Table A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES BY METHOD OF INITIATION 2004 05 2006 07 and 2008 09 Number of states involved

							Table A
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES BY METHOD OF INITIATION: 2004-05, 2006-07, and 2008-09


                                               Number of states involved                                   Total proposals                                               Total adopted                  Percentage adopted
                                           2004-   2006-       2008-                           2004-       2006-      2008-                                2004-         2006-        2008-     2004-     2006-      2008-
          Method of initiation             2005    2007        2009                            2005         2007      2009                                 2005           2007         2009     2005       2007      2009

All methods                                  40         37        32                            166       200 (a)(d)   132 (e)                              112        158 (b)(d)      84 (e)   67.5     78.0 (c)    63.6
Legislative proposal                         38         36        31                            127       167 (a)(d)   98 (e)                               95         147 (b)(d)      68 (e)   74.8     86.8 (c)    69.4
Constitutional initiative                    13         12        10                             39          33          30                                 17            11            13      43.6       33.3      43.3
Constitutional convention                    ...        ...       ...                           ...          ...        ...                                 ...           ...           ...      ...        ...       ...
Constitutional commission                    ...        ...        1                            ...          ...          4                                 ...           ...            3       ...        ...       75


Source : John Dinan and The Council of State Governments.
Key :
(a) Excludes Delaware, where proposals are not submitted to voters
(b) Includes Delaware
(c) In calculating the percentages, the amendments adopted in Delaware (where proposals are not submitted to voters) are excluded (2 amendments were adopted in 2007).
(d) Excludes one Alabama amendment that was proposed by the legislature and appeared on the ballot but was determined by the Governor's office prior to the vote not to have
received enough votes in the legislature to properly appear on the ballot, and thus even though the amendment was approved by voters in November 2006 and the vote totals were certified
by the state canvassing board, the governor did not proclaim the results for the amendment and so it has not received an official amendment number.
(e) Excludes one New Mexico amendment approved by voters in November 2008 but declared invalid by the state supreme court on single-subject grounds in December 2008.




Source : John Dinan and The Council of State Governments.
Key :
(a) Excludes Delaware, where amendments do not require popular approval.
(b) Includes Delaware.
(c) In calculating the percentages, the amendments adopted in Delaware (where proposals are not submitted to voters) are excluded
(d) Excludes one New Mexico amendment approved in November 2008 but declared invalid by the state supreme court in December 2008.
(e) Includes amendments restricting the use of eminent domain, regardless of whether these protections were actually inserted in the bill of rights or in other articles.
(f) Excludes one Alabama amendment that was proposed by the legislature and appeared on the ballot but was determined by the Governor's office prior to the vote not to have
received enough votes in the legislature to properly appear on the ballot, and thus even though the amendment was approved by voters in November 2006 and the vote totals were certified
by the state canvassing board, the governor did not proclaim the results for the amendment and so it has not received an official amendment number.