State Ballot Measure Monthly: June 2024

2024 U.S. state ballot measures
2025 » « 2023
Overview
Scorecard
Tuesday Count
Deadlines
Requirements
Lawsuits
Readability
Voter guides
Election results
Campaigns
Polls
Media editorials
Filed initiatives
Finances
Contributions
Signature costs
Ballot Measure Monthly
Signature requirements
Have you subscribed yet? Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew. Click here to learn more.

June 11, 2024

By Ballot Measures Project Staff

This edition of the State Ballot Measure Monthly covers the certifications of state ballot measures, as well as notable ballot measure news, from May 8 through June 10.

HIGHLIGHTS

Abortion will be on the ballot in Colorado and South Dakota, joining Florida and Maryland and likely others

Voters in South Dakota to decide on top-two primaries, while voters in Missouri to decide on preempting those types of primaries and RCV

With a certification in Oklahoma, voters in at least six states will decide on amendments to prohibit non-citizen voting

2024 ballot measures

Overview: Nationally, 117 ballot measures have been certified in 35 states for elections in 2024.

Signatures submitted: Signatures have been submitted and are pending verification for the following citizen-initiated ballot measures:

• California Changes to the State Children's Services Program Initiative (2024)
• California Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated Felonies Initiative (2024)
• Idaho Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2024)
• Missouri Minimum Wage and Earned Paid Sick Time Initiative (2024)
• Missouri Osage River Gambling Boat License Amendment (2024)
• Missouri Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment (2024)
• Missouri Sports Betting Amendment (2024)
• Nevada Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment (2024)

Changes in 2024 ballot measure numbers

Comparison to earlier years

So far, 117 state ballot measures have been certified for 2024. From 2012 through 2022, an average of 112 state ballot measures through the second week of June of a general election year. An average of 157 total ballot measures were certified for even-numbered year ballots from 2012 through 2022.

2024 certifications

See also: Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count for 2024

From May 8 through June 10, 15 statewide measures qualified for the ballot in eight states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. However, two measures were removed from the ballot—one in Colorado and one in Nebraska.

May 16

• Removed—Nebraska Education Scholarships Tax Credit Referendum: The veto referendum would have repealed Legislative Bill 753 (LB 753), which was designed to provide tax credits to donors who contribute to scholarship-granting organizations for private schools. The state legislature repealed LB 753 but passed similar legislation. Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) removed the veto referendum from the ballot. He said, "Since the previous law will no longer be in effect by the time of the general election, I do not intend to place the original referendum on the ballot."

May 17

• Colorado Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative: The citizen-initiated constitutional amendment would provide a state right to abortion in the Colorado Constitution. Amendment 3, passed in 1984, would also be repealed. Amendment 3 prohibited the use of public funds for abortions. In Colorado, constitutional amendments require a 55% vote to be approved.

• Missouri Levying of Fees to Support Salaries of Law Enforcement Personnel Amendment: The ballot measure would amend the Missouri Constitution to define the administration of justice to include the levying of costs and fees to support the salaries and benefits of sheriffs, former sheriffs, prosecuting attorneys, former prosecuting attorneys, circuit attorneys, and former circuit attorneys.

• Missouri Require Citizenship to Vote and Prohibit Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment: The constitutional amendment would preempt several policies, including prohibiting the state or local governments from allowing non-citizen voting; prohibiting ranked-choice voting; and prohibiting systems similar to top-two and top-four primaries. The constitutional amendment would include an exception to local electoral systems adopted before 2024, such as the approval voting system used in St. Louis. In the Missouri State Legislature, Republicans supported the constitutional amendment, and Democrats opposed it.

• South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G, Right to Abortion Initiative: The citizen-initiated constitutional amendment would enact a trimester framework for regulating abortion in the South Dakota Constitution, similar to Roe v. Wade. During the first trimester of pregnancy, the state would be prohibited from regulating a woman's decision to have an abortion. During the second trimester of pregnancy, the state would be allowed to regulate abortion, but "only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman." During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state would be allowed to regulate or prohibit abortion, except "when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman's physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman."

• Removed—Colorado Economic Impact Statements Shown with Ballot Question Initiative: The ballot measure would have required economic impact summaries to appear on the ballot alongside each ballot measure title. Proponents agreed to withdraw the initiative after reaching a compromise with legislators, who also agreed to drop a legislative proposal concerning ozone pollution. Both also endorsed a legislative package that established a per-barrel fee on oil and gas production and dedicated revenue for public transportation and habitat restoration. Gov. Jared Polis (D) said, "This proposal is thoughtful agreement from environmental advocates and oil and gas producers on the way forward for air quality, for ozone reduction, for climate goals. It’s better to find a way to work together, to an outcome that everybody can live with and moves the ball down the field in terms of achieving our goals."

May 21

• California Require Certain Participants in Medi-Cal Rx Program to Spend 98% of Revenues on Patient Care Initiative: The ballot initiative would require entities classified as prescription drug price manipulators to spend at least 98% or more of their revenue earned from their national participation in the 340B program on direct patient care to be eligible for state and local government grants and contracts. According to the California Legislative Analyst, "Likely few entities would meet the measure's tests to qualify as a prescription drug price manipulator, but the exact number is not known." One of those entities is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has supported several ballot initiatives related to housing, rent control, and drug prices, including this year's Rent Control Initiative. The California Apartment Association is supporting the initiative.

• South Dakota Constitutional Amendment H, Top-Two Primary Elections Initiative: The initiated constitutional amendment would establish top-two primaries in the state. Amendment H would provide for top-two primary elections for the offices of governor, state legislator, county official, U.S. senator, and U.S. representative. All candidates for a certain office would be listed on the primary ballot, regardless of the candidate’s political party, and the two candidates receiving the highest number of votes for a single office would advance to the general election.

May 23

• Louisiana 48-Hour Waiting Period for Concurrence on Appropriation Bills Amendment: The ballot measure would prohibit the consideration of a conference committee report or senate amendments on an appropriations bill until 48 hours after the bill is distributed to legislators.

• Louisiana Allow Legislature to Extend Regular Sessions to Pass Appropriations Bills Amendment: The ballot measure would allow the Louisiana State Legislature to extend its regular session by two-day increments, up to a maximum of six days, to pass a bill appropriating money.

May 30

• Louisiana Judiciary Commission Investigation of Sitting Judges Amendment: The ballot measure would require the judiciary commission, upon orders from the state supreme court or based on the commission's own recommendation, to conduct an investigation into sitting judges before any disciplinary measures are taken. The amendment would add malfeasance while in office to the list of actions for which the Louisiana Supreme Court can pursue disciplinary action against a sitting judge. It would also increase the composition of the judiciary commission by five members.

• Louisiana Outer Continental Shelf Revenues for Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund Amendment: The ballot measure would require federal revenue received from alternative and renewable energy production in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to be deposited in the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund.

• Oklahoma Citizenship Requirement for Voting Amendment: The constitutional amendment would prohibit local governments from allowing noncitizens to vote by providing in the state constitution that only a citizen of the U.S., rather than every citizen of the U.S., can vote in the state. Oklahoma was the sixth state to put a constitutional amendment regarding citizenship and voting on the ballot for 2024.

June 3

• Louisiana Property Tax Sales Administration Amendment: The ballot measure would make several changes to the administration of property taxes, including authorizing the state legislature to provide for property tax sales in state law, rather than the state constitution; providing that tax payment postponements can only be granted during emergencies; and allowing the state legislature to give tax collectors the authority to waive penalties for good cause.

• South Dakota Initiated Measure 29, Marijuana Legalization Initiative: The ballot initiative is the third attempt to legalize marijuana in South Dakota. In 2022, voters rejected an initiative, Measure 27, to legalize marijuana. Earlier, in 2020, voters approved a constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana, but the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled that the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule.

June 4

• Arizona Immigration and Border Law Enforcement Measure: The ballot measure would make several changes to immigration and law enforcement policies, including making the act of non-citizens entering the state through a location other than a port of entry a state crime and authorizing police to arrest non-citizens who enter the state unlawfully. It would also allow state judges to order deportations and make the sale of fentanyl a Class 2 felony if the person knowingly sells fentanyl and it results in the death of another person. In the Arizona State Legislature, Republicans supported the measure, and Democrats opposed it.

• California Managed Care Organization Tax Authorization Initiative: The ballot initiative would permanently authorize a tax on managed care organizations (MCOs) based on monthly enrollees, which is set to expire in 2026, and require revenues to be used for Medi-Cal programs.

Headlines

Supreme Court and FEC distinguish campaign finance regulations for ballot measures from candidate elections, including for foreign spending

Campaign finance rules for ballot measures differ from those for candidate elections. "Referenda are held on issues, not candidates for public office," wrote the U.S. Supreme Court in 1978 (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti). The court has held that spending on ballot measure campaigns is similar to issue advocacy in the lawmaking process. Following the U.S. Supreme Court, the IRS considers the financing of ballot measure campaigns as a type of lobbying. Donors advocate to voters—who function as legislators—about legislation that will be decided on at an election, according to this framework.

In 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, which further defined campaign finance for ballot measures as distinct from that for candidate elections. The court's opinion held that limiting contributions to ballot measure committees violated the First Amendment. Limits on candidate committees, per Buckley v. Valeo, were to prevent quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of quid pro quo corruption. Measures are not subject to quid pro quo corruption because there are no candidates to bribe, according to the ruling. Richard Hasen, a professor of law at UCLA, said the ruling "precludes state and local jurisdictions from limiting financial contributions to committees formed to support or oppose ballot measures."

The Federal Election Commission (FEC), citing the Supreme Court, has also stated that ballot measures are not subject to regulation under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), the Supreme Court determined that FECA "regulates only candidate elections, not referenda or other issue-based ballot measures." FECA defines elections as "the process by which individuals, whether opposed or unopposed, seek nomination for election, or election." That definition does not include ballot measures.

The FEC has issued multiple orders concerning the financing of ballot measure campaigns, including those addressing foreign spending and guidelines for candidates raising funds for ballot measures.

Foreign spending

The U.S. Supreme Court and FEC have held that foreigners can contribute to ballot measure campaigns, at least under existing federal law. In Bluman v. FEC (2011), the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's findings, which held that FECA prohibits foreign contributions to political candidates and that this prohibition is constitutional. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, writing the opinion, noted, "[the law] does not bar foreign nationals from issue advocacy—that is, speech that does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a specific candidate."

The FEC has held that foreign nationals can make contributions to ballot measure campaigns. The most recent order on foreign contributions was in 2021. In MUR 7523, the FEC held that the federal ban on foreign political contributions concerns candidate elections, not ballot measure campaigns. Therefore, the FEC affirmed that foreign individuals, corporations, and governments could contribute to ballot measure campaigns. The opinion originated with Montana I-186, which regarded mining permits. In 2018, voters rejected I-186. Opponents received funding from Sandfire, a Canadian subsidiary of an Australian mining company.

States have enacted their own laws governing foreign contributions to ballot measure campaigns. Eight prohibit foreign nationals or governments from contributing to ballot measure committees.

However, the definition of foreign national varies between the states. In California, for example, the definition does not include lawful non-citizen permanent residents. In Ohio, a bill was passed to prohibit foreign nationals from making contributions or expenditures to support or oppose ballot measures. The definition of foreign nationals would include lawful permanent residents. State Sen. Theresa Gavarone (R-2) said a 2023 ballot initiative donor, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, received funding from Georg Wyss, a Swiss national based in the U.S. In Maine, the ban, which voters passed in 2023, prohibits foreign governments and foreign government-owned entities from making contributions to ballot measure campaigns but does not mention other foreign persons.

During the 118th U.S. Congress, legislation has been introduced addressing foreign spending and ballot measures. In the House, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-1) of Pennsylvania introduced House Resolution 4484 (HR 4484), the Keeping Foreign Money out of Ballot Measures Act. In the Senate, Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) introduced Senate Bill 4145 (SB 3145), the Preventing Foreign Interference in American Elections Act.

Candidates and ballot measures

On May 1, 2024, the FEC issued AO 2024-05, which stated that federal officeholders and candidates are allowed to solicit unlimited funds for ballot measure committees without regard to campaign finance limitations and source restrictions in FECA.

Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, which is the campaign behind a ballot initiative to provide a state constitutional right to abortion, requested an opinion on the matter. As FECA does not define elections to include ballot measures, federal candidates can raise funds for ballot measure campaigns and associated nonprofits, as long as funds aren't earmarked for federal elections.

The opinion has the effect of permitting federal candidates, including Joe Biden (D) and Donald Trump (R), to raise unlimited funds for ballot measures.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee criticized the opinion, stating, "[the order] permit[s] federal candidates and officeholders to solicit unlimited foreign national funds for ballot measure committees that benefit the candidates’ elections." Chris LaCivita, a senior advisor for Trump, also responded, saying, "We will engage in all opportunities available, including new ones to defeat the corruption and failure of the Democrat machine." According to the New York Times, spokespersons for the DNC and Biden declined to comment.

See also

• 2024 ballot measures
• Ballot initiatives filed for the 2024 ballot
• Ballot Measure Scorecard, 2024
• Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count for 2024

Related articles

• State Ballot Measure Monthly