In Ohio we are held hostage by our state legislature being controlled by the GOP. Without ballot initiatives we would be at their mercy.
A good example is the abortion rights law. When citizens began gathering the signatures to bring the issue to the voters for a state constitutional amendment to protect abortion the GOP saw that they were going to lose control of the issue and the trigger law that went into effect and all but banned it was in danger.
Our state legislators had said no more special elections would be held due to costs but when the abortion rights supporters had gotten the signatures necessary, they suddenly held a special election to severely restrict citizens initiatives for amendments to try to keep the abortion rights amendment from being put before voters from qualifying.
The special election to block those initiatives thankfully failed but our state secretary Frank LaRose wants to try again to change the ability of citizens in our state to bring amendments to our state constitution through citizen ballot initiatives.
The citizens initiative resulted in abortion being protected by our state constitution. There are still battles being fought to water down what was passed (by GOP lawmakers in our state).
While I believe abortion is wrong due to my faith, and when faced with pregnancy at 15 I gave the baby up for adoption, I do not believe it is okay for me to impose that on another woman who does not share my faith and walks a path I don’t know or has struggles that make that her only choice.
I believe these are important to have so citizens have a voice rather than having representatives who only care about party power from deciding such issues.
Similar issue here in Florida. Abortion basically illegal here. But that's not what voters want. The abortion amendment got enough signatures to get on the ballot for 2024. So voters are going to decide. But . . . that didn't stop the GOP controlled Florida legislature with support from our governor to challenge that saying that "it's too confusing" for voters to decide. Um . . . nope . . . pretty straightforward.
I should add that this is not the first time our GOP controlled state has blocked or tried to block initiatives that voters chose. One that comes to mind is restoring the right to vote to felons. There has been a whole host of shenanigans with that. Voters elected to restore rights. And in 2022 some 20 people were arrested after voting for "voter fraud" even though they had their rights restored and legitimately registered to vote (which clearly they were allowed to do and was within their newly restored right).
So, while I think it's crazy that we actually have to vote on common sense things that should be the full right of citizens - such as voting and abortion - here we are. It's literally the only way we'll ever have anything nice in Florida. Ugh! It's making me bit bananas, frankly.
My GOP-led state (Utah) also “struggles” with initiatives. Seems every time voters get something on the ballot & it passes, our legislators pass some bill or another to override it. The most recent example involves gerrymandering. The voters asked for an independent commission- well we got it, but the the leg rejected all the proposed maps. League of Women Voters filed a lawsuit that ended up in state Supreme Court (voters won! yay!).
We need ballot initiatives because our state is so gerrymandered that voting for someone different doesn’t work :(
And as a follow up to our disturbing Utah situation, the legislators didn’t like the unanimous Supreme Court decision regarding the gerrymandering initiative, so they called a special “emergency” session without public input, to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot that would allow the Legislature to amend or repeal citizen-led initiatives. We have lots of mad citizens right now.
We’ve had a similar experience in Idaho. In fact, another bananas challenge to an open primaries initiative by our far-right attorney general was thrown out just yesterday. Our legislature has tried over and over to remake/destroy the initiative process after we’ve had some big successes (Medicaid expansion 🙌). I wish we didn’t need this process, but until everyone starts paying attention to primaries, it’s the only way to actually get super popular things done.
Well said! As a Missouri resident we are in the same boat. I don’t know anyone who is Pro Abortion. That term makes a difficult and sometimes devastating position sound like folly. When the laws were changed to include language that would prevent women from getting post fetal death or miscarriage care unless they were on deaths door, it became clear the laws were less about morality and more about control.
I agree the ballot initiative is the only recourse sometimes. I appreciate Sharon sharing the Pros and Cons.
This is an example of the tyranny of the minority. If the majority of the state wants to change something, why do people who want to keep power get to decide? Love your comment and position too!
Yes because right now our political system is so broken that we the people have no voice. With excessive amounts of money in our political system, as well as gerrymandering our elected officials are no longer able or willing to do what their constituents want.
Another con is the ability for groups to write their initiatives in a misleading way to get more votes, like we saw with proposition 8 in CA. It's a tough spot to be in given the current climate. We need more avenues for citizens to show what they want since many of our elected officials refuse to represent our needs, but we're so able to be swayed by propaganda and misleading marketing type campaigns that it can be very dangerous. Still, I think we need to have the option for initiatives and hope that the avenues to challenge them stay in place.
Yes. The way the ballot is worded seems to often be poorly or confusingly written so that the political party in charge can have the vote at the ballot box go the way they wanted. They tried that in Ohio in both the special election and with the citizens initiative about abortion access and our state constitution. However, luckily the voters were not fooled on this issue and the rights of Ohioan’s were upheld both times. Though our GOP led legislature is trying there best to figure out a way to overrule it. We have a ballot initiative about gerrymandering this fall. It won’t surprise me if the official language, when it is published for voters, is confusing.
I do think California is an example of the down side to ballot initiatives. Having moved to CA in the last two years, it does seem too easy to get iniatives on the ballot, they are worded in a misleading way, and so much money is spent. But the original idea behind ballot initiatives is still good - just need more limits on their use.
This is a tough one! I live in a blue state where we allow social referendums on the ballot. Anyone can petition to have something put on the ballot. Overall I’m glad to have an opportunity vote on some of the issues, but here’s two major drawbacks I see. Signature collectors are most often paid, and you have to be careful who’s doing the paying. I no longer sign petitions in front of businesses, but will sign if being collected by nonprofits who prove to me they’ve done their research. This leads me to problem two, many times these referendums are overturned when reviewed by the state courts as they are poorly written and go against the state constitution, costing tax payers as these issues work their way through the courts. Often the issues are taken up by our representatives, who then address the issues, see how their constituents are feeling, and work together to address them, which is really what voters want anyway. Referendums cost our state a lot of money to get our government to work, but we’ve also had some good changes too. Social issues were a concern to the framers, they are a concern now. I don’t have a solution but I definitely see the pros and cons.
Coming from AZ- my personal take on this is yes social issues should be. The reason I say yes, echoes many others in that system is gerrymandered and broken to the point that many times representatives don’t actually represent the people and for sure not the will of the people (take abortion for instance in AZ).
What I have learned living in AZ is that the ballot initiative is a way to circumvent the state legislature that refuses to act on something and gives it back to the people to decide. This happened with Prop 300. The state legislature refused to pay the money they owed the education system, so the public did the work and got the Prop on the ballot which required the funds to continue to not just go to districts but to teachers, specifically.
The one safety net that I see is that while a ballot initiative could potentially take rights from people- the people have to vote for or against it as the final outcome. It relies on the mobilization of good people to defeat bad initiatives. It is risky for sure, but it feels like you have a say instead of being beholden to your state legislature.
For all the rhetoric surrounding “power to the states” from the SC, ballot initiatives seem the closest way to actually provide input from the actual citizens.
When the states are now given the rights to decide what laws they want to impose, I believe it should be the people’s right to vote on some of those laws as in reproductive rights for women. I do see the cons on possible voting on discriminatory laws as in the past.
The problem with ballot initiatives is that they have far-reaching implications that aren't always apparent in the initiative itself. Some require funding or de-funding, which wasn't an intent of the initiative. Some require further legislation or oversight and expenditures that aren't accounted for. While the initiative "might" be "good" (depending on what your perspective is) having a legislative body that can be responsible for those deeper issues is, in my opinion, better in the long run.
Great point. “Do you want a trillion dollars to go parks?” Someone votes yes. What they may not realize is that it requires massive budget cuts everywhere else.
Isn't that a risk with legislative bodies as well, unintended consequences? We are seeing that with abortion restrictions and IVF laws, no? Maybe it is less likely?
Yes! If our elected representatives will not work on good legislation for ALL the people, they leave us no recourse but to initiate a referendum. We should vote them out but when there is a super-majority in state legislatures, a ballot initiative is the only way. And even, state legislators will just ignore it in some cases.
As a Missourian, I'm very conflicted. I'm excited to have abortion on the ballot because in conversations I've had with friends and family with different viewpoints, the current law doesn't reflect the wants of the people whether conservative or liberal. The extreme views of conservatives are too extreme. The extreme views of liberals are too extreme. Now, I'm conflicted because I'm afraid if it fails that the conservatives will feel emboldened to be more extreme. But, all I can do is vote and hope. So that's what I'm going to do.
One of the reasons referendums became popular in the late 19th century and early 20th century was due to the Progressive Era. There was so much corruption between businesses and government that it was the way everyday citizens pushed back and regained some power. I see what you mean with the Cons though. I don’t believe we should be putting civil rights to a vote or allowing people to voice their bigotry - because our government should be protecting our civil rights. But when they aren’t, what do we do. I saw a video by RepresentUs that claimed that there is a 30% chance that government makes a law about something if there is 0 public support as well as if there was total public support. They were making the argument that we don’t have any significant voice is the process. If this is true, then I would be nervous to drop referendums totally until something changes to improve our voice in the system. Another Con to consider is that there can be a lot of uneducated voting on referendums. People don’t bother to look into the nuances of the issue and then the whole suffers because many people chose the side that sounded great but they didn’t think of the repercussions.
Your comment is spot on. It begs the question, "what do we do in a pure republic when the representatives don't 'represent'?" The founders believed that the check on poor representation would be the ballot box. Natural consequences would correct the problem. If your rep wasn't representing your interests...they would lose their job in the next election. Seems simple. UNTIL the system decided to accept 'powerful' interests into the mix. "Citizens United" (I believe) was the decision that crossed a line that will be difficult from where to return. That line being: "A Government of the money, by the money, and for the money."
I appreciate this question - and I know there's a real risk of individual freedoms being restricted - and Congress is not functioning (productively passing even the budget) - and the Supreme Court justices are flying in the face of ethical standards...are the ballot measures a failsafe? All the problems will take longer term solutions so are these ballot measures worth the potential risk? I'm sure that seems an easier "yes" when the risk is likely to others and not my demographic as well. I clearly have more questions than answers.
It’s such a good question. Admittedly, I only have the personal context of voting in DC (wow, I’ve lived here nearly my whole voting life!) but I remember a few years ago when we voted on an initiative re: pay and restaurant workers. Sounds good, right? But here are at least two ways I think it went wrong: 1) “big money” was absolutely still involved (in this case, a national restaurant association) and funding much of the opposition campaign. 2) the DC Council- our version of a “state” govt- ended up ignoring the vote results! (Seriously, you can read all about it!)
So sure, I like a more direct vote in our legislative process (here’s an idea, let’s start by giving DC at least one vote in Congress!), I’m just not sure if ballot initiatives even actually do some of the pros you mention. Thoughts?
This is really thought provoking. I live in a state where we don’t have the option. I wish we did as our super majority state legislation is passing bills that many MANY people on both sides are very unhappy with. Obviously voting in better representatives is the best path forward but when the state is gerrymandered to favor the supermajority, even that feels hopeless…
I have lived in states that allow citizen ballot initiatives, and states that do not. I found it very discouraging when I lived in states that did not allow citizen ballot initiatives, because it meant the only option was for citizens to influence legislators, which didn't always feel accessible or possible. There is something very powerful about citizens being able to come together and make legislative proposals for their state to vote on.
While your KKK example sounds scary, the reality is that the electorate would still need to vote to pass such a ballot initiative. In fact, I might add to your pros that having state citizen ballot initiatives begs citizens to be more involved in civic life, because they are not only selecting legislators they can also collectively become legislators if/when legislators fail to respond to the needs of the people in the state.
When it comes to social issues, I find that my fears are about states taking away civil rights, not about states protecting civil rights. BUT if our Federal laws did a better job of codifying civil rights, then I wouldn't have to fear states trying to strip civil rights from select groups. Rather than fault state citizen ballot initiatives, I would focus our attention on getting Federal legislators to close any gaps in laws and/or pass new laws to make sure civil rights are universally protected across all states.
In Ohio we are held hostage by our state legislature being controlled by the GOP. Without ballot initiatives we would be at their mercy.
A good example is the abortion rights law. When citizens began gathering the signatures to bring the issue to the voters for a state constitutional amendment to protect abortion the GOP saw that they were going to lose control of the issue and the trigger law that went into effect and all but banned it was in danger.
Our state legislators had said no more special elections would be held due to costs but when the abortion rights supporters had gotten the signatures necessary, they suddenly held a special election to severely restrict citizens initiatives for amendments to try to keep the abortion rights amendment from being put before voters from qualifying.
The special election to block those initiatives thankfully failed but our state secretary Frank LaRose wants to try again to change the ability of citizens in our state to bring amendments to our state constitution through citizen ballot initiatives.
The citizens initiative resulted in abortion being protected by our state constitution. There are still battles being fought to water down what was passed (by GOP lawmakers in our state).
While I believe abortion is wrong due to my faith, and when faced with pregnancy at 15 I gave the baby up for adoption, I do not believe it is okay for me to impose that on another woman who does not share my faith and walks a path I don’t know or has struggles that make that her only choice.
I believe these are important to have so citizens have a voice rather than having representatives who only care about party power from deciding such issues.
Similar issue here in Florida. Abortion basically illegal here. But that's not what voters want. The abortion amendment got enough signatures to get on the ballot for 2024. So voters are going to decide. But . . . that didn't stop the GOP controlled Florida legislature with support from our governor to challenge that saying that "it's too confusing" for voters to decide. Um . . . nope . . . pretty straightforward.
I should add that this is not the first time our GOP controlled state has blocked or tried to block initiatives that voters chose. One that comes to mind is restoring the right to vote to felons. There has been a whole host of shenanigans with that. Voters elected to restore rights. And in 2022 some 20 people were arrested after voting for "voter fraud" even though they had their rights restored and legitimately registered to vote (which clearly they were allowed to do and was within their newly restored right).
So, while I think it's crazy that we actually have to vote on common sense things that should be the full right of citizens - such as voting and abortion - here we are. It's literally the only way we'll ever have anything nice in Florida. Ugh! It's making me bit bananas, frankly.
My GOP-led state (Utah) also “struggles” with initiatives. Seems every time voters get something on the ballot & it passes, our legislators pass some bill or another to override it. The most recent example involves gerrymandering. The voters asked for an independent commission- well we got it, but the the leg rejected all the proposed maps. League of Women Voters filed a lawsuit that ended up in state Supreme Court (voters won! yay!).
We need ballot initiatives because our state is so gerrymandered that voting for someone different doesn’t work :(
And as a follow up to our disturbing Utah situation, the legislators didn’t like the unanimous Supreme Court decision regarding the gerrymandering initiative, so they called a special “emergency” session without public input, to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot that would allow the Legislature to amend or repeal citizen-led initiatives. We have lots of mad citizens right now.
We’ve had a similar experience in Idaho. In fact, another bananas challenge to an open primaries initiative by our far-right attorney general was thrown out just yesterday. Our legislature has tried over and over to remake/destroy the initiative process after we’ve had some big successes (Medicaid expansion 🙌). I wish we didn’t need this process, but until everyone starts paying attention to primaries, it’s the only way to actually get super popular things done.
Well said! As a Missouri resident we are in the same boat. I don’t know anyone who is Pro Abortion. That term makes a difficult and sometimes devastating position sound like folly. When the laws were changed to include language that would prevent women from getting post fetal death or miscarriage care unless they were on deaths door, it became clear the laws were less about morality and more about control.
I agree the ballot initiative is the only recourse sometimes. I appreciate Sharon sharing the Pros and Cons.
This is an example of the tyranny of the minority. If the majority of the state wants to change something, why do people who want to keep power get to decide? Love your comment and position too!
So well said. Thank you for sharing your story and outlook. 💜
Yes because right now our political system is so broken that we the people have no voice. With excessive amounts of money in our political system, as well as gerrymandering our elected officials are no longer able or willing to do what their constituents want.
My thoughts exactly. :)
The initiative, if successful, must till pass constitutional muster, so that is the safeguard against a discriminatory enactment.
Good point!
Yes, because Citizens United made it all too easy for our governing bodies to be obligated to the interests of big money.
Another con is the ability for groups to write their initiatives in a misleading way to get more votes, like we saw with proposition 8 in CA. It's a tough spot to be in given the current climate. We need more avenues for citizens to show what they want since many of our elected officials refuse to represent our needs, but we're so able to be swayed by propaganda and misleading marketing type campaigns that it can be very dangerous. Still, I think we need to have the option for initiatives and hope that the avenues to challenge them stay in place.
Yes! The way ballot initiatives are worded can be intentionally confusing and misleading!
Yes. The way the ballot is worded seems to often be poorly or confusingly written so that the political party in charge can have the vote at the ballot box go the way they wanted. They tried that in Ohio in both the special election and with the citizens initiative about abortion access and our state constitution. However, luckily the voters were not fooled on this issue and the rights of Ohioan’s were upheld both times. Though our GOP led legislature is trying there best to figure out a way to overrule it. We have a ballot initiative about gerrymandering this fall. It won’t surprise me if the official language, when it is published for voters, is confusing.
You are so right-“vote yes if you don’t want to not do the opposite of the thing”
I do think California is an example of the down side to ballot initiatives. Having moved to CA in the last two years, it does seem too easy to get iniatives on the ballot, they are worded in a misleading way, and so much money is spent. But the original idea behind ballot initiatives is still good - just need more limits on their use.
Absolutely! You’re in my state, and it can be a problem!
Sometimes a ballot initiative is so confusingly worded that I'm not actually sure how to vote on it.
Yes! And with the current makeup of the supreme court, I'm not so sure it would have been overturned!
This is a tough one! I live in a blue state where we allow social referendums on the ballot. Anyone can petition to have something put on the ballot. Overall I’m glad to have an opportunity vote on some of the issues, but here’s two major drawbacks I see. Signature collectors are most often paid, and you have to be careful who’s doing the paying. I no longer sign petitions in front of businesses, but will sign if being collected by nonprofits who prove to me they’ve done their research. This leads me to problem two, many times these referendums are overturned when reviewed by the state courts as they are poorly written and go against the state constitution, costing tax payers as these issues work their way through the courts. Often the issues are taken up by our representatives, who then address the issues, see how their constituents are feeling, and work together to address them, which is really what voters want anyway. Referendums cost our state a lot of money to get our government to work, but we’ve also had some good changes too. Social issues were a concern to the framers, they are a concern now. I don’t have a solution but I definitely see the pros and cons.
Coming from AZ- my personal take on this is yes social issues should be. The reason I say yes, echoes many others in that system is gerrymandered and broken to the point that many times representatives don’t actually represent the people and for sure not the will of the people (take abortion for instance in AZ).
What I have learned living in AZ is that the ballot initiative is a way to circumvent the state legislature that refuses to act on something and gives it back to the people to decide. This happened with Prop 300. The state legislature refused to pay the money they owed the education system, so the public did the work and got the Prop on the ballot which required the funds to continue to not just go to districts but to teachers, specifically.
The one safety net that I see is that while a ballot initiative could potentially take rights from people- the people have to vote for or against it as the final outcome. It relies on the mobilization of good people to defeat bad initiatives. It is risky for sure, but it feels like you have a say instead of being beholden to your state legislature.
For all the rhetoric surrounding “power to the states” from the SC, ballot initiatives seem the closest way to actually provide input from the actual citizens.
Correction- it may have been Prop 301 not 300.
When the states are now given the rights to decide what laws they want to impose, I believe it should be the people’s right to vote on some of those laws as in reproductive rights for women. I do see the cons on possible voting on discriminatory laws as in the past.
The problem with ballot initiatives is that they have far-reaching implications that aren't always apparent in the initiative itself. Some require funding or de-funding, which wasn't an intent of the initiative. Some require further legislation or oversight and expenditures that aren't accounted for. While the initiative "might" be "good" (depending on what your perspective is) having a legislative body that can be responsible for those deeper issues is, in my opinion, better in the long run.
Great point. “Do you want a trillion dollars to go parks?” Someone votes yes. What they may not realize is that it requires massive budget cuts everywhere else.
Isn't that a risk with legislative bodies as well, unintended consequences? We are seeing that with abortion restrictions and IVF laws, no? Maybe it is less likely?
Yes! If our elected representatives will not work on good legislation for ALL the people, they leave us no recourse but to initiate a referendum. We should vote them out but when there is a super-majority in state legislatures, a ballot initiative is the only way. And even, state legislators will just ignore it in some cases.
As a Missourian, I'm very conflicted. I'm excited to have abortion on the ballot because in conversations I've had with friends and family with different viewpoints, the current law doesn't reflect the wants of the people whether conservative or liberal. The extreme views of conservatives are too extreme. The extreme views of liberals are too extreme. Now, I'm conflicted because I'm afraid if it fails that the conservatives will feel emboldened to be more extreme. But, all I can do is vote and hope. So that's what I'm going to do.
One of the reasons referendums became popular in the late 19th century and early 20th century was due to the Progressive Era. There was so much corruption between businesses and government that it was the way everyday citizens pushed back and regained some power. I see what you mean with the Cons though. I don’t believe we should be putting civil rights to a vote or allowing people to voice their bigotry - because our government should be protecting our civil rights. But when they aren’t, what do we do. I saw a video by RepresentUs that claimed that there is a 30% chance that government makes a law about something if there is 0 public support as well as if there was total public support. They were making the argument that we don’t have any significant voice is the process. If this is true, then I would be nervous to drop referendums totally until something changes to improve our voice in the system. Another Con to consider is that there can be a lot of uneducated voting on referendums. People don’t bother to look into the nuances of the issue and then the whole suffers because many people chose the side that sounded great but they didn’t think of the repercussions.
Your comment is spot on. It begs the question, "what do we do in a pure republic when the representatives don't 'represent'?" The founders believed that the check on poor representation would be the ballot box. Natural consequences would correct the problem. If your rep wasn't representing your interests...they would lose their job in the next election. Seems simple. UNTIL the system decided to accept 'powerful' interests into the mix. "Citizens United" (I believe) was the decision that crossed a line that will be difficult from where to return. That line being: "A Government of the money, by the money, and for the money."
I appreciate this question - and I know there's a real risk of individual freedoms being restricted - and Congress is not functioning (productively passing even the budget) - and the Supreme Court justices are flying in the face of ethical standards...are the ballot measures a failsafe? All the problems will take longer term solutions so are these ballot measures worth the potential risk? I'm sure that seems an easier "yes" when the risk is likely to others and not my demographic as well. I clearly have more questions than answers.
It’s such a good question. Admittedly, I only have the personal context of voting in DC (wow, I’ve lived here nearly my whole voting life!) but I remember a few years ago when we voted on an initiative re: pay and restaurant workers. Sounds good, right? But here are at least two ways I think it went wrong: 1) “big money” was absolutely still involved (in this case, a national restaurant association) and funding much of the opposition campaign. 2) the DC Council- our version of a “state” govt- ended up ignoring the vote results! (Seriously, you can read all about it!)
So sure, I like a more direct vote in our legislative process (here’s an idea, let’s start by giving DC at least one vote in Congress!), I’m just not sure if ballot initiatives even actually do some of the pros you mention. Thoughts?
This is really thought provoking. I live in a state where we don’t have the option. I wish we did as our super majority state legislation is passing bills that many MANY people on both sides are very unhappy with. Obviously voting in better representatives is the best path forward but when the state is gerrymandered to favor the supermajority, even that feels hopeless…
I have lived in states that allow citizen ballot initiatives, and states that do not. I found it very discouraging when I lived in states that did not allow citizen ballot initiatives, because it meant the only option was for citizens to influence legislators, which didn't always feel accessible or possible. There is something very powerful about citizens being able to come together and make legislative proposals for their state to vote on.
While your KKK example sounds scary, the reality is that the electorate would still need to vote to pass such a ballot initiative. In fact, I might add to your pros that having state citizen ballot initiatives begs citizens to be more involved in civic life, because they are not only selecting legislators they can also collectively become legislators if/when legislators fail to respond to the needs of the people in the state.
When it comes to social issues, I find that my fears are about states taking away civil rights, not about states protecting civil rights. BUT if our Federal laws did a better job of codifying civil rights, then I wouldn't have to fear states trying to strip civil rights from select groups. Rather than fault state citizen ballot initiatives, I would focus our attention on getting Federal legislators to close any gaps in laws and/or pass new laws to make sure civil rights are universally protected across all states.