As BISC continues to support our state partners in three main issue areas (Direct Democracy, Economic Justice, and Reproductive Freedom), we are closely tracking emerging trends that could impact the ballot initiative process or our election processes at large \u2014 both for better and for worse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The health of American democracy is deteriorating under the weight of rising authoritarianism, political gridlock, and institutional sabotage \u2014 conditions that create fertile ground for fascist ideologies to take root. A visible symptom of this democratic erosion is the coordinated assault on citizen-led ballot initiatives. In nearly half the states, lawmakers have introduced or passed bills to restrict the ballot measure process by tightening signature requirements, shortening campaign timelines, imposing confusing legal standards, and more. These efforts are not simply administrative \u2014 they are politically-motivated efforts to suppress popular reforms<\/a>, particularly those favoring progressive causes. When institutions designed to empower people are dismantled, faith in democratic participation wanes, leaving a vacuum for authoritarian alternatives that promise strength, order, and control over complexity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In states like Ohio and Oklahoma, anti-democratic legislation exemplifies how weakened civic processes can pave the way for more coercive governance. Ohio\u2019s Senate Bill 153<\/a> and House Bill 233<\/a>, buried in hundreds of pages of technical jargon, function as veiled threats to grassroots movements by criminalizing common organizing practices and expanding state surveillance over petitioners. Oklahoma\u2019s Senate Bill 1027<\/a> caps the number of signatures per county and compresses campaign timelines to near-impossible limits, effectively disempowering urban organizers and diluting collective power. These are not random policy changes, they are strategic efforts to undermine pluralism and prevent dissent. When democratic tools become inaccessible, the state monopolizes political expression, setting the stage for fascist tendencies: centralized control, suppression of opposition, and the framing of democratic dissent as a threat to the republic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This democratic decay does more than limit ballot access \u2014 it opens the door to fascism by normalizing executive overreach, legislative complicity, and public disillusionment. When citizens are cut off from shaping their own governance, the state consolidates power under the guise of unity and order \u2014 an all-too-familiar path to authoritarian rule. Thus, defending the ballot is not just about preserving a process \u2014 it\u2019s about resisting a future where democracy is hollowed out in favor of control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The use of citizen-led initiatives to fund public works projects and affordable housing has emerged as a grassroots response to the chronic underfunding of infrastructure at state and federal levels. As government budgets tighten and political gridlock stalls large-scale investment, communities are increasingly taking matters into their own hands through ballot initiatives, local bond measures, and participatory budgeting. These citizen-driven efforts not only secure critical funding for essential infrastructure \u2014 such as transportation upgrades, water systems, and broadband internet \u2014 but also empower residents to shape development priorities that reflect local needs related to renter protections<\/a>, public works projects<\/a>, and recycling<\/a> to name a few. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Recent measures such as Texas House Joint Resolution 7<\/a> exemplify this trend which will allocate a portion of sales tax revenue to a dedicated water fund, addressing long-standing gaps in water infrastructure investment that are particularly acute in drought-prone regions. Through this type of earmarked funding, voters can ensure that vital public services receive sustained support, even when competing priorities strain general budgets. Similarly, Texas House Joint Resolution 203<\/a> will create a state fund to provide resources for healthcare workforce education at eligible higher education institutions. Amid growing shortages of healthcare professionals, this initiative represents a strategic community-driven approach to public workforce investment, circumventing traditional budgetary battles and fostering cross-sector collaboration between educational institutions, healthcare providers, and the state. <\/p>\n\n\n\n And lastly, affordable housing<\/a>, in particular, has become a focal point for citizen initiatives due to escalating housing costs and stagnant federal support. Local ballot measures have successfully generated billions in funding for low-income housing projects, leveraging tools like property tax adjustments, bond issuance, and development impact fees. These initiatives fill vital gaps in housing policy by fostering collaboration between governments, non-profits, and private developers under community-guided mandates. Importantly, citizen-led financing can also circumvent political resistance to housing reforms, allowing for more responsive and equitable urban planning. As infrastructure demands grow, citizen initiatives represent a vital, decentralized strategy to meet unmet needs while reinforcing local democratic participation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why is it that Maine’s new ballot initiative<\/a> has been branded by many as simply a \u2018Voter ID\u2019 measure despite its laundry list of other anti-voting proposals? The answer could lie in the banal acceptance of voter ID requirements. Across the country, 36 states already require voters to present some form of identification at the polls and on April 1, nearly 63% of Wisconsin voters<\/a> opted to enshrine such a requirement in their state constitutions. Many see it as an easy (it\u2019s not<\/a>) and sensible step to protect against widespread election fraud (of which there is no sound evidence<\/a>), but nothing about this initiative should be interpreted as easy or sensible. From ending ongoing absentee status for seniors and people with disabilities to shortening the absentee voting period to limiting the number of ballot drop boxes, this measure is committed to making voting infinitely more challenging. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Seeing through the veiled attempts by its sponsors to limit voting rights, Maine Sec. of State Shenna Bellows drafted ballot language enumerating the impacts otherwise overshadowed by the voter ID aspect. However, supporters of the measure have taken the issue to court<\/a> and are hoping to have the language overturned. The lawsuit<\/a> accuses Bellows of “obscuring the initiative’s primary aims by stressing everything other than the voter identification requirements” and calls the voter suppression tactics included in the measure \u201cminor things\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While non-citizens have been expressly prohibited from voting in federal elections for over a century (punishable by both imprisonment, fines, or deportation), states have historically been permitted to decide for themselves whether to allow non-citizens the right to vote in local or state elections. However, unfounded claims of widespread non-citizen voting fraud<\/a> have resulted in both a recent executive order from the Trump Administration<\/a> and a slate of proposed (and passed<\/a>) ballot measures that seek to address this non-issue. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But while the claims may be based in fiction, the potential impacts are very much a reality. A 2024 survey<\/a> revealed that proving citizenship can be a challenge for 1 in 10 U.S. citizens and worse: more than 3.8 million people don\u2019t have any form of proof of citizenship documentation, whether that be a birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate or a certificate of citizenship. Additionally the lack of documentation \u201cdisproportionately affects marginalized racial and ethnic groups,\u201d with 11% of respondents of color unable to readily access such documents compared to 8% of their white counterparts. As state legislatures look to further limit voting rights, they are both threatening voter accessibility for U.S. citizens and stripping undocumented community members of their ability to weigh in on state and local issues as previously permitted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Voting rights advocates are fighting back. On March 27, a group of pro-democracy organizations including the Brennan Center for Justice, ACLU, NAACP, League of Women Voters of the United States, and the Legal Defense Fund wrote to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission<\/a> urging commissioners against taking action in accordance with Trump\u2019s executive order. Those groups have since joined with others in filing a lawsuit<\/a> challenging the legality of that order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Examples of potential and confirmed legislatively-referred measures regarding citizenship requirements include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n BISC is tracking a number of potential referred constitutional amendments across the country that feature selective ballot language likely intended to mask unsavory proposals. Take for example Missouri\u2019s Senate Joint Resolution 60. Its drafted ballot language highlights a foreign spending prohibition and a ban on lawmakers accepting gifts from lobbyists before mentioning the increased vote threshold that would require both a statewide majority support and<\/em> majority support in a majority of congressional districts. Additionally, the ballot language proposes banning legislators from repealing voter-approved laws \u2014 but makes zero mention of its exception for legislative repeals of voter-approved constitutional amendments (like 2024\u2019s abortion rights Amendment 3, which anti-abortion legislators are currently attempting to repeal). And despite the ballot language for Louisiana’s Amendment 2 being only 77 words long, the true length of the measure comes to a total of 115 pages. Which begs the question: What isn\u2019t being said? A legal challenge seeking to block the measure argues that the highlighted positives in the ballot language bely other aspects of concern. In other words: \u201cNone of the unappealing changes are included. The ballot language is all dessert, no vegetables.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n As the saying goes, the devil is in the details and BISC is committed to uncovering attempts by lawmakers and others to deceive voters at the ballot box by burying dangerous proposals in the fine print.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In legislatures around the country, lawmakers are proposing higher or broader collection requirements, superfluous canvasser protocols, and tighter deadlines. Though bill sponsors and their proponents claim the demands are necessary to prevent petition fraud, they\u2019re a thinly veiled effort to stymy ballot initiative efforts before voters have a chance to weigh in on an issue. Examples include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The trend doesn\u2019t end at signature collection; those attacking the ballot initiative process have also set their sights on other pre-Election Day opportunities including removal of signature cure periods<\/a>, increased Attorney General scrutiny<\/a>, and exorbitant fees<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Not unlike trending voter citizenship requirements, voter ID proposals prey upon largely unfounded fears of election fraud and serve as a popular platform for Republican lawmakers in particular. Voters in Wisconsin are facing one such example in the state’s April 1 election. Given that photo identification is already required under Wisconsin law, it would seem unnecessary to enshrine it in the state constitution. However, the April 1 ballot features a more pressing issue: the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. At 4-3, the court currently has a slim liberal majority and the GOP is likely hoping to shift the tides in their favor. If they\u2019re able to draw out enough conservative voters to weigh in on the legislatively-referred photo ID amendment, an increase in votes for the conservative judicial candidate could follow. Notably, the candidate being backed by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin was the lead attorney in an unsuccessful lawsuit that challenged the current voter ID law in 2011.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It comes as no surprise that a slate of bills have been filed that propose overturning Missouri\u2019s 2024 reproductive freedom initiative, Amendment 3. But found within the text of several such bills \u2014 including HJR47<\/a>, HJR54<\/a>, HJR63<\/a>, HJR73<\/a>, SJR5<\/a>, SJR9<\/a>, SJR33<\/a> \u2014 are explicit proposals to prohibit gender-affirming care for minors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The language for each bill is carefully crafted, and the placement of the GAC ban in proposed ballot language is equally strategic. For some, the ban receives top billing while for others it is the last line a voter would read before selecting Yes or No on the legislatively-referred constitutional amendment at the ballot box.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The pairing of the two topics is nefarious and strategic: the bill sponsors hope to draw out anti-trans voters to secure a defeat of abortion rights, and anti-abortion voters to secure a victory against the health and well-being of trans youth. On the whole, the issue underscores the importance of reproductive freedom and LGBTQ+ rights advocates working together to defend bodily autonomy for all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Following recent years of progressive ballot initiative wins across the country, nearly one hundred legislative attacks on direct democracy have been filed already this year. Yet there is also considerable work being done to introduce \u2014 or restore \u2014 the ballot initiative process in several states. In addition to a recent call from Wisconsin Gov. Evers for legislators to create an initiative process in his state, BISC is currently monitoring 17 bills that would provide some form of direct democracy in 11 states from Connecticut to Hawai\u2019i to Texas. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But not all such proposals are necessarily proactive. Mississippi\u2019s HCR 30<\/a>, for example, would only restore a very limited version of the citizen\u2019s initiative process to the state following a 2021 Mississippi Supreme Court decision that effectively voided the previous one. For example, HCR 30 would bar citizens from proposing any initiative concerning abortion and require campaigns to collect signatures from 12% of the total state electorate \u2014 a threshold considerably higher than most other states with an initiative process. This simply is not a true restoration of the process if there are such stringent limits on what can be brought to voters and how.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As of May 30, BISC is still monitoring 78 active bills related to direct democracy filed in legislatures across 16 states. Of these, at least 35 feature some level of attack on the People\u2019s Tool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These bills reflect a range of legislative efforts, from increasing barriers to the ballot measure process \u2014 such as increased signature collection requirements, higher vote thresholds, and additional oversight \u2014 to proactive initiatives aimed at expanding or refining direct democracy systems. Below are highlights of notable bills and initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are several types of key ballot measure issue areas, including: <\/p>\n\n\n\nCitizen Initiatives Fill the Gap in Infrastructure Investments<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Voter ID Marketing Masks Broader Vote Suppression<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Specter of Non-Citizen Voting<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
The Devil is in the Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Attacks on Ballot Initiative Signature Collection <\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Voter ID Measure as a Tool for Increasing Conservative Voter Turnout<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Anti-Trans Legislators Weave Attacks on Gender-Affirming Care into Anti-Abortion Bills<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Amid Nationwide Attacks on Direct Democracy, Some Lawmakers Fight to Introduce Initiative Process to Their State<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nDirect Democracy Legislative Landscape: 2025 Outlook<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Increased Signature Collection Requirements<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Higher Vote Thresholds for Passage<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Legislative and Executive Control Over Ballot Measures<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Restrictions on Foreign Funding and Campaign Contributions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Additional Ballot Language Requirements<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Introduction of New Initiative Processes in Some States<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n\n\n\nTypes of Ballot Measures:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n