The people voted on Tuesday for their choice of candidates and in many states they also voted on Ballot measures or ballot initiatives. Ballot measures offer voters a way to participate in direct democracy and can be a powerful tool for change. On this episode, we will discuss some of the ballot measures that were up for a vote in 2024 and the results. 

As regular listeners will know ballot measures, initiatives, propositions, or bond measures are lobbying. Although they are on the ballot, they are lobbying activity and voters are the lawmakers. Many nonprofits, both c3 public charities and c4 social welfare organizations participate in ballot measure advocacy within their lobbying limits.    

Today we are going to discuss what happened – what did voters decide when it came to the issues of choice, democracy, LGBTQ rights, and worker protections. We are traveling across this nation from ME to OH – to FL, then head west AZ and CA, CO, and HI, and finally NE, to learn what voters decided.   

Lawyers for this episode 

Sarah 

Melissa 

Susan 

Show notes 

LGBTQ Ballot Measures  

Thanks! I would like to start us off by lifting up a number of ballot measure victories in the LGBTQ space.  

We frequently talk about litigation as an impactful, non-lobbying, form of advocacy. In fact, we had a recent pod episode on that very topic. Well, there were several ballot measures that were introduced to get ahead of potential litigation – specifically cases that might threaten the right to marry. 

Here, I want to highlight how voters in CA, CO, and HI used their ballots to approve constitutional amendments that will enshrine the Freedom to Marry into their state constitutions.  

• Although the 2015 Obergefell decision has made state laws banning same sex marriage moot, lessons learned from the Dobbs decision overturning abortion rights; the proactive, legislatively referred measures are intended to safeguard their states’ freedom to marry if a conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn existing protections 

• likely that these 3 ballot measures are the first in a wave of proactive measures to fend off (or respond to) any such attacks by a conservative-majority court 

 

 

Reproductive Rights Ballot Measures 

• Voters in seven states approved ballot measures to enshrine reproductive rights in their state constitutions, including in two states with abortion bans. 

• Missouri Amendment 3 establishes a constitutional right to reproductive freedom, which is defined as “the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care,” including but not limited to childbirth, birth control, and abortion care. The amendment also provides that the state may only enact laws regulating abortion after the point of fetal viability.  

• Similar abortion rights measures failed in Florida, South Dakota, and Nebraska. 57% of Floridian voters supported their state’s right to abortion measure, but Florida requires at least 60% of voters to support a constitutional amendment for it to succeed, which is a uniquely high bar. 

• Arizona Proposition 139 amends the state constitution to guarantee a right to abortion and prohibits the state from restricting this right before fetal viability.  

• San Francisco Proposition O establishes several local requirements that help to protect access to abortion and other forms of reproductive health care.  

• Amarillo, Texas Proposition A, a so-called “abortion travel ban” initiative, was rejected by the city’s voters. Local businesses, organizations, and residents formed the Amarillo Reproductive Freedom Alliance to oppose the measure and protect reproductive freedom in the Texas Panhandle.  

 

Thanks Melissa, I can. In many states there were issues on the ballot that concerned democracy and constitutional rights.  

First stop – Ohio, Issue 1, its aim was to create a 15 member redistricting commission, made up of citizens across the political parties and ensuring representation from different areas of the state.  

Unfortunately this initiative failed. There was a lot of confusion surrounding this ballot measure. Many believed that the ballot language, which the Republican controlled ballot board wrote – was misleading and biased. Conservatives in the state are opposed to redistricting reform.  

The campaign for Issue 1, called Citizens not Politicians, took the issue to State supreme court, which sided with the Ballot board. The actual proposal by Citizens not Politicians was to ban partisan gerrymandering  – and the ballot board’s language stated it would require gerrymandering.  

So much so that Both sides, pro and con – were using the same slogan to get out the vote. I was in Ohio, my home state, before the election and I saw yard signs that said – stop gerrymandering by voting yes and I saw signs that said – stop gerrymandering by voting no.  

Let’s go to Arizona where voters defeated three measures that would have taken away their voice in the democratic process. One on the election of judges and two on the ballot initiative process.  

First, voters weighed in on Proposition 137. This Ballot measure concerned the election of state court judges, a yes vote would end term limits for judges. A judge would have a permanent appointment until age 70.  judges permanent appointments. Currently, State supreme court justices are limited to six-year terms and superior court judges are subject to 4 year terms. They must run for reelection. This proposition was rejected by voters – they voted to keep term limits for their justices. So, these judges will be accountable to voters when they run for reelection.    

Prop 134, which would changed the signature requirement in order for a measure to qualify for the ballot.  It would essentially make it more difficult. Currently, the Arizona state constitution requires 15% of the number of voters in the last election. So if 1 million people voted in the last governors race, a ballot measure would need at least 150,000 signatures in order to qualify. There is no restrictions or requirements on where in the state the signer lives.  

Prop 134 would made it more difficult by requiring so many signatures to come from each legislative district in the state.  

Prop 136 – would have allowed opponents to a ballot measure to challenge any ballot measure before it went to the voters. Opponents could have engaged in costly legal battles, perhaps killing it before voters even got a chance to decide.  

Fortunately, both these measures were rejected by the voters.  

 

Did you know that slavery in some form is still part of some state constitutions?  

Both California and Nevada proposed ballot measures to remove language in their state constitutions permitting involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. Voters in Nevada passed Question 4, joining eight other states that have passed ballot measures to abolish slavery in prisons in recent years.  

A similar proposal in California, Proposition 6, at the time of this recording has not yet been called. If it passes, it would prohibit prisons from punishing incarcerated people through involuntary servitude.   

Lastly in Maine Question 5 – asked the question should Maine change its current state flag back to an historical version known as the Pine Tree flag, a simple pine tree with one star in the corner.  Voters said no.  

 

 

Finally, we’d be remiss if we didn’t mention the ballot measure victory in Nebraska that will provide workers with paid sick leave. 

• NE voters overwhelmingly passed Initiative 436, which will require employers to provide 1 hour of paid sick leave for every hour worked 

• According to the initiative’s campaign, over 250K Nebraskans currently lack paid sick leave. More than 1/3 full time and more than ¾ part-time employees 

• Initiative was supported by business community – recognizing that providing paid sick leave increases productivity, recruitment and lowers turnover 

• Example of organizations that supports workers’ rights joining forces with members of the business community to effect positive policy change 

• Important to note here that Nebraska was joined by voters in Alaska and Missouri (all traditionally solid Republican states) in passing these progressive pro-worker policies. 

 

This is proof that there are so many issues, legislative ideas and progress that can be made through initiative process, from equality to repro rights to democracy to flag choice.  

Reminders and Resources  

• Ballot measure advocacy is a great way to support your organization’s mission by educating the public on the issues, building coalitions with other community groups, and making change.  

• The IRS considers supporting or opposing ballot measures a form of lobbying. Most states and some localities regulate ballot measure activities under their campaign finance law. Campaign finance rules may require registration and/or reporting if certain triggers or thresholds are met. 

We have several ballot measure resources you can check out at afj.org, including our full-length guide, Seize the Initiative, and a number of state-specific resources, too. We also have resources to help you navigate the laws related to other forms of advocacy, such as post-election and transition advocacy, and assess your advocacy capacity as you make your action plan for next year. Check out our recently released advocacy playbook series for more information about the many types of c3-safe advocacy and examples that are specifically tailored for different issues.  

Resources 

Seize the Initiative: A Legal Guide on Ballot Measures for Nonprofits and Foundations 

Episode 58: Ballot Measures Revisited 

The Advocacy Playbook Series 

Can We Say That? Post-Election Advocacy for 501(c)(3) Organizations  

Preparing for Change: How Nonprofits Can Shape Policy By Engaging Transition Teams 

The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Ballot Measure Hub 

 

On today’s episode, we dive into rules surrounding partisan activities for employees of 501(c)(3) organizations. With the election just around the corner, we will give you some best practices for how to keep your 501(c)(3) safe from any partisan activity while you engage in electoral work as an individual.  

 

 

Attorneys for this Episode

Melissa Marichal Zayas 

Brittany Hacker 

Victor Rivera Labiosa 

 

Shownotes 

Rules for 501(c)(3) organizations  

• Remain nonpartisan when acting on behalf of your 501(c)(3) 

• Consider engaging in nonpartisan voter education and election protection activity 

• Best practice: Internal election season policy 

Individual rules for 501(c)(3) employees, board members, and volunteers 

• Make clear what hat you are wearing 

• Avoid using org resources (email, printer, laptop, staff time)  

• Watch your social media activity 

Scenarios 

• Supporting others running for office 

• Canvasing, phone banks, rallies 

• Online activity and social media accounts  

• Employees running for office 

 

Resources 

• Election Checklist for 501(c)(3) Public Charities: Ensuring Election Year Advocacy Efforts Remain Nonpartisan 

• Practical Guidance: Nonprofit Voter Assistance series 

• Sample 501(c)(3) Organizational Policy for Election Season 

• Board Members and Election Year Activities  

• 501(c)(3) Employees Running for Office 

• Election Activities for Individuals Associated with 501(c)(3)s  

• FAQ: Influencing Public Policy in the Digital Age 

Election season is well underway and politics is everywhere. It’s one of  our busiest time at Bolder Advocacy. On this episode, we bring you three of your questions to answer on the pod… it’s another round of Ask Us Anything, Electionpalooza Edition!

 

Lawyers for this episode

Tim Mooney

Susan Finkle Sourlis

Monika Graham

 

Shownotes

– Question: Presidential campaigns working with outside groups on door-to-door canvassing for their get-out-the-vote efforts— is this illegal coordination under federal election law? – Answer:    – Base coordination rules    – Exception to coordination rule: FEC AO 2024-01 states that scripts and canvassing literature are NOT public communications, and therefore consulting with candidates and parties is not illegal coordination.    – Both presidential campaigns are doing this, with one reportedly relying on it more than the other.    – This practice is likely happening in many federal races (Senate and House).    – Important: This is NOT available for 501(c)(3)s or for state/local candidates

– Question: Can 501(c)(3) organizations comment on candidates or political parties in the context of an election? – Answer:    – Yes, but tread carefully.    – 501(c)(3) organizations must remain nonpartisan.    – Comments should have an independent, nonpartisan, non-election-related reason.    – Focus on the issue, not the candidate (e.g., correcting factual errors without discussing the candidate’s attributes).    – Before responding, consider:      1. Decide who speaks on behalf of the organization.      2. Script responses to stay on message and avoid crossing any lines.      3. Avoid discussing qualifications or endorsing/opposing candidates.    – Example: Instead of “Voters should reject this misinformation,” say “Americans won’t stand for misinformation on public health issues.”    – Criticizing or praising incumbents is less risky, but avoid implying support or opposition for re-election.

– Question: Can nonprofit staff support candidates and express their opinion? – Answer:    – Individuals have the right to participate and voice their own opinions when acting in their individual capacity.    – 501(c)(3) organizations must remain nonpartisan. This applies to staff, board members, and volunteers when acting on behalf of the organization.    – In official organizational events, staff should not engage in partisan activities (e.g., wearing a pro-candidate t-shirt).    – In their personal time, employees can:      – Participate in partisan election activity at home, online, or at rallies.      – Use their own resources (email, social media) and must act outside work hours.      – Put up lawn signs but not use them as Zoom backgrounds for organizational calls.      – Canvas for candidates on the weekends but not encourage others during the workweek.    – Every nonprofit needs a policy outlining the prohibition of using organizational resources for political activities.    – Alliance for Justice has an example of such a policy.

 

Resources

Trister Ross memo on canvassing and coordination

Election Activities of Individuals Associated With 501(c)(3) Organizations