The following chart pertains only to state-level direct democracy components. It does not cover local-level components, which, however, are generally identical to state-level components.
There are now a total of 34 states with people-initiated, state level, direct democracy components in their state constitutions.
That number includes Illinois, which has only a very limited CAI (constitutional amendment initiative). Even with their CAI's serious restrictions, Illinois citizens could use it to follow Nebraska's lead into a nonpartisan unicameral legislature. The move would cut costs, minimize corruption, increase lawmaking efficiency, and increase the legislature's cooperation with civil society. It would also let the people start over, dumping the entire, mostly corrupt legislature onto the street with extremely diminished social, economic, and political power. The restart's new cooperation would open the door to I&R provisions being added to the state's constitution -- and to the consequent gaining of sovereign civil society's fundamental rights in governance.
Critics of direct democracy rarely confront the fact that there are thousands of "home-rule" jurisdictions within our states -- boroughs, counties, cities, school districts, water districts, etc. -- in which the people have citizen lawmaking and recall components. In those sub-state jurisdictions, the people routinely make referendal decisions on critically important issues.
The societal use and dependence on direct democracy is far more advanced and widespread than what most of its critics will admit to.
Resources for the below information are many books and articles, confirmed by direct study of the constitutions and laws of the concerned states. For the constitutions and laws online, see --
Cornell Law
"LII" (Legal Information Institute)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html
Constitution.Org
"US State Constitutions and Web Sites"
http://www.constitution.org/cons/usstcons.htm
Washburn Law
"WashLaw: Legal Research On The Web"
http://www.washlaw.edu/
For a second online resource to confirm my "Legislature's Statute Referral" information here, See the chart at the I&R Institute site at Statewide I&R > Definitions/Types > Legislative Referendums, at http://www.iandrinstitute.org/New%20IRI%20Website%20Info/Drop%20Down%20Boxes/Requirements/Legislative%20Referendum%20States.pdf.
The DD community generally follows state laws by using the term, 'Legislative Referendum', to mean a referendum resulting from the legislature referring either a constitutional amendment or a statute law to the people for approval or rejection. The term, 'Popular Referendum', is commonly used to mean a referendum resulting from a citizens petition to either veto or affirm a statute law. It's very confusing to most people.
The legislatures' referrals to the people require in-depth study. Cursory examination shows that legislatures routinely mis-use the referrals to give the people some little hot-button fluff, while at the same time including pro-predator provisions needed for money-power's further corruption of law. We will likely need to heavily regulate the referrals.
I'm using more specific terms for the various 'referendums' here in an effort to untangle the confusion between referendum-the-vote, and referendum-the-referral-from-the-legislature, and referendum-the-citizen-statute-veto, and referendum-the-citizen-statute-affirmation. I'm convinced that overworking the term, 'referendum', is just another hundred-year-old trick & trap from predator elitism to keep I&R as confused as possible for the sovereign people. The longer we stay confused, the longer they get to hold on to their corruptly-gained social, economic, and political power.
For the sake of clarity, the 'Statute Referendum' intended to veto all or part of a law made by the legislature should be re-named 'Statute Remand'. If the veto effort is successful, it follows that the people remand the law back to the legislature. Use of the term, 'remand', would give us an easy distinction between the referendum intended as a veto and the referendum intended as an affirmation of an existing state law. (The intent of a standing law's affirmation by the people is to bar government from amending the standing law against the sovereign people's wishes.) Not only would we eliminate this confusion -- between referendum-the-vote, and referendum-the-veto, and referendum-the-affirmation -- we would also retain the traditional initials, "I&R", which are widely used to characterize 'citizen lawmaking'.
Nevada is the only one of the twenty-four referendum states having the "Statute Affirmation". A recent use of this powerful component allowed the majority of civil society to stop the Nevada state legislature from voiding women's reproductive rights in 1990, and from creating a severe challenge to Roe v. Wade. Once the majority had affirmed the standing state law, which made abortion legal in accord with Roe V. Wade, the legislature was barred from ever amending that law. Amendments can be referred to the people's referendum by the legislature, or initiated by the people for a referendal decision, but the legislature is barred from amending the law. The great legitimacy of the people affirming the standing law immediately quieted a threatening social conflict. With the "Statute Affirmation", preserving the standing abortion law was easily done. Without it, preservation of that law would have been extremely difficult, at best. To read about the five uses of this component by Nevada citizens since 1905, see Robert Erickson, "Questions on the Ballot", Nevada State Library & Archives, at http://dmla.clan.lib.nv.us/docs/nsla/archives/political/question.htm. Scroll down to the section, "Referendum on Existing State Law".
For a second online reference chart to confirm I&R information here -- excepting information on the unique and very powerful "referendum on an existing state law", also known as "statute affirmation" -- see the I&R Institute page, "Statewide I&R", at http://www.iandrinstitute.org/statewide_i&r.htm. Scroll down to the chart at the bottom of the page.
For a second online resource to confirm recall information given here, see the National Conference of State Legislatures page, "Recall Of State Officials", at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/recallprovision.htm.
There are eight basic direct democracy components practiced in various US states. They are a direct legacy from the ancient Roman Republic, by way of the extraordinary founding principles proclaimed by our greatest living document, the Declaration Of Independence. All of the DD components can be derived from the founding principles that generations of Americans have lived and died for since 1776 -- since before the elitist Constitution buried them almost beyond reach. Throughout the early 1900s, all of these DD components -- in their being combined with a state's representative government -- were lawfully ruled by several state Supreme Courts, and by the US Supreme Court, to be "republican forms of government" intrinsic to the Constitution.
All of the DD components are decided by state-wide referendums. However, constitutional provisions and administrative laws for each component vary widely among states. The eight direct democracy components are --
E
|
Election Of Representatives
|
LSR
LCAR
|
Legislature's Statute Referral
Legislature's Constitutional Amendment Referral
|
R
SI
SR
SA
CAI
|
Recall
Statute Initiative (to formulate citizen law)
Statute Referendum (veto -- should be "Statute Remand")
Statute Affirmation (to bar govt from amending a good law)
Constitutional Amendment Initiative (the most powerful)
|
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
|
E
E
E
|
LSR
|
LCAR
LCAR
LCAR
|
R
R
|
SI
SI
|
SR
SR
|
|
CAI
|
Arkansas
California
Colorado
|
E
E
E
|
LSR
LSR
|
LCAR
LCAR
LCAR
|
R
R
|
SI
SI
SI
|
SR
SR
SR
|
|
CAI
CAI
CAI
|
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
|
E
E
E
|
LSR
|
LCAR
**
LCAR
|
|
|
|
|
CAI
|
|
** Note that Delaware is the only state in which the people do not have the right and power to vote on constitutional amendments. Only the Delaware legislature has that right and power. Delaware citizens are locked out of their own constitution and their fundamental rights in governance.
|
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
|
E
E
E
|
LSR
|
LCAR
LCAR
LCAR
|
R
R
|
SI
|
SR
|
|
|
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
|
E
E
E
|
LSR
|
LCAR
LCAR
LCAR
|
|
|
|
|
** CAI
|
|
** Note that Illinois has a CAI limited to rules for, and structure of, their legislature. Their CAI cannot be used to set any other policy. DDL does not count Illinois as one of the active I&R states because of this extreme limitation. Active I&R states are the 23 having both statute initiative and statute referendum and/or the unrestricted constitutional amendment initiative, which is powerful enough to do the work of both the statute initiative and the statute referendum (statue remand).
|
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
|
E
E
E
|
LSR
|
LCAR
LCAR
LCAR
|
R
R
|
|
SR
|
|
|
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
|
E
E
E
|
LSR
LSR
LSR
|
LCAR
LCAR
LCAR
|
|
SI
SI
|
SR
SR
SR
|
|
CAI
|
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
|
E
E
E
|
LSR
|
LCAR
LCAR
LCAR
|
R
R
|
SI
|
SR
|
|
CAI
CAI
|
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
|
E
E
E
|
LSR
LSR
LSR
|
LCAR
LCAR
LCAR
|
R
|
SI
SI
SI
|
SR
SR
SR
|
|
CAI
CAI
CAI
|
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
|
E
E
E
|
LSR
|
LCAR
LCAR
LCAR
|
R
R
|
SI
|
SR
|
SA
|
CAI
|
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
|
E
E
E
|
LSR
|
LCAR
LCAR
LCAR
|
|
|
SR
|
|
|
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
|
E
E
E
|
LSR
LSR
LSR
|
CALR
CALR
CALR
|
R
|
SI
SI
SI
|
SR
SR
SR
|
|
CAI
CAI
CAI
|
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
|
E
E
E
|
LSR
|
LCAR
LCAR
LCAR
|
R
R
|
SI
|
SR
|
|
CAI
|
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennesee
|
E
E
E
|
LSR
|
LCAR
LCAR
LCAR
|
|
SI
|
SR
|
|
CAI
|
Texas
Utah
Vermont
|
E
E
E
|
LSR
|
LCAR
LCAR
LCAR
|
|
SI
|
SR
|
|
|
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
|
E
E
E
|
LSR
|
LCAR
LCAR
LCAR
|
R
|
SI
|
SR
|
|
|
Wisconsin
Wyoming
|
E
E
|
|
LCAR
LCAR
|
R
|
SI
|
SR
|
|
|
Common