Executive Summary

In an era marked by rising authoritarianism and political dysfunction, as well as a growing disconnect between voters and their representatives, citizen-initiated ballot measures—also known as ballot initiatives, initiative and referendum (I&R), and direct democracy, among other names—offer a compelling, time-tested mechanism for democratic renewal. Originally adopted during the Populist and Progressive movements of the early twentieth century, these processes were designed to give citizens a direct voice in policymaking, especially when legislatures were captured by special interests and out of step with public opinion. That rationale remains as compelling today as it was a century ago.

Despite their proven utility, access to ballot initiatives remains highly uneven. Currently, 26 states and Washington, DC (which this report does not count as a state) have laws on the books allowing for some form of initiative, leaving millions of voters without a direct voice in state policymaking. Of those 26 states, 24 allow citizen-initiated legislating through statutes or amendments. New Mexico and Maryland allow for citizen-led referendums, but citizens cannot initiate statutes or amendments. States without initiative processes—home to a majority of Americans—lack any means for citizens to propose or repeal state laws independently of the legislature. As our institutions struggle to deliver on basic public demands and faith in institutions crumbles, now may be a uniquely ripe moment to expand direct democracy.

In states that don’t permit initiatives, there’s only one path to achieve policy change that matches public preferences, and often that path is blocked. Particularly in heavily gerrymandered states, a legislative majority or supermajority representing a minority of voters can block policy change or enact policies that majorities would not support. In divided states, much as in the federal government, the veto points in the system prevent change. When there’s no other path to change that aligns with public preferences, voters’ distrust and cynicism about the system deepen.

In states where the initiative process functions as it should, voters can join the governing process. They’ve passed measures on health care, elections, and civil liberties—often in the face of legislative resistance. In other cases, the mere prospect of an initiative can nudge a legislature or governor to take up an issue or idea even where they might prefer inaction or find the issue too polarizing. That is, ballot initiatives can encourage compromise and negotiation, helping to overcome political paralysis.

“Ballot initiatives can encourage compromise and negotiation, helping to overcome political paralysis.”

But these recent successes have drawn backlash to direct democracy. Legislators in several initiative states are actively working to restrict or dismantle the process.¹ As a result, the reform community faces a dual challenge: defending direct democracy where it already exists and building it where it doesn’t. This report focuses on the latter. It makes the case for and offers early strategic guidance on expanding citizen-led policymaking access to new states.

To be sure, initiatives are not a panacea. They come with risks—oversimplification, inequitable access, elite manipulation, and legislative sabotage—and often fall short of their democratic ideal.² But when well designed and properly defended, they serve as critical pressure valves in democratic systems. They enable states to live up to their reputation as “laboratories of democracy,” advancing reforms that reflect the public will and often prefigure national change.

This report explores the opportunities (and obstacles) in bringing initiatives to new states, drawing from the historical and recent literature on initiative and referendum adoption, expert interviews, and contemporary case studies. We provide an overview of how the initiative process developed, strategic lessons from the historical and contemporary I&R literature, and background interviews with key informants. Finally, we present our state readiness methodology, which will guide future phases of this work. We hope this will be useful to reformers, funders, and institutional partners who share an interest in rebuilding the legitimacy and responsiveness of American democracy from the ground up.