Our Work

Does the Ohio Constitution allow the General Assembly to override the will of the people? The Essay situates Ohio within the broader national landscape, surveys how other states address legislative overrides of citizen-initiated statutes, and develops an interpretive framework grounded in the Ohio Constitution.

Decisions in California, Michigan, and Utah could serve as models for courts in other states facing power struggles between legislatures and proponents of voter-approved ballot initiatives.

In roughly half of U.S. states, state constitutions confer rights of direct democracy, allowing the people to make law directly through statutes or constitutional amendments. The exercise of direct democracy rights can lead to power struggles with state legislatures. In particular, state legislatures sometimes respond to successful ballot measures by passing new laws that make ballot measures harder to use. Disputes over these new burdens on direct democracy frequently land in state courts. This Report considers how state courts have responded to these power struggles, with special attention to case law analyzing process-altering legislation under state constitutional direct democracy rights.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that the Michigan Legislature violated the state constitution when it used a hardball tactic known as “adopt and amend” to thwart two citizen-proposed initiated statutes in 2018. The case is Mothering Justice v. Attorney General. Its most immediate effect is that the thwarted initiatives—one increases the state’s minimum wage and the other provides some guarantees for workers to earn paid sick leave—will take effect in February 2025. In the long term, the case could help safeguard direct democracy rights in Michigan and around the country.

This is What Democracy Sounds Like is a podcast brought to you by the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin covering government, hot issues and voting! For the pilot episode, host Carol Koby talks with guests about constitutional amendments and our state constitution.

This year, states have stepped into the spotlight. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has focused attention on the state role in defining individual rights, while democracy cases like Moore v. Harper have underscored the important state role in elections. In addition, many high-profile issues are being brought directly to voters through state ballot measures. As state institutions take center stage, state-focused scholarship has never been more timely or important.

This Report surveys current state laws affecting direct democracy, with an emphasis on those relating to voter participation and understanding. For instance, what information appears on the ballot, and who prepares it? What standards exist, if any, to ensure that ballot language is clear and impartial? When, and how, can courts step in?

This Essay explores the people’s right to amend state constitutions, particularly in states that recognize the constitutional initiative. Together with other democratic rights that appear in state constitutions but not the federal charter, the right to amend recognizes popular sovereignty as an active commitment. After describing the right to amend and canvassing current threats, the Essay considers practical and theoretical implications. It argues that democratic proportionality review can help courts distinguish valid regulation of the initiative process from subversion of it. And it explores the distinctive constitutional architecture to which popular amendment contributes.

In a ruling with major implications for direct democracy in Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court greenlighted the state legislature’s controversial plan to have Ohioans vote in August on a proposed constitutional amendment that would make it harder to amend Ohio’s Constitution in the future. Lawmakers had pushed for a quick vote on their proposed amendment with an eye toward derailing a citizen-led abortion rights initiative that is expected to be on the ballot in November. This is a part of a national trend of state lawmakers seeking to make it tougher for citizens to change laws or amend state constitutions through ballot measures.