other portions of the signature verification process and requirements.[9][7]

↑ California Legislature website, "California Senate Bill 1294," accessed June 25, 2014
↑ LegiScan, "California Assembly Bill 2093," accessed May 28, 2014
↑ San Diego Jewish World, "Measure to make initiatives more transparent advances," April 23, 2014
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named State
↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 National Conference of State Legislatures website database, accessed March 4, 2014
↑ Note: The X mark before this bill title is there to indicate the bill was vetoed by Governor Brown. It will be counted as "pending" until the legislature decides whether to override the veto or not.
↑ 7.0 7.1 California Government website, "List of signed and vetoed bills from governor," accessed September 29, 2014
↑ California Legislature website, "Senate Bill 121 information," accessed April 13, 2014
↑ LegiScan, "California Assembly Bill 2219," accessed June 25, 2014

2013

See also: Changes in 2013 to laws governing ballot measures

California Assembly Bill 354 (2013), added provisions regarding the impartial analysis of local ballot measures was approved and enacted.

The following bills were introduced in the California State Legislature:

AB 1117: Requires the Secretary of State to provide on the agency's Web site an electronic mail address at which the proponent of a proposed initiative or referendum measure may submit a copy of the petition for the measure in portable document format. Provides that, after receiving the petition, the petition is to be made available to the public through a hyperlink on the Web site that can be downloaded and printed. Requires a specified disclaimer that makes the petition available to the public.[1]

AB 882: Amends existing provisions regarding recall petition. Provides that if 500 or more signatures are submitted to the elections official, the election official may verify, using a random sampling technique, either 3% of the signatures submitted or 500 signatures, whichever is greater.[1]

SB 477: Declares the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would prohibit a political campaign committee from accepting large contributions made for the purpose of supporting a statewide initiative ballot measure until the committee has first received a significant number of small individual contributions made for the same purpose.[1]

SB 654: Requires proponents of an initiative or referendum measure to disclose specified counties in which petition circulation is planned and requires the Attorney General to prepare translations of the measure title and summary under certain circumstances based on the counties proposed for signature collection. SB 654 was approved in legislature and vetoed by the governor.[1]

AB 354: Requires the impartial analysis prepared for a local ballot measure to clearly indicate whether the measure was put on the ballot through a citizen petition drive or by the city council, county supervisors, district board of directors or the governing body of the relevant local jurisdiction.[2][3]

AB 400: Requires a state or local initiative, referendum, or recall petition circulated by a paid circulator who is paid by a committee to include a disclosure statement identifying the persons from whom the committee received the 5 largest cumulative contributions in support of the measure and the name of their employer, if 2 or more of these contributors have the same employer. Requires this disclosure statement to be updated as specified.

ACA 6: Increases the vote requirement of votes cast for the electors to amend the Constitution by an initiative measure to 55%. Permits the electors to repeal a previously adopted initiative or legislative amendment to the Constitution, including certain subsequent amendments to the constitutional amendment, by an initiative measure passed by a majority vote.

AB 510: Requires that a committee file a report if they pay any amount to an individual for his or her appearance in an advertisement to support or oppose the qualification, passage, or defeat of a ballot measure if the advertisement states or otherwise communicates that the individual is a practitioner or member of a profession having expertise or specialized knowledge relating to the subject of the measure.

AB 857: Deletes provisions providing that a person who is a voter or is qualified to vote in California is authorized to solicit signatures on an initiative or referendum petition, and requiring that person to declare under penalty of perjury that he or she is a voter or is qualified to register to vote in the state. AB 857 was approved by the legislature but was vetoed by the governor.

SCA 6: Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit an initiative measure that would result in a net increase in state or local government costs, from being submitted to the electors or having any effect unless and until the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance jointly determine that the initiative measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs.

SB 121: Requires a corporation that has shareholders located in this state and that makes a contribution or expenditure to, or in support of or in opposition to, a candidate, ballot measure campaign, or a signature-gathering effort on behalf of a ballot measure, political party, or political action committee to issue a report on the political expenditures of the corporation in the previous fiscal year, and to notify shareholders prior to each political contribution.[1][4]

SB 213: Repeals the requirement that individuals be qualified to register to vote in the state to circulate petitions for statewide initiatives and referendums or be qualified to register to vote in a local jurisdiction to circulate petitions for local initiatives and referendums.[5]

↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named NCSL
↑ LegiScan, "California Assembly Bill 354 Summary," accessed March 26, 2014
↑ California Legislature website, "California Assembly Bill 354 information," accessed April 13, 2014
↑ California Legislature website, "Senate Bill 121 information," accessed April 13, 2014
↑ California Legislature, "Senate Bill 213," accessed December 11, 2017

2012

See also: Changes in 2012 to laws governing ballot measures

The following bills were introduced in the California State Legislature:

AB 1648: Requires that a candidate or ballot measure appearing in the slate mailer be designated by an asterisk if the slate mailer organization or committee primarily formed to support or oppose one or more ballot measures that is sending the slate mailer has received payment to include the candidate or ballot measure in the slate mailer.

AB 2220: Requires an additional paragraph further detailing a ballot measure's impact on state funding to be added to the legislative analysis of the measure.

AB 2294: Makes technical, non-substantive changes to existing law authorizing a person who is a registered voter or who is qualified to register to vote in this state to circulate an initiative or referendum petition anywhere within the state.

ACR 95: Bill description/summary: "This measure would propose that the electors of the state vote at the next statewide general election on the question of whether to call a convention for the purpose of revising the California Constitution."

SB 1296: This bill would require the Legislative Analyst, instead of the Attorney General, to prepare the ballot title and summary for all measures submitted to the voters of the state and would require the Legislative Analyst, instead of the Department of Finance and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, to prepare any fiscal estimate or opinion required by a proposed initiative measure. The bill would also remove the requirement for the legislature to prepare an argument against any ballot measure it submits to the public.

SCA 19: Transfers the responsibility for writing ballot titles and summaries from the Attorney General to state legislative analyst. Sponsor Jean Fuller contends that the process would be better handled by a nonpartisan official. Attorney General Kamala Harris has been criticized for her handling of state ballot measures.[1]

California Assembly Bill 1499 (2012): Alters the appearance of ballot items so that all proposed constitutional amendments and bond measures, whether proposed by the legislative referrals or by citizen initiatives, would now appear near the top of statewide ballots.[2] The bill was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on June 27, 2012 and a lawsuit against it was filed shortly after.[3] The bill is similar to SB 1039

↑ Bakersfield.com, "Voters deserve impartial ballot information," April 15, 2012
↑ AB 1499 (text)
↑ Sacramento Bee, "UPDATED: Brown rival sues to block his tax measure from ballot top," June 28, 2012

2011

See also: Changes in 2011 to laws governing ballot measures

The following bills were introduced in the California State Legislature:

California Assembly Bill 1021: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This bill would, based on the fiscal analysis by the Department of Finance and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, that a measure which would establish a new or expanded program costing more than $1,000,000 per in any year without providing new revenues or eliminating existing programs to offset those costs, require that specified language be provided to the Attorney General which may be included in the circulating title and summary advising that the proposed initiative does not include sufficient funding to pay the cost of the measure. Existing law directs the Legislative Analyst to prepare an unbiased fiscal analysis of a measure that is included in the ballot pamphlet stating whether the measure would result in increased or decreased costs to the state and an estimate of those costs or savings.[1]

California Assembly Bill 1232: Makes a minor change to the wording of Section 101 of the Elections Code.

California Assembly Bill 481: AB 481 would require petition circulators to wear a badge designating whether they are a paid or volunteer worker. The law, known to opponents as a "scarlet letter law," specifies that the terms “paid circulator,” “paid signature gatherer,” “volunteer,” or “volunteer signature gatherer” must be printed in at least 30 pt. font on the badge. Similar language must also appear on the petition sheets. The bill has been passed out of committee.[2][3] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

California Assembly Bill 65: "If the Legislative Analyst determines that an initiative measure on the ballot would have a fiscal impact on the General Fund for which additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs are not provided, a statement be included in the ballot pamphlet that the initiative measure will have an impact on the state's General Fund, which will affect the ability of the Legislature to provide funding for enumerated General Fund purposes." Sponsor: Mike Gatto

California Assembly Bill 651: AB 651 would require every group that hires petitions circulators to register with the state and pay a fee. It would additionally require that these groups review state law governing signature collection with petition circulators. Groups would have to provide signed statements verifying that this review had taken place. The bill additionally bans circulator contracts that make pay contingent on the measure's qualifying for the ballot.

California Assembly Bill 732 (2011): Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This bill would, for state bond measures that are submitted to the voters for their approval or rejection, require the summary of the Legislative Analyst's estimate of the net state and local government fiscal impact to include an explanatory table of the information in the summary."[4]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 5: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would, until January 1, 2020, prohibit an initiative measure from being submitted to the electors or from having any effect if the initiative measure appropriates state funds for any purpose in an amount exceeding the amount appropriated for that purpose for the 2004–05 fiscal year by more than $250,000 unless the measure provides for additional state revenue or offsetting savings in a total amount that is not less than the amount of the appropriation...This measure would also, until January 1, 2020, prohibit the Treasurer from offering for sale or issuing general obligation bonds unless the measure that authorized the sale or issuance of the bond provides for additional state revenue or offsetting savings in an amount necessary to repay the bond, including principal and interest payments."[5]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 6: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would require the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance to review an initiative measure not later than 15 days after its qualification for the ballot, and report the results of the review to the Secretary of State. This measure would prohibit an initiative measure that the Legislative Analyst or the Director of Finance determines would result in a net increase in state or local government costs exceeding $5,000,000, other than costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of bonds, from being submitted to the electors or having any effect unless the Legislative Analyst, the Director of Finance, or both, as applicable, determine that the initiative measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs. This requirement would provide for an annual adjustment to the amount of that cost threshold, and would not apply to costs incurred due to a provision of an initiative measure that reduces tax revenues, or due to the administration of such a provision."[6]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 7: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would prohibit an initiative measure that would result in a net increase in state or local government costs other than costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of bonds, from being submitted to the electors or having any effect unless and until the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance jointly determine that the initiative measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs."[7]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 9: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would require that an initiative that would increase the current vote requirement for an action by either the electors or by the Legislature, or would impose an extraordinary vote requirement for the amendment of an initiative statute by the Legislature without approval by the electors, itself receive the same affirmative vote percentage in order to be approved by the electors."[8]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 10: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would instead authorize the Legislature to amend orrepeal an initiative statute, effective 4 years or more after the date the initiative statute is approved by the voters, unless the initiative statute allows that action by the Legislature at an earlier date. The measure would require that an amendment or repeal of an initiative statute by the Legislature be passed by a percentage of the membership of each house that exceeds the percentage of voters that approved the initiative statute or, if applicable, that approved the most recent amendment of the initiative statute."[9]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 11: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would increase the vote requirement from a majority to 55% of the votes cast for the electors to amend the Constitution by an initiative measure, except that this measure would permit the electors to repeal a previously adopted initiative or legislative amendment to the Constitution, including certain subsequent amendments to that constitutional amendment, by an initiative measure passed by a majority vote."[10]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 12: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would require the Secretary of State to transmit a copy of an initiative measure certified for the ballot to each house of the Legislature no later than 176 days prior to the election at which the measure is to be voted upon. Within 30 days, the Legislature may propose an amended form of the initiative measure by adopting a concurrent resolution." If the proponent(s) accept these changes the amended form of the measure would appear on the ballot.[11][12]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 19: ACA 19 proposes a measure substantially similar to ACA 12. However, it further provides that certified initiated statutes can be amended and adopted by the Legislature. The passage and amendment of the statute would be subject to the approval of the proponents and would be required to further the purposes of the measure. Statutes passed in this manner could only be amended or repealed with a two-thirds vote for the first six years and by a simple majority after that.[13]

(Vetoed) California Senate Bill 168: SB 168 would ban pay-per-signature in the State of California. Violation of the law would constitute a misdemeanor offense. Current law does not prohibit the practice, but it does require that petition forms include a notice indicating that the circulator may or may not be a volunteer. Sponsor: Ellen Corbett. The California State Legislature passed SB 168, but Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it.[14] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

California Senate Bill 202 (2011): Bill description/summary: SB 22 would require all elections on ballot propositions to take place only in Novembers of even-numbered years. This language was added to SB 22 shortly before it was passed by the California State Legislature in early September 2011. Prior to adding that language, the original bill, which was filed in February 2011 would have changed the filing fee for filing a ballot title from $200 to $2,000.[15]

California Senate Bill 334

California Senate Bill 448: SB 448, much like the recently shelved AB 481, would require petition circulators to wear a badge designating whether they are a paid or volunteer worker. Unlike AB 481, the bill also requires the badge to identify where in California the circulator is registered to vote. While the law does not require the circulator to be registered, unregistered circulators would be identified as "NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE." The bill's sponsor, Sen. Mark DeSaulnier (D), placed AB 481 in the "inactive file" after a house committee passed SB 448. SB 448 has already passed the California State Senate.[16][17] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

California Senate Bill 5: SB 5 would allow the proponent of a successful ballot initiative to join in the legal defense of that measure if its constitutionality were challenged. Sponsor: Tom Harman

California Senate Const. Amendment 4: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would prohibit an initiative measure that would result in a net increase in state or local government costs other than costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of bonds, from being submitted to the electors or having any effect unless and until the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance jointly determine that the initiative measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs."[18]

California Senate Const. Amendment 5: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special tax by a city, county, or special district upon the approval of 2/3 of the voters of the city, county, or special district voting on that tax...This measure would alternatively condition the imposition, extension, or increase of a parcel tax, as defined, by a school district, community college district, or county office of education upon the approval of 55% of its voters voting on the proposition, if the proposition meets specified requirements."[19]

California Senate Const. Amendment 9: SCA 9 would permit the legislature to repeal or amend initiated statutes after 3 years. However, a change or repeal would require a majority in both houses that exceeds the margin of victory for the statute in question. The bill would not apply to past measures.

↑ California State Legislature, AB 1021 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
↑ California Assembly Bill 481, as amended
↑ California Assembly Bill 481, Bill History (dead link)
↑ California State Legislature, AB 732 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
↑ California State Legislature, ACA 5 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
↑ California State Legislature, ACA 9 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
↑ California State Legislature, ACA 7 as introduced, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
↑ California State Legislature, ACA 9 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
↑ California State Legislature, ACA 10 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
↑ California State Legislature, ACA 11 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
↑ California State Legislature, ACA 12 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
↑ Sacramento Bee, "Legislators push to alter Capitol's business-as-usual," December 20, 2010 (dead link)
↑ California State Legislature, ACA 19 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
↑ Senate Bill 168, Bill information (dead link)
↑ California State Legislature, AB 732 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
↑ California Assembly Bill 448, Bill History (dead link)
↑ California Assembly Bill 481, Bill History (dead link)
↑ California State Legislature, SCA 4 as Introduced, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011
↑ California State Legislature, SCA 5 as Amended, "Legislative Counsel’s Digest," accessed July 11, 2011

2010

See also: Changes in 2010 to laws governing the initiative process

The following bills were introduced in the California Legislature:

California Assembly Bill 2101 (2010): AB 2101 would prohibit any person convicted of an elections fraud offense from accepting employment as a paid voter registration deputy or petition circulator. The proposal passed the California Assembly on May 6, 2010 by an unanimous 74-0 vote[1]. The bill advanced out of Senate Committee on June 15, 2010[2][3]. The Senate approved the bill by an unanimous 34-0 vote on August 9, 2010, with amendments made to the bill. The Assembly approved the Senate version of the bill on August 12, 2010, by a 78-0 vote, and awaits the Governor's signature[4].

California Assembly Bill 1717 (2010): AB 1717 would allow voters to opt out by mail from receiving the official voter information guide that publishes ballot measures. The bill was approved by the California Assembly on April 12, 2010, by a 71-0 vote, and awaits action in the California Senate[5]. The bill was approved by the California Senate on June 24, 2010 by a 31-0 vote[6]. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the bill into law on July 6, 2010[7].

AB 6, sponsored by Lori Saldana. AB 6 would have required petition drive management companies to register each year with the government. The bill was approved by the California Assembly on May 28, 2009, by a 49-28 vote[8]. The bill was later approved by the Senate on a 21-15 vote on August 31, 2009[9]. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill on October 11, 2009[10].

AB 10: Would prohibit petition circulators from engaging in political activity on public property. The bill died in Legislative committee on January 31, 2009[11].

AB 319, sponsored by Roger Niello, would have the California Legislative Analyst's Office prepare the ballot title and ballot summary for ballot propositions, rather than the California Attorney General. The bill died in Legislative committee on January 31, 2009[12].

AB 436, proposed by Lori Saldana, would raise the state's initiative filing fee over a six-year period from $200 to $2,000[13]. AB 436 was approved by the California Assembly on a 47-28 vote on May 28, 2009[14]. The bill was approved by the California Senate on September 9, 2009 by a 21-18 vote[15]. The bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on October 11, 2009[16].

AB 1278: Would require to California Legislative Analyst's Office to disclose more information on fiscal impact statements and expand the requirement for an impact statement to any measure involving state bonding.

AB 1832: Would incrementally increase the filing fees for initiative petitions in California from $200 to $2,000 from 2011 to 2017. The bill was approved by the California Assembly on April 5, 2010, by a vote of 48-29[17]. The bill advanced out of Senate committee on June 15, 2010, and was approved by the Senate on August 21, 2010 by a 21-15 vote[18][13]. The bill awaits the Governor's signature[13].

AB 1968: Would require the California Legislative Analyst's Office and not the California Attorney General to prepare the ballot title and summary to any qualified ballot measure. The bill was defeated in committee on a final reconsideration vote on May 19, 2010[19].

AB 2088: Would eliminate signature verification for recall petitions with less than 500 signatures and allows temporary appointments for vacant positions in the event of a failed recall effort for the balance of the unserved term. The bill passed the Assembly on May 13, 2010 by an unanimous 76-0 vote[20]. The bill was approved by the Senate on August 26, 2010 by a 37-0 vote[21]. The bill awaits the Governor's signature.

ACA 3: Would allow voters to have the right to approve or deny bond measures over $1 million using state bonds. The amendment advanced out of Assembly committee on August 27, 2009, and is scheduled for a floor vote when the Legislature returns from summer recess[22][23].

ACA 5: Would require any ballot measure using state bonding to be approved on a 55% super-majority. The amendment advanced out of Assembly committee on August 27, 2009, and is scheduled for a floor vote when the Legislature returns from summer recess[24][25].

ACA 13: Would change requirements for indirect initiatives. The proposed measure would give the California Legislature more authority to approve indirect initiatives and increase signature requirements for initiatives not approved by the Legislature. The amendment passed the Assembly on June 1, 2010, by a 48-27 vote and is scheduled for a vote in the Senate when the Legislature returns from summer recess[26][27].

ACA 14: Would limit the number of initiatives placed on the ballot to 5 per an election cycle.

ACA 20: Would require the California Legislative Analyst's Office to write the ballot title and summary instead of the Attorney General.

ACA 21: Would have required citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to earn a 2/3rds super-majority from the voters in order to ratify the amendment. The amendment was approved in Assembly committee on August 27, 2009, and is scheduled for a floor vote when the Legislature returns from summer recess[28].

ACA 1: Would allow a measure on the November 2010 ballot to approve a constitutional convention.

ACR 84: Would create a Constitutional Convention commission to revise the current process for adopting a constitutional convention.

SB 754: Would change the official title and summary written by the Attorney General to 100 words for ballot measures.

SB 795: Would make it a crime for petition circulators failing to disclose the official title and summary from the Attorney General when accepting signatures for initiative petitions.

SB 915: Would require filing fees of unqualified ballot measures to be deposited in the state's general fund.

SB 1202, proposed by Mark DeSaulnier, would require that the California Voter Guide list the five top contributors to each ballot measure, and the amount of their contributions, as of 110 days before the day of the election. (Donations received by ballot proposition campaign committees in the last 110 days of a campaign would not be listed in the pamphlet.)[29]. The bill was approved by the California Senate on June 2, 2010 by a 21-14 vote[30]. An Assembly committee advanced the bill to a floor vote on August 4, 2010, and the full Assembly approved the bill on August 19, 2010, by a 52-26 vote[31][32]. The bill was returned back to the Senate and the Senate approved the final amendments on August 25, 2010 on a 21-11 vote[32]. The bill awaits the Governor's signature.

SB 1203, proposed by Mark DeSaulnier, requires paid initiative circulators to wear a badge. The badge must say in 30-point font, “Paid Signature Gatherer”. The badge must also say the name of the county in California in which the petitioner is registered to vote, and if the circulator is not registered, it must say, “Not Registered to Vote.”[33]. The bill passed the California Senate on May 28, 2010, by a 22-5 vote[34]. The bill was originally placed on inactive status by the request of Representative Charles Calderon on June 28, 2010[35]. The bill was moved from inactive status to being scheduled for a possible floor vote in the Assembly on August 19, 2010[36].

SCA 10: A senate version of ACA 13 that would change the requirements for indirect initiatives in California. The amendment was approved in Senate Committee on August 27, 2009, and awaits a floor vote when the Legislature returns from Summer recess[37][38].

SCA 14: Would ban ballot initiatives that result in a net increase in spending determined by the California Legislative Analyst's Office. The amendment was approved in Senate Committee on August 27, 2009, and awaits a floor vote when the Legislature returns from Summer recess[39][40].

SCA 16: A constitutional amendment switching requirements for indirect initiatives. The amendment allows legislators to switch, approve, or deny citizen initiated constitutional amendments and statutes. The amendment was approved in Senate Committee on August 27, 2009, and awaits a floor vote when the Legislature returns from Summer recess[41][42].

SCA 19: Would require a mandatory 15 year sunset period for ballot measures having a adverse impact on the state's general fund or special segregated funds.

SCR 3: Would authorize a constitutional convention in California on the November 2010 ballot.

↑ California Legislature, "History of Assembly Bill 2101 (2010)
↑ California Legislature, "Committee vote on AB 2101 (2010)," June 15, 2010
↑ California Legislature, "Status of AB 2101" (dead link)
↑ California Legislature, "History of AB 2101 (2010)" (dead link)
↑ California Legislature, "Assembly vote of AB 436 (2010)
↑ California Legislature, "Vote of AB 1717 (2010)-Senate," June 24, 2010
↑ California Legislature, "History of AB 1717 (2010)"
↑ California Legislature "Vote of AB 6-Assembly(2009)"
↑ California Legislature "Vote of AB 6-Senate(2009)"
↑ California Legislature, "Veto of AB 6 (2009)"
↑ California Legislature, "History of AB 10 (2009-2010)"
↑ California Legislature, "History of AB 319 (2009-2010)"
↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Associated Press, "Calif. eyes fee hike to file ballot initiatives," April 5, 2010 (dead link) Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "fee" defined multiple times with different content
↑ California Legislature, "Vote of AB 436-House(2009)"
↑ California Legislature, "Vote of AB 436-Senate(2009)"
↑ California Legislature, "Veto of AB 436 (2009)"
↑ California Legislature "Assembly vote of AB 1832 (2010)
↑ California Legislature, "Committee Vote Summary of AB 1832," June 15, 2010
↑ California Legislature, "History of AB 1951 (2010)"
↑ California Legislature, "History of Assembly Bill 2088 (2010)"
↑ California Legislature, "Status of AB 2088 (2010)" (dead link)
↑ California Legislature, "History of ACA 3 (2010)," July 25, 2010
↑ California Legislature, "Status of ACA 3 (2010)"
↑ California Legislature, "History of ACA 5 (2010)," July 25, 2010
↑ California Legislature, "Status of ACA 5 (2010)"
↑ California Legislature, "History of Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13 (2010)
↑ '"California Legislature, "Status of ACA 13 (2010)"(dead link)
↑ California Legislature, "Status of ACA 21(2009-2010)"
↑ Associated Press, "Calif. lawmakers face deadline to pass legislation," May 30, 2010 (dead link)
↑ 'California Legislature, "Vote of SB 1202-Senate(2010)"
↑ California Legislature, "Committee Summary Vote of SB 1202," August 4, 2010]
↑ 32.0 32.1 California Legislature, "History of SB 1202 (2010)" (dead link)
↑ Ballot Access News, "California Senate Passes Bill to Require Circulators to Wear Badges," May 30, 2010
↑ California Legislature, "History of Senate Bill 1203(2010)
↑ California Legislature, "Status of SB 1203 (2010)"
↑ California Legislature, "History of SB 1203" (dead link)
↑ California Legislature, "Status of SCA 10 (2010)" (dead link)
↑ California Legislature, "History of SCA 10 (2010) (dead link)
↑ California Legislature, "Status of SCA 14 (2010)"
↑ California Legislature, "Status of SCA 14 (2010) (dead link)
↑ California Legislature, "History of SCA 16 (2010)"
↑ California Legislature, "Status of SCA 16 (2010)" (dead link)

v • e Laws governing ballot measures

Laws governing ballot measures	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Laws governing initiatives	Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • New Mexico • Nevada • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming

Laws governing recall	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Florida • Georgia • Idaho • Illinois • Kansas • Louisiana • Maine • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Rhode Island • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Laws governing local ballot measures	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Signature requirements	Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Washington, D.C. • Wyoming

Lawsuits	2022 litigation • 2021 litigation • 2020 litigation • 2019 litigation • 2018 litigation • 2017 litigation • 2016 litigation • 2015 litigation • 2014 litigation • 2013 litigation • 2012 litigation • 2011 litigation • 2010 litigation • 2009 litigation • 2008 litigation • Ballot title litigation • Lawsuit news • Pay-per-signature litigation • Petitioner access • Post-certification signature challenges • Prohibited subjects • Signature challenges • Signature recovery lawsuits • Single-subject lawsuits • Superseding initiatives

Signature regulations	Access • Badges • Ballot title issues • Initiative petition circulation periods • Deadlines • Defining a signature • Distribution • Pay restrictions • Signature withdrawal • Residency • Signature numbers • Single subject • Signature transcription

Changes	2007 changes • 2008 changes • 2009 changes • 2010 changes • 2011 changes • 2012 changes • 2013 changes • 2014 changes • 2015 changes • 2016 changes • 2017 changes • 2018 changes • 2019 changes • 2020 changes • 2021 changes • 2022 changes

Terms	Ballot summary • Petition • Initiative petition circulation periods • Circulator • Paid circulator • Volunteer circulator • Circulator affidavit • Petition signer • Valid signature • Forged signature • Fraudulent signature • Invalid signature • Electronic petition signature • Legislative alteration • Registered voter

School bond and tax laws	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • District of Columbia • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Laws governing campaign finance	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • District of Columbia • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Petitions to impanel grand juries	Laws governing citizen grand juries in Kansas • Laws governing citizen grand juries in Nevada • Laws governing citizen grand juries in North Dakota • Laws governing citizen grand juries in New Mexico • Laws governing citizen grand juries in Nebraska •Laws governing citizen grand juries in Oklahoma

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2022 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

What is the initiative process in California?

The ballot initiative process gives California citizens a way to propose laws and constitutional amendments without the support of the Governor or the Legislature.

How many of the 50 states grant their citizens the power of initiative?

23 states allow for citizens to initiate popular referendums, and one territory, the U.S. Virgin Islands. The popular referendum was first introduced in the United States by South Dakota in 1898, and first used in 1906 in Oregon, two years after the first initiative was used in 1904, also in Oregon.

What is the name of the process by which citizens propose legislation or constitutional amendments through petition followed by popular vote?

The referendum process allows citizens to “refer” laws passed by the Legislature to the ballot so voters can approve or repeal the legislation.

What is a referendum question?

A referendum (PL: referendums or referenda) is a direct vote by the electorate on a proposal, law, or political issue. This is in contrast to an issue being voted on by a representative. This may result in the adoption of a new policy or specific law, or the referendum may be only advisory.

Most initiatives that qualify for the ballot are approved by voters. true or false

Laws and procedures

Crafting an initiative

Single-subject rule

Subject restrictions

Veto referendums on emergency legislation

Competing initiatives

Starting a petition

Applying to petition

Proposal review/approval

Public review period

Petition summary

Fiscal review

Collecting signatures

Number required

Distribution requirements

Restrictions on circulators

Circulator requirements

Pay-per-signature

Out-of-state circulators

Badge requirements

Electronic signatures

Deadlines for collection

Getting on the ballot

Signature verification

Ballot title and summary

Withdrawal

The election and beyond

Election dates

Supermajority requirements

Effective date

Litigation

Legislative alteration

Re-attempting an initiative

Funding an initiative campaign

State initiative law

External links

Footnotes

Changes in the law

Proposed changes by year

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

What is the initiative process in California?

How many of the 50 states grant their citizens the power of initiative?

What is the name of the process by which citizens propose legislation or constitutional amendments through petition followed by popular vote?

What is a referendum question?

zusammenhängende Posts

Werbung

NEUESTEN NACHRICHTEN

Werbung

Populer

Werbung

Um

Legal

Hilfe

Sozial