Ballot measure readability scores, 2019

2019 U.S. state ballot measures
2020 » « 2018
Overview
Tuesday Count
Scorecard
Deadlines
Requirements
Lawsuits
Readability
Voter guides
Election results
Year-end analysis
Campaigns
Polls
Media editorials
Filed initiatives
Finances
Contributions
Signature costs
Ballot Measure Monthly
Signature requirements
Have you subscribed yet? Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew. Click here to learn more.

This page provides an overview of the readability scores of the ballot titles and summaries of ballot measures certified to go before voters in 2019.

A readability score is an estimation of the reading difficulty of a text. Measurements used in calculating readability scores include the number of syllables, words, and sentences in a text. Other factors, such as the complexity of an idea in a text, are not reflected in readability scores.

In 2019, 28 statewide ballot measures were certified for ballots in eight states. Voters in states with ballot measures read questions on their ballots asking them whether to approve or reject a measure. As the text of ballot measures is often multiple pages of statute or constitutional law, someone is tasked in each state with writing a shorter title and summary to appear on the ballot for the measures.

Readability index details

Ballotpedia uses two formulas, the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), to compute scores for the titles and summaries of ballot measures. The FRE formula produces a score between a negative number and 100, with the highest score (100) representing a 5th-grade equivalent reading level and scores at or below zero representing college graduate-equivalent reading level. Therefore, the higher the score, the easier the text is to read. The FKGL formula produces a score equivalent to the estimated number of years of U.S. education required to understand a text. A score of five estimates that a U.S. 5th grade student would be able to read and comprehend a text, while a score of 20 estimates that a person with 20 years of U.S. formal education would be able to read and comprehend a text. Ballotpedia uses Readable.io to calculate the scores.

Learn more about these formulas in the formulas section below.

Overview

2019 highlights

HIGHLIGHTS

The average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Levels score for 2019 ballot measure titles was 15 years of formal U.S. education. The range was between 6 and 27. The average FRE score for 2019 ballot measure titles was 26. The range was between -22 and 69.

The average FKGL for the ballot summaries or explanations of all the 2019 statewide ballot measures that were given a summary or explanation was 15 years of formal U.S. education. The average FRE score for ballot measure summaries was 25.

The states with the lowest average FKGL scores for ballot titles or questions were Washington, Pennsylvania, and Maine with 9, 10, and 17, respectively.

The states with the highest average FKGL scores for ballot titles or questions were Colorado, Kansas, and Texas with 27, 23, and 20.

Average ballot title grades were lowest for language written by the Washington Attorney General (9) and initiative petitioners (10).

Average ballot title grades were highest for language written by state legislatures (20).

The states with the longest ballot titles or questions on average were Kansas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Colorado; all of these except New Jersey did not feature additional ballot summaries or explanations.

The states with the shortest ballot titles or questions on average were Texas, Maine, Louisiana, and Washington.

Compared to the last odd-year election, the average FKGL for ballot titles for 2019 was lower than 2017, which averaged a FKGL score of 20 years of formal education for 27 statewide ballot measures. The range of scores for 2017 was also wider, ranging from 7 to 42.

Analysis by state

Title and summary grades

Readability averages by state
State	Average title grade	Average # of words	Average summary grade	Average # of words	Number of measures
Colorado	27	59	N/A	N/A	2
Kansas	23	108	N/A	N/A	1
Louisiana	19	41	N/A	N/A	4
Maine	17	30	N/A	N/A	2
New Jersey	17	70	13	171	1
Pennsylvania	10	73	N/A	N/A	1
Texas	20	28	N/A	N/A	10
Washington	9	40	15	82	15

Title and summary ease rating

Expand the table for Flesch Reading Ease averages by state by clicking [show] below.

Readability averages by state
State	Average title ease	Average # of words	Average summary ease	Average # of words	Number of measures
Colorado	10	59	N/A	N/A	2
Kansas	-6	108	N/A	N/A	1
Louisiana	15	41	N/A	N/A	4
Maine	30	30	N/A	N/A	2
New Jersey	18	70	34	171	1
Pennsylvania	43	73	N/A	N/A	1
Texas	3	28	N/A	N/A	10
Washington	48	40	N/A	N/A	15

Analysis by the author of ballot language

The person or office responsible for drafting the ballot language for statewide ballot measures varies by state. In some states, the ballot language for different types of measures is drafted by different persons or offices. Moreover, some states require collaboration. For example, the secretary of state might draft the language, but it requires approval by the attorney general.

Readability averages by state
Author type	Average title grade	Min-max range	Number of measures	Number of states
State legislature	20	12-31	20	6
Attorney general	9	6-15	15	2
Initiative petitioners	10	N/A	1	1

Historical readability scores

2018 ballot measures

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

In 2018, the average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for the ballot titles or questions of all statewide ballot measures was between 19 and 20. The FKGL scores of the 167 statewide ballot measures ranged from eight to 42 years of formal U.S. education.

Average ballot title grades were lowest for language written by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission (10), initiative petitioners (15), and attorneys general (16).

2017 ballot measures

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2017

The average FKGL score for 2017 ballot measure titles was 20 years of formal U.S. education. The average FRE score for 2017 ballot measure titles was 21. Both of these indices state that a graduate school-level education was required to read and comprehend the average ballot measure title in 2017.

The FKGL scores of the 27 statewide ballot measure titles ranged from 7 to 42 years of formal U.S. education.

Ballot language readability analsyes Ballot measure readability scores, 2025 Ballot measure readability scores, 2024 Ballot measure readability scores, 2023 Ballot measure readability scores, 2022 Ballot measure readability scores, 2021 Ballot measure readability scores, 2020 Ballot measure readability scores, 2019 Ballot measure readability scores, 2018 Ballot measure readability scores, 2017

Reilly and Richey (2011)

Political scientists Shauna Reilly and Sean Richey conducted a study of 1,211 statewide ballot measures from 1997 to 2007 and concluded that more voters skipped voting on ballot measures when the titles and summaries were harder to read. To conduct the analysis, Reilly and Richey found the readability scores of the measures using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formula. They found that:

• Oklahoma measures had the lowest average readability score at grade level 9.
• New Mexico measures had the highest average readability score at grade level 28.
• Colorado had both the highest score and lowest score for individual measures, with one at grade level 5 and one at grade level 95. Colorado had the second-highest level of variation in readability scores between measures.
• Only four states—Oklahoma, Connecticut, North Carolina, and South Dakota—had average readability scores equivalent to a high school grade level (9-12) in the U.S. All other states measured had scores above a high school grade level.

2019 readability scores

Ballot Measure:	Title grade:	Title ease:	Title word count:	Summary grade:	Summary ease:	Summary word count:	Author:
Washington Advisory Vote 28, Nonbinding Question on Limiting Sales Tax Exemptions for Nonresidents	8	56	39	N/A	N/A	N/A	Washington Attorney General
Washington Advisory Vote 23, Nonbinding Question on E-Cigarette and Vapor Product Tax	8	58	39	N/A	N/A	N/A	Washington Attorney General
Washington Advisory Vote 24, Nonbinding Question on Business Activities Tax to Fund Higher Education Programs	9	47	39	N/A	N/A	N/A	Washington Attorney General
Washington Advisory Vote 25, Nonbinding Question Concerning a Tax on Certain Financial Institutions	9	45	36	N/A	N/A	N/A	Washington Attorney General
Washington Advisory Vote 20, Nonbinding Question on Tax to Fund Long-Term Healthcare Services	8	53	37	N/A	N/A	N/A	Washington Attorney General
Washington Advisory Vote 27, Nonbinding Question on Petroleum Product Tax	6	62	29	N/A	N/A	N/A	Washington Attorney General
Washington Advisory Vote 26, Nonbinding Question on Online Retail Sales Tax	8	54	39	N/A	N/A	N/A	Washington Attorney General
Washington Advisory Vote 31, Nonbinding Question on an International Investment Management Services Tax Increase	9	45	36	N/A	N/A	N/A	Washington Attorney General
Washington Advisory Vote 22, Nonbinding Question on Paint Tax to Fund Paint Waste Management Programs	7	62	39	N/A	N/A	N/A	Washington Attorney General
Washington Advisory Vote 29, Nonbinding Question Concerning an Excise Tax on Real Property	6	69	36	N/A	N/A	N/A	Washington Attorney General
Maine Transportation Infrastructure Bond Issue	16	40	34	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Washington Initiative 976, Limits on Motor Vehicle Taxes and Fees Measure	10	42	51	12	44	72	Washington Attorney General
Maine Allow for Alternative Initiative Signatures for Persons with Disabilities Amendment	17	19	25	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Texas Proposition 4: Prohibit State Income Tax on Individuals Amendment	22	-22	24	N/A	N/A	N/A	Texas State Legislature
Texas Proposition 9: Precious Metals in Depositories Exempt from Property Tax Amendment	19	3	24	N/A	N/A	N/A	Texas State Legislature
New Jersey Veterans’ Property Tax Deduction for Veterans Extended to Continuing Care Retirement Communities Amendment	17	18	70	13	34	171	state legislature
Texas Proposition 8: Flood Infrastructure Fund Amendment	16	26	25	N/A	N/A	N/A	Texas State Legislature
Texas Proposition 2: Water Development Board Bonds Amendment	24	-11	39	N/A	N/A	N/A	Texas State Legislature
Louisiana Amendment 4, New Orleans Affordable Housing Property Tax Exemption	18	33	38	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Washington Government Continuation Legislation for Catastrophic Incidents Amendment	15	9	50	17	11	99	Washington Attorney General
Louisiana Amendment 1, Property Tax Exemption for Stored Materials Routed for Outer Continental Shelf	19	14	33	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Texas Proposition 6: Cancer Prevention and Research Institute Bonds Amendment	19	3	24	N/A	N/A	N/A	Texas State Legislature
Pennsylvania Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment	10	43	73	N/A	N/A	N/A	secretary of state and attorney general
Texas Proposition 3: Temporary Property Tax Exemption for Disaster Areas Amendment	20.5	1.5	30	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Texas Proposition 5: Sales Tax on Sporting Goods Dedicated to Parks, Wildlife, and Historical Agencies Amendment	31	-10	66	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Colorado Proposition DD, Legalize Sports Betting with Tax Revenue for Water Projects Measure	26	11	58	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Colorado Proposition CC, Retain Revenue for Transportation and Education TABOR Measure	27	8	59	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Washington Referendum 88, Vote on I-1000 Affirmative Action Measure	15	15	60	17	9	74	Washington Attorney General

Formulas

The Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formulas use the same variables and are inversely correlated, meaning that as one increases the other decreases.

Flesch Reading Ease

In the 1940s, Rudolf Flesch developed the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) test. The U.S. Department of Defense uses the FRE to help craft its documents and manuals. The FRE computes a score based on the number of syllables, the number of words, and the number of sentences in a text. The FRE formula is as follows:

The FRE formula was designed to produce a score between 0 and 100, with the highest score (100) representing a 5th-grade equivalent reading level and the lowest score (0) representing college graduate-equivalent reading level. However, a score can be negative, representing increased difficulty. Therefore, the higher the score, the easier the text is to read. Rudolf Flesch created the following guide to interpreting FRE scores:

Score	School level
90 to 100	5th grade
80 to 90	6th grade
70 to 80	7th grade
60 to 70	8th and 9th grade
50 to 60	10th to 12th grade
30 to 50	College
0 to 30	College graduate

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level

In 1975, J. Peter Kincaid recalculated FRE to give a score in the form of a U.S. school grade level for use by the U.S. Navy. This new formula became known as the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) test. Like FRE, the FKGL computes a score based on the number of syllables, the number of words, and the number of sentences in a text. The FKGL formula is as follows:

The FKGL produces a score equivalent to the estimated number of years of education required to understand a text. A score of 9 estimates that a U.S. 9th grade student would be able to read and comprehend a text, while a score of 18 estimates that a person with 18 years of U.S. formal education would be able to read and comprehend a text.

Limitations

As the FRE and FKGL, along with other readability tests, do not measure the difficulty or complexity of the ideas expressed in ballot measure titles and summaries, they may underestimate or overestimate the ability of voters to comprehend a text. Political scientist Shauna Reilly, who utilizes readability indices in her research, noted their limitations, stating:

“

There are limitations to the value of these measurements. No mathematical formula can tell us how complex the ideas of the passage are nor whether the content is in a logical order. Further, these mathematical equations exist in a vacuum and cannot explain the context of the passage.

”

Prior research

Ballot Question Readability and Roll-off: The Impact of Language Complexity

In 2011, political scientists Shauna Reilly and Sean Richey published an article in Political Research Quarterly on research they conducted to answer the question of whether the difficulty or complexity of ballot measure language correlated with voters skipping voting on a ballot measure. The authors referred to voters casting ballots but skipping a ballot measure as voter roll-off. To measure the difficulty or complexity of ballot measure language, Reilly and Richey calculated Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores for 1,211 statewide ballot measures from 1997 to 2007. Reilly and Richey concluded that lower readability scores correlated with higher rates of voter roll-off. In their model accounting for state and year variations, Reilly and Richey only found one variable with a stronger influence on voter roll-off than readability—whether or not a ballot measure was on a primary election ballot compared to a special election ballot.

Reilly and Richey calculated the mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score for each state, except Arkansas, Illinois, and West Virginia, with at least one ballot measure during the 10-year period from 1997 to 2007. The state with the highest mean score was New Mexico, which had a mean FKGL score of 28 years of education. The state with the lowest mean score was Oklahoma, which had a mean FKGL score of nine years of education. The following table is from Reilly and Richey's research and contains the number of ballot measures analyzed in each state, the mean, minimum, and maximum readability score of measures in each state, and the standard deviation of the readability scores for measures in each state:

State	Measures	Mean	Mean U.S. equivalent	Standard deviation	Minimum	Maximum
Oklahoma	38	9	High school	1.1	7	12
Connecticut	1	11	High school	0	11	11
North Carolina	1	11	High school	0	11	11
South Dakota	36	12	High school	2.1	7	17
Alaska	30	13	Associate's degree	5.3	8	30
California	105	13	Associate's degree	1.8	9	18
North Dakota	13	13	Associate's degree	2.8	9	18
Idaho	16	14	Associate's degree	2.3	12	20
Iowa	5	14	Associate's degree	4	11	21
Massachusetts	18	14	Associate's degree	2.1	10	19
Michigan	18	14	Associate's degree	3.1	9	21
Mississippi	3	14	Associate's degree	5	8	18
Oregon	94	14	Associate's degree	1.7	11	18
Rhode Island	35	14	Associate's degree	6.1	6	33
Washington	57	15	Bachelor's degree	2.8	10	22
Montana	29	16	Bachelor's degree	7.4	11	52
New Hampshire	8	16	Bachelor's degree	5	10	27
Utah	6	16	Bachelor's degree	5.3	10	24
Arizona	70	17	Master's degree	3.1	11	26
Florida	40	17	Master's degree	5	8	38
Indiana	6	17	Master's degree	3.5	13	23
Louisiana	61	17	Master's degree	6.8	8	44
Ohio	19	17	Master's degree	4.9	9	30
Tennessee	6	17	Master's degree	5.8	10	25
Vermont	1	17	Master's degree	0	17	17
Alabama	32	18	Master's degree	6.4	12	35
Kansas	4	18	Master's degree	1.7	16	20
Maine	66	18	Master's degree	6.6	8	37
Nebraska	37	18	Master's degree	3.4	11	25
Wyoming	12	18	Master's degree	12	12	25
Missouri	27	19	Ph.D.	8.2	8	44
Nevada	36	19	Ph.D.	6.4	11	42
New York	8	19	Ph.D.	8.3	8	35
Maryland	11	20	Ph.D.	4.1	13	26
Texas	84	20	Ph.D.	12	12	45
Wisconsin	3	20	Ph.D.	16.6	17	23
Georgia	33	22	Ph.D.	10.4	10	57
Hawaii	10	22	Ph.D.	10.9	10	44
Kentucky	7	22	Ph.D.	6.1	14	30
Virginia	3	22	Ph.D.	3.2	19	25
New Jersey	20	23	Ph.D.	6.6	13	34
Pennsylvania	6	24	Ph.D.	5.4	17	33
South Carolina	19	25	N/A	10.8	16	63
Minnesota	1	26	N/A	0	26	26
Colorado	62	27	N/A	15.2	5	95
New Mexico	14	28	N/A	9.3	12	39
Arkansas	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Illinois	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
West Virginia	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

See also

• 2019 ballot measures
• Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
• Ballot measure readability scores, 2017
• Ballot title

External links

• Readable.io

Additional reading

• Reilly, Shauna, and Sean Richey. "Ballot Question Readability and Roll-off: The Impact of Language Complexity." Political Research Quarterly 64, 1. (2011): 59-67.