/Legislature ends session without reviving ballot initiative

Legislature ends session without reviving ballot initiative

In May, the Mississippi Supreme Court declared the process invalid due to a technical error in how it works. Most people agreed that the Legislature would correct the language and reinstate the initiative after the Supreme Court ruled. The 2022 session saw the Senate and House leaders disagree on the best way to fix the language. READ MORE: Mississippi legislators pass the largest tax reduction in state history. The legislation was passed earlier in the session. It restored the ability for an issue to be placed on the ballot if it received signatures equal to 12% of votes in the last governor’s election. This would amount roughly 90,000 signatures. The conference process allows only three House members and three Senate members to discuss differences in legislation. However, John Polk, R.Hattiesburg, led the Senate negotiators who demanded that a greater number of signatures was required to place an issue onto the ballot. Polk demanded that the required number of signatures to place an issue onto the ballot equal 12% of registered voters at the time of the last presidential election, or approximately 240,000 signatures. Fred Shanks (R-Brandon), House Constitution Chair, stated that House negotiators believe the required number of signatures should be maintained at 12% of voters who voted in the last gubernatorial elections. This was the same as before the Court declared the process invalid. Shanks stated, “We will remain firm,” and added that he would attempt to restore the initiative process in the 2023 session. It is difficult enough to get signatures without increasing their number,” Lt. Governor. Delbert Hosemann, who preside over the Senate, stated that the signature mandate must be increased. Hosemann stated that there was concern about the ease of getting people to sign. “… That was a concern for both the Senate and the House.” Hosemann said that there are companies that can gather signatures to support initiative efforts. He also stated that it is easier now than ever to collect signatures, despite the mandate equaling 12 percent of those who voted in the last gubernatorial elections. Hosemann stated that they are trying to find a number that makes sense. House Speaker Philip Gunn (R-Clinton) maintained that the Senate wanted “an extremely high threshold that we believed the citizens would never be able achieve.” Both sides agreed that the new proposal should permit voters to place on the ballot issues to amend or change general law. In the early 1990s, a ballot initiative that allowed voters to amend the state Constitution was rejected by the Supreme Court. Because it is harder to change the Constitution, legislators said they prefer that the process be used for amending general law. The Constitution must be approved by voters before it can be changed. Any agreement would likely also prohibit legislators from changing any initiative that has been approved by voters for at least two years, unless it is passed by two-thirds vote by both chambers. Because the process required that the required number of signatures be collected equally from all five congressional districts, the Supreme Court rejected the proposal. In 2000, the state lost one congressional seat. The Legislature is currently considering new language that would require signatures from all congressional districts. At the same time, the Supreme Court ruled null the medical marijuana initiative approved by voters in November 2020. According to Caroline Avakian (director of strategic communications at the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center), a national pro-initiative non profit, it was the first time that a state’s judiciary had thrown out an entire initiative process. The landmark state Supreme Court decision was not only the first time that a ballot initiative process was invalidated in modern times, but it is not the first. The Mississippi Supreme Court invalidated an earlier initiative process that had been approved by state voters in the 1920s. It was not restored after the 1920s ruling. Gov. Tate Reeves stated recently that he supports restoring the initiative. He stated that he doesn’t intend to call a special legislative session to examine the initiative but could include it in the agenda for any other topic.