When Both Sides Fear the People: The Red & Blue Attacks on Direct Democracy

Both conservative and progressive states have worked to undermine direct democracy when it has suited their purposes. It breeds cynicism with the electorate who jealously protect their power.

For more than a century, direct democracy has served as a pressure valve in American politics — a way for citizens to act when elected officials refuse to. From California’s Progressive Era reforms to modern-day citizen petitions in Arizona, Maine, and Ohio, the ballot measure process has been one of the few remaining tools for voters to shape their own government directly.

Yet over the past two decades, politicians in both red and blue states have quietly — and often systematically — worked to weaken this tool. Their motives differ, but the outcome is the same: citizens face growing obstacles when they try to put an issue before their fellow voters.

At HexaCom Group, having managed more than 200 ballot measure campaigns across the country and in almost 30 states (with a nearly 90% win rate), we’ve seen this erosion firsthand — from conservative legislatures tightening initiative rules after progressive policy wins, to liberal elected officials reshaping election laws to blunt conservative proposals.

The trend is bipartisan. The consequences are not.

Red States Tighten the Rules After Progressive Wins

In many Republican-controlled states, lawmakers have moved aggressively to make it harder for voters to pass measures that legislators oppose.

Research shows that since 2010, more than a dozen red states have increased signature requirements, shortened collection periods, or added geographic distribution mandates that make grassroots organizing vastly more expensive and complex.

Ohio’s 2023 attempt to require a 60% supermajority for constitutional amendments was perhaps the most visible example, but it was hardly unique. South Dakota has passed at least eleven restrictive laws in the past decade. Arkansas and Idaho tried to require signatures from every congressional district — an almost impossible standard later struck down by courts. Florida tightened its circulator rules and already demands a 60% vote for passage. Montana added a steep $3,700 filing fee, and Missouri has repeatedly proposed raising its own threshold to 57%.

The stated rationale is often “protecting the state constitution from special interests.” But behind the rhetoric lies a political calculus: preventing progressive policies as they were winning at the ballot box.

And let’s be clear here on two things:

1. HexaCom Group and its leadership have a decidedly right-of-center perspective on most issues, but we are compelled to be fair in our analysis here. These efforts to change the rules are often after the fact and when the conservative position has failed to win the day with voters.

2. There are plenty of good reasons to consider super-majorities for votes on constitutional amendments (as opposed to initiative statutory measures), if you believe as we do that state and federal constitutions should operate at the principle level and not just be a hodgepodge of simple laws stapled to the constitution. But the circumstances behind these latest moves appear not to be motivated by these ideals.

Blue States Change the Rules to Protect Their Own Policy Agenda

Democratic-controlled states have been no less willing to manipulate direct democracy when it suits their political objectives. Their methods are subtler but no less consequential.

California offers a textbook case. Beginning in 2011, lawmakers moved all citizen initiatives to November general elections — a change framed as increasing turnout but in reality, was enacted at a time that conservative measures has won election on lower turnout, primary elections that were the norm of that day. We’re somewhat surprised now that Democrats in California haven’t switched this back, as the dynamic has reversed in the face of shifting right/left coalitions in which progressives are now favored in low turnout elections.

Perhaps most concerning, California’s Attorneys General — exclusively Democratic since 2000 — have been accused of drafting increasingly biased ballot titles and summaries that subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) favor one side. These summaries, which appear on every voter’s ballot, often tilt perception before voters even reach the campaign messaging.

California has also seen efforts to lower the vote threshold for progressive causes while increasing the vote threshold for conservative proposals. Further up the left coast, Washington State eliminated long-standing advisory votes that once gave voters a voice on tax increases. These changes reflect the same instinct seen in red states — control the process to prevent outcomes the ruling party dislikes.

The Same Playbook, Different Colors

Whether it’s red states raising thresholds or blue states rewriting ballot titles, the pattern is clear: those in power act to preserve their dominance.

In conservative states, restrictions tend to follow progressive victories. In liberal states, they often follow conservative challenges. Both are responses to political discomfort — when voters threaten to upend policies favored by the majority party.

The tactics share common DNA:

• Higher hurdles — Increasing signature or vote thresholds.

• Narrower windows — Shortening timeframes for petition collection.

• Geographic traps — Requiring signatures from many districts to dilute urban strength.

• Administrative control — Giving partisan officials greater authority over titles, summaries, or certification.

Each measure chips away at the principle that the people, not the politicians, should have the final say.

Why It Matters — and What Comes Next

Direct democracy has never been perfect. Some reforms, like transparency requirements or fraud prevention measures, have legitimate aims. But taken together, the wave of restrictions since 2010 marks the most significant retreat from citizen lawmaking since the initiative process began more than a century ago.

When politicians rewrite the rules to protect themselves from the electorate, they erode not only trust but the very mechanism that allows citizens to correct excesses of government.

The danger isn’t confined to one ideology. It’s a bipartisan reflex — and one that should concern everyone who values self-government.

The HexaCom Perspective

At HexaCom Group, we approach ballot measure campaigns from a position of respect for the process itself. Across more than 200 campaigns in nearly 30 states, we’ve worked for clients that have fought for voter approval of their supported position with respect for the electorate rather than seeking to change the rules. We’ve seen how vibrant, transparent initiative systems empower voters to decide real policy questions on their merits.

We believe the solution lies not in limiting participation but in strengthening confidence — through fair rules, neutral ballot language, and processes that encourage debate rather than suppress it.

When citizens are trusted to govern directly, democracy doesn’t weaken — it deepens. The erosion of that trust, from either side, is the real threat.

Conclusion: Restoring Trust in the People

The initiative and referendum were born out of frustration with unresponsive government. A century later, that frustration has returned — and so has the temptation among those in power to control what the people may decide.

If both parties continue to view direct democracy as a threat rather than a responsibility, the casualties will not be partisan wins or losses. They will be the public’s faith in its own capacity to lead.

For professionals in public affairs and policy, understanding this bipartisan dynamic is essential. The coming decade will likely determine whether direct democracy remains a living institution — or fades into a relic of a more participatory past.

At HexaCom Group, we’ll continue doing what we’ve done for over thirty years: helping clients navigate this evolving landscape while standing for the fundamental idea that the people themselves deserve a voice.