Talk:Initiatives and referendums in the United States

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Initiatives and referendums in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government / History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history.

Map and Chart Consistency

The Direct Democracy in U.S. States chart says Kansas allows legislatively-referred state statutes, but the map color is red indicating it only allows legislatively-referred initiated constitutional amendments. Map or chart should be edited for consistency. I reviewed the other states and saw no other consistency issues. Have there been any recent attempts to change these laws? Perhaps there should be a section on state discussion for changing these processes.

This website has some great information on the process and history.

Anonkiwi (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality

Pray tell me, but why does the criticism paragraph occupy half the page, full of weasel words? John Riemann Soong 09:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seriously. There's [citation needed]s all over the place, too. 137.112.118.103 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing views?

The start of this article seems to imply this is specific to the U.S. However, I've been told that such a system is used in Switzerland and works rather well. Any Swiss contributers able to help out here? Also, how does such a scheme relate to plebiscite systems? Are there similarities? Comparisons?

List of state laws on initiative and referendum

I was thinking we should have a summary of state laws on I&R, analogous to Ballot_access#State_ballot_access_laws. Does such a list exist anywhere on Wikipedia, and if not, would this be a good article to place it in? A good source could be http://www.iandrinstitute.org/statewide_i&r.htm , although I would want our list to reference the pertinent constitutional articles/sections. Thanks, Simultaneous movement (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reverting reversion

I reverted this and left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Initiative_and_referendum. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to the system

Other criticisms are that it results in provisions being added to constitutions that would be better subjects for the more flexible statutory law, which can be more easily revised to fit changing circumstances, and that it clutters constitutions, which are supposed to be basic frameworks of government and not excessively detailed plans, with minutae, making them unwieldy.

This seems misleading, as not all initiative and referenda affect constitutions, nor do all states which have initiative and referenda systems allow constitutional amendments to originate through this method: XINOPH | TALK 12:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Initiatives and referendums in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Initiatives and referendums in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725175114/http://www.iandrinstitute.org/Quick%20Fact%20-%20What%20is%20I%26R.htm to http://www.iandrinstitute.org/Quick%20Fact%20-%20What%20is%20I%26R.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Initiatives and referendums in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iandrinstitute.org/statewide_i%26r.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120302180529/http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/232/jameson.pdf to http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/232/jameson.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin?

The Supreme Court is hearing a case, Gill v. Whitford, which involves an examination of partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin. If the Court decides that this is a non-justiciable controversy, the most likely way it would be addressed it via the initiative or referendum process. But for some odd reason, Wisconsin isn't discussed on this page? _{MrRedwood (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

NIH

What about the NIH's All Of Us Initiative (AOUI) in the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI)? AOUI doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. MaynardClark (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omission in article

According to this article there are two kinds of initiative -- direct & indirect. However, nowhere in the article does it explain what this difference is. I assume, based on what I've witnessed in Oregon, a direct initiative might be where a measure is placed on the ballot as a result of a petition being submitted with sufficient verified signatures. If so, maybe an indirect initiative is one where the legislature votes to put the measure on the ballot? -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why legislative referral info?

This chart has tons of info about legislative referrals. This is not part of initiatives and referendums from the people. Legislative referrals comes from the legislature. This is the wrong map for this article.--Wyn.junior (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the body of the article encompasses both. The intro only scopes the article to publicly-initiated, but that could be changed. Or, we could do a strong split and try to move the latter to Legislative referral. This map is indeed a bit overwhelming; it would be nice to have two maps instead. Splitting this map into one for public-initiated and one for legislatively referred would make that kind of content split easy. Or the map could be split into regular laws vs. constitutional amendments. Or it could be split into four maps. -- Beland (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting additional information

Every time there is an attempt at improving this article, a very important one I think, since it's about democracy, direct democracy, it is deleted by an administrator under dubious claims of "not compatibly licensed" references. This article need serious improvements, and deleting efforts to do so is an absolute shame.

Snarcky96 (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi

Should we remove Mississippi as a state that allows ballot initiatives? According to the state supreme court, you need signatures from voters in 5 districts, even though the state only has 4– thus making it impossible to put an initiative on the ballot in the state at the moment. [1] Prcc27 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The situation could at least be noted somewhere as they have had ballot initiatives not affected by this and have "historically" allowed them until now. Something tells me that this is going to be a mess to deal with, but your proposed suggestion should be fine. Amended: Additionally, this isn't likely the only article that needs to be amended. There is the 2004 Mississippi Amendment 1 (Mentions a public referendum, but unclear if it was a citizen ballot measure; Needs updating anyways for Obergefell v. Hodges), the 2020 Mississippi flag referendum (A quick search shows both legislative and citizen ballot measures), File:Map of US state cannabis laws.svg (Mississippi needs to be adjusted), Template:Cannabis_in_the_United_States (Which I just fixed), Cannabis in Mississippi (Also might need to have a mention that the Mississippi Senate recently tried to create rules for the program that your source mentions), Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction (Which needs some numbers adjusted as well), and Voter identification laws in the United States (Your source mentions Initiative 27, to which this may apply; Didn't find an appropriate article where Initiative 31 applies) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC) (Amended 02:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]

So is Mississippi now a red state ("states that allow legislatively-referred constitutional amendments only")? Or should we have a separate color for Mississippi noting that the other method is currently obsolete (I edited the current Mississippi color to reflect this)? If the latter, what color should Mississippi be– I don't think it should be colored a shade of green anymore. Prcc27 (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prcc27: Ugh, I got a bit sidetracked and forgot to respond. My thoughts are that Mississippi could remain the same color or be striped to be a split between teal and red (if it doesn't break accessibility rules) while being explained in the text that it has a ballot initiative method in their state constitution, but that it is currently invalid (or some other wording) under the interpretation by the state's Supreme Court. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would prefer to keep Mississippi red, and add a footnote explaining that the current ballot initiative process in the state is obsolete. I'm not sure about striping with teal. The de facto status is that there is no ballot initiative process, and the de jure status is that it is obsolete. That seems almost in line with the red states. I don't think the map necessarily needs to get into the nuances of the constitution. Prcc27 (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what you want to do, then it sounds like it will work out, especially with a footnote to explain things. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name change?

I propose we change this page to Referendums in the United States. This will make the page more consistent with other country pages. Bluealbion (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]