Single-subject rule

From Ballotpedia

Ballot law
State laws
Ballot initiative law Laws governing recall Statutory changes in 2008
Court cases
Ballot access rulings Recent court cases Petitioner access Ballot title challenges Superseding initiatives Signature challenges

Single-subject rules require that an initiative contain only one issue or subject. The initiative can only address one question.

There are currently 14 states that have a single-subject rule in their I&R laws:

• Alaska (Alaska Stat. 15.45.040), Arizona, California (Const. Art. II, Sec. 8 (d)), Colorado (Const. Art. V, Sec. 1 (5.5) and Colo. Rev. Stat. 1-40-106.5), Florida (Const. Art. XI Sec. 3), Missouri (Const. Art. III Sec. 50), Montana, Nebraska (Const. Art. III sec. 2), Nevada (N.R.S. 295.009), Ohio (O.R.C. 3519.01), Oklahoma, [Oregon]] (Const. Art. IV sec. 1 (2)(d)), Washington and Wyoming (Wyo. Stat. 22-24-105 (a)).

Pros and cons of the single-subject rule

Supporters of imposing a single-subject requirement on initiatives see its advantages as:

• Initiatives that address only one subject are easier for voters to understand.
• It allows voters to express a clear intent on a single issue.
• It prevents a situation arising where a single initiative is placed on the ballot that includes a provision that is very popular with voters along with an unrelated provision that an initiative proponent cares about, but about which voters care little, are neutral or opposed.

Those who criticize single-subject rules see its disadvantages as being:

• The rule can be so strictly enforced that only the narrowest of subjects can make it on the ballot.
• The existence of a single-subject rule can lead to frivolous or blocking lawsuits against intiatives, thus making the process of qualifying initiatives for the ballot more cumbersome and expensive.

I&R court cases related to the single-subject rule

• Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State of Washington. Invalidated Washington Initiative 695 (1999).

• Armatta v. Kitzhaber. In this 1998 decision, the Oregon Supreme Court invalidated Oregon Ballot Measure 40 (1996) on single-subject grounds.

• California Trial Lawyers Association v. Eu. This lawsuit pre-emptively struck the proposed "Insurance Cost Control Initiative" of 1988 from the California ballot on single-subject grounds.

• Campbell v. Buckley. An unsuccessful lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Colorado's single-subject rule.

• Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association v. Deukmejian.

• Committee for a Healthy Future v. Carnahan.

• Dale v. Keisling.

• League of Oregon Cities v. Bradbury. Invalidated Oregon Ballot Measure 7 (2000).

• Missourians to Protect Initiative Process v. Blunt.

• United Gamefowl Breeders v. Nixon. Unsuccessful effort to invalidate the Missouri Cockfighting Initiative (1998) on single-subject grounds.

External links

• NCSL explanation of the single-subject rule
• Ending court protection of voters from the initiative process, Richard Hasen, in the Yale Law Journal, November 2006.
• New judicial resistance to direct democracy, Kenneth Miller, August 2002.