Residency requirements for ballot initiative signature gatherers

Laws governing ballot measures
State
• Laws governing state initiative processes
• Laws governing state recall processes
• Changes to ballot measure law in 2025
• Difficulty analysis of changes to laws governing ballot measures
• Analysis of 2024 changes to laws governing ballot measures
Local
• Laws governing local ballot measures
Learn about Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker.
2026 » « 2024

A residency requirement is a law that requires signature gatherers for a ballot initiative petition to be residents of the jurisdiction, such as the state, where the initiative would change the law.

Of the 26 states that provide for statewide citizen-initiated ballot measures, seven states have residency requirements for signature gatherers.

HIGHLIGHTS

Seven of the 26 states with an initiative or veto referendum process have residency requirements for initiative signature gatherers.

Adopted in 2021: Arkansas was the most recent state to adopt a residency requirement for initiative circulators with the passage of Senate Bill 614 in 2021.

States with residency requirements

As of September 2023, out of 26 with statewide initiative or veto referendum processes, seven states had residency requirements for ballot initiative and veto referendum petition circulators: Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah. The map below illustrates which states have residency requirements for ballot initiative and veto referendum petition circulators:

State residency requirement laws

The following table outlines the laws providing for petition circulator residency requirements in the seven states with such requirements:

State	Initiative/referendum process	Residency requirement
Arkansas	Residency requirement	Arkansas Code § 7-9-103(a) (5) A person shall not act as a canvasser unless he or she is citizen of the United States. (6) A person shall not act as a canvasser unless he or she is a resident of this state.
Utah	Residency requirement	20A-7-105. Manual petition processes -- Obtaining signatures -- Verification -- Submitting the petition -- Certification of signatures -- Transfer to lieutenant governor -- Removal of signature. (2) (a) The sponsors shall ensure that the person in whose presence each signature sheet was signed: (i) is at least 18 years old and meets the residency requirements of Section 20A-2-105; and (ii) verifies each signature sheet by completing the verification printed on the last page of each initiative packet.
Ohio	Residency requirement	Registration as elector - circulation or signing of petition. (C)(1)(a) Except for a nominating petition for presidential electors, no person shall be entitled to circulate any petition unless the person is a resident of this state and is at least eighteen years of age.
North Dakota	Residency requirement	North Dakota Constitution, Article III, Section 3. The petition shall be circulated only by electors.
Alaska	Residency requirement	Sec. 15.45.105. Qualifications of circulator. To circulate a petition booklet, a person shall be (1) a citizen of the United States; (2) 18 years of age or older; and (3) a resident of the state as determined under AS 15.05.020.
Montana	Residency requirement	Who may petition and gather signatures. A person gathering signatures for the initiative, the referendum, or to call a constitutional convention: (a) must be a resident, as provided in 1-1-215, of the state of Montana; and (b) may not be paid anything of value based upon the number of signatures gathered.
Idaho	Residency requirement	34-1807. Circulation of Petitions Any person who circulates any petition for an initiative or referendum shall be a resident of the state of Idaho and at least eighteen (18) years of age.

Legislation

The following is a list of bills passed, beginning in 2016, related to signature distribution requirements for ballot measures.

2023

See also: Changes in 2023 to laws governing ballot measures

Maine

• Legislative Document 1477 (Question 7): The constitutional amendment required voter approval on November 7, 2023. LD 1477 was designed to repeal language requiring that petition circulators be residents of Maine. This amendment was designed to align the Maine Constitution with a decision by the First Court of Appeals in the We the People PAC et al. v. Bellows decision, which affirmed a decision by a U.S. District Court that requiring a circulator for an initiative petition in Maine to be a Maine resident is a violation of the First Amendment.

2021

See also: Changes in 2021 to laws governing ballot measures

Arkansas

• Senate Bill 614: The legislation enacted several changes to signature gathering requirements. SB 614 banned paying circulators based on the number of signatures gathered and required circulators to be state residents and citizens. The legislation also expanded the criteria for disqualifying individuals from serving as signature gatherers to include certain criminal offenses, such as sexual offenses, trespassing, vandalism, and theft.

2020

See also: Changes in 2020 to laws governing ballot measures

South Dakota

• Senate Bill 180: The legislation required paid circulators to provide their residential address, phone number, driver's license state, voter registration information, sex offender status, and other information, and SB 180 classified this information as public record. Under SB 180, signatures were considered void when a signature gatherer did not meet the registration requirements. SB 180 also required signature gatherers — paid or volunteer — to be residents of South Dakota for at least 30 days.

• In 2023, the U.S. District Court for South Dakota ruled that SB 180 was unconstitutional.
• In 2024, Senate Bill 182 was signed to conform state law to align with the court rulings overturning SB 180's requirements.

Lawsuits

The following is a selection of court rulings addressing residency requirements for petition circulators.

• Hendrix et al v. Howe et al Hendrix et al v. Howe et al (2023): Jared Hendrix, the sponsor of an initiative in North Dakota, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota with Virginia-based Liberty Initiative Fund and Accelevate 2020, LLC, a signature-gathering firm, naming North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe and Attorney General Drew Wrigley as defendants. Plaintiffs argue that the state law requiring signature gatherers to be North Dakota residents is discriminatory against ballot measures since political candidate campaigns can hire out-of-state workers.

• Dakotans for Health v. Noem (2023): In January 2023, the U.S. District Court for South Dakota ruled that SB 180 was unconstitutional. The legislation, passed in 2020, required paid circulators to provide their residential address, phone number, driver's license state, voter registration information, sex offender status, and other information, and SB 180 classified this information as public record. Under SB 180, signatures were considered void when a signature gatherer did not meet the registration requirements. SB 180 also required signature gatherers — paid or volunteer — to be residents of South Dakota for at least 30 days.

• Pierce et al. v. Jacobsen et al. (2022): On August 10, 2022, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Montana is allowed to ban paying circulators based on the number of signatures collected but cannot restrict circulators from out-of-state. Judge John Tunheim wrote, "[T]he residency requirement imposes an outright ban on a form of core political speech for all non-residents and necessarily diminishes the pool of (petition) circulators. We thus hold that the residency requirement here imposes a severe burden on the First Amendment rights of both out-of-state residents and instate proponents."

• We the People Pac v. Bellows (2022): On July 7, 2022, the First Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined the state from enforcing a law requiring petition circulators to be registered voters, and, therefore, state residents. "[T]he burden on core political speech that the residency- and voter-registration requirements each imposes arises from the drastic limitation on the pool of out-of-state circulators that each inherently imposes," wrote the Court.

• Yes on Term Limits v. Savage (2008): On December 18, 2008, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that Oklahoma's residency restriction was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment free speech rights.

• Bogaert v. Land (2008): In September 2008, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Michigan's residency requirements in recall petition drives.

• Nader v. Brewer (2008): On July 7, 2008, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Arizona's residency requirement. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear an appeal of the case.

• Preserve Shorecliff Homeowners v. City of San Clemente (2008): In 2008, the California Court of Appeals overturned a California requirement related to residency.

• Frami v Ponto (2003): In 2003, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin overturned Wisconsin's requirement that petition circulators be residents of the state.

• Chandler v. City of Arvada (2002): In 2002, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a residency requirement in Arvada, Colorado.

• Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999): In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Colorado's laws requiring initiative signature gatherers to be registered voters and wear identification tags with their names and addresses.

• Initiative & Referendum Institute v. Jaeger (1998): In 1998, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals upheld North Dakota's residency requirement. The Eighth Circuit upheld the original ruling, saying that, "As the state has a compelling interest in preventing fraud and the regulation does not unduly restrict speech, we conclude that the residency requirement is constitutional."

Arguments

The following is a list of claims and arguments about residency requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures.

Support

Below is a selection of claims and arguments that have been made in support of residency requirements for ballot initiatives.

Claim: Residency requirements maintain the integrity of states' initiative processes

• South Dakota Sen. Jim Stalzer (R-11), who sponsored a bill to create residency requirements in South Dakota, said, "I hope the law stands to maintain the integrity of the initiated measure process, as there have been out-of-state collector violations of the law in the past."

• Arkansas Sen. Breanne Davis (R-25) said, "We have a path that allows Arkansas citizens to get something on the ballot. That is supposed to be grassroots led, something that the citizens truly want but what we're finding is that people are coming in from out of state with out-of-state money and spending millions on advertising to promote something the citizens don't necessarily want. ... [Rather than banning out-of-state campaign donations], it seemed important to be specific with collecting signatures to actually change our state constitution. That's what I wanted to focus on."

Oppose

Below is a selection of claims and arguments that have been made opposing residency requirements for ballot initiatives.

Claim: Residency requirements restrict access and participation in the initiative process

• Celina Stewart, League of Women Voters of the US chief counsel and senior director of advocacy and litigation, said, "We applaud this outcome because it protects the right of individuals and organizations to engage in political speech. State governments must be accountable to their people, and when they enact laws which limit or otherwise restrict access and participation to the franchise, it undermines the ability to achieve an inclusive and representative democracy."

See also

• Changes in 2025 to laws governing ballot measures
• Changes in 2024 to laws governing ballot measures
• Laws governing ballot measures
• Laws governing ballot initiative signature gatherers
• History of restrictions on paid circulators