In accordance with Article 2 TFEU, where uniform conditions for implementing such acts are needed, those acts confer implementing power on the Commission or, in specific cases, on the Council. The second stage of the reciprocity mechanism starts 24 months after the date of the publication of the notification by the Member State concerned, if the third country in question has maintained its visa requirement.
The delegated act shall determine a date, within 90 days of its entry into force, on which the suspension of the application of Annex II is to take effect That amendment shall be made [by] inserting next to the name of the third country in question a footnote indicating that the exemption from the visa requirement is suspended with regard to that third country and specifying the period of that suspension. The delegation of power is conferred for a period of five years from 9 January and is tacitly extended for periods of the same duration unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension.
It may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or the Council. By order of the President of the Court of 1 July , the Czech Republic was granted leave to intervene in support of the forms of order sought by the defendant institutions. In the alternative, if the Court should find that the abovementioned provisions are not severable from the remainder of the regulation, the Commission requests the Court to annul the contested regulation in its entirety and to maintain its effects, and to order the defendant institutions to pay the costs.
The Parliament requests the Court to dismiss the action and order the Commission to pay the costs. The Council requests the Court to dismiss the action in its entirety and order the Commission to pay the costs or, in the alternative, if the Court should decide to annul the contested regulation in its entirety or in part, to maintain the effects of the contested regulation or of the provisions annulled and of all acts adopted on the basis thereof until the entry into force, within a reasonable time, of a new act to replace them.
The Czech Republic requests the Court to dismiss the action and order the Commission to pay the costs or, in the alternative, if the action should be upheld, to maintain the effects of the annulled provisions of the contested regulation until such time as they are replaced by a new regulation. It observes that delegated acts and implementing acts each have a well-defined scope of application: the former must be used when it is necessary to supplement or amend non-essential elements of a legislative act, while the latter must be adopted when uniform conditions of implementation of legally binding Union acts are necessary.
The question which of the two types of act should be chosen is a purely legal question and the decision must be based, in the same way as any choice of legal basis, on objective factors amenable to judicial review. Before examining the individual arguments put forward by the Commission, or the counter-arguments raised by the defendant institutions, I believe it is necessary to address the questions which have been the subject of intense debate among the parties and relate to certain aspects of the separation between legislative delegation and the executive function brought about by the Lisbon Treaty, and thus touch upon the complex issue of the delimitation of the respective scopes of Articles TFEU and TFEU.
One of the questions most extensively debated by the parties, both in the course of the written procedure and at the hearing, concerns the degree of importance to be ascribed, when a dividing line is between delegated acts and implementing acts, to the breadth of the discretion conferred on the Commission.
For its part, the Council observes that the conferring of discretion on the Commission is not among the conditions for the delegation of regulatory powers established by Article TFEU. It is therefore not relevant to any decision choosing between delegated acts and implementing acts. Parliament, on the other hand, takes the view that it is a factor which the co-legislators should take into account when defining the type of powers conferred on the Commission in connection with actually giving effect to a legislative act, but that it comes into play only when the object of those powers is to supplement or further define the content of a legislative act, not when their purpose is the amendment of the legislative act.
In the latter case, whether or not the Commission enjoys any degree of discretion is irrelevant, inasmuch as recourse to delegated acts is obligatory. The delegation of regulatory powers necessarily implies — at least where the intention is to confer powers to supplement a basic act with additional rules or provisions — the transfer of a discretionary power from the legislature to the delegate.
Although Article TFEU does not expressly mention it, the power to adopt delegated acts of the kind that supplement a basic act is necessarily accompanied by the exercise of a certain discretion. It follows that, where there is no such discretion, the task which the Commission is called upon to perform does not lend itself, from the point of view of its substantive content, to being classified as a delegated regulatory function, but rather as an executive function.
That executive function is, generally speaking, characterised by a discretion narrower than that attaching to the delegated regulatory function, and it is therefore possible to identify as a criterion for distinguishing between delegated acts and implementing acts the breadth of discretion, greater or lesser , that is conferred on the Commission. Although that criterion is not in itself decisive, both for the reason that it must necessarily be combined with a functional criterion, that is to say, the relationship between the rules to be adopted and the normative content of the basic act, 12 and because the limits imposed by the basic act on the objectives, content and scope of the delegation of power may significantly restrict the margin of discretion left to the Commission, thus lessening any real difference between delegation by legislative act and the exercise of implementing powers, it is, nevertheless, an important factor to be taken into consideration when a task is ascribed to one or other of the categories prescribed by Article TFEU and TFEU.
Admittedly, the judgment in Biocides , in which the Court was for the first time called upon to define the respective scopes of Articles TFEU and TFEU, 14 does not expressly refer to the discretion conferred on the Commission as a factor by reference to which it is possible to distinguish between delegated acts and implementing acts. Whilst, in my view, the breadth of discretion, greater or lesser, that is conferred on the Commission cannot a priori be dismissed as a relevant criterion when distinguishing between delegated acts and implementing acts, the relevance of that aspect is more debatable where, as in the present case, the Commission is empowered to adopt acts amending the basic act.
Indeed, if it were to be established that, as asserted by the defendant institutions and the intervener, that power can arise only through delegation by legislative act, the question whether or not it entails a discretion is essentially irrelevant to the choice of an instrument under Article TFEU or under Article TFEU. Before that issue is examined, it is nevertheless necessary to address another matter that has been the subject of debate among the parties, that is to say, the latitude enjoyed by the legislature when deciding what type of power to confer on the Commission for the purposes of giving effect to a basic act.
In order to reflect the specificities of different types of works and other subject matter as regards modes of publication and distribution, and to facilitate the usability of those mechanisms, specific requirements and procedures might have to be established for the practical application of those licensing mechanisms, such as a requirement for a certain time period to have elapsed since the work or other subject matter was first commercially available.
It is appropriate that Member States consult rightholders, cultural heritage institutions and collective management organisations when establishing such requirements and procedures. When determining whether works or other subject matter are out of commerce, a reasonable effort should be required to assess their availability to the public in the customary channels of commerce, taking into account the characteristics of the particular work or other subject matter or of the particular set of works or other subject matter.
Member States should be free to determine the allocation of responsibilities for making that reasonable effort. The reasonable effort should not have to involve repeated action over time but it should nevertheless involve taking account of any easily accessible evidence of upcoming availability of works or other subject matter in the customary channels of commerce.
A work-by-work assessment should only be required where that is considered reasonable in view of the availability of relevant information, the likelihood of commercial availability and the expected transaction cost. Verification of availability of a work or other subject matter should normally take place in the Member State where the cultural heritage institution is established, unless verification across borders is considered reasonable, for example in cases where there is easily available information that a literary work was first published in a given language version in another Member State.
In many cases, the out-of-commerce status of a set of works or other subject matter could be determined through a proportionate mechanism, such as sampling. The limited availability of a work or other subject matter, such as its availability in second-hand shops, or the theoretical possibility that a licence for a work or other subject matter could be obtained should not be considered as availability to the public in the customary channels of commerce.
For reasons of international comity, the licensing mechanism and the exception or limitation provided for in this Directive for the digitisation and dissemination of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter should not apply to sets of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter where there is evidence available to presume that they predominantly consist of works or other subject matter of third countries, unless the collective management organisation concerned is sufficiently representative for that third country, for example via a representation agreement.
That assessment could be based on the evidence available following the making of the reasonable effort to determine whether the works or other subject matter are out of commerce, without the need to search for further evidence.
A work-by-work assessment of the origin of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter should only be required insofar as it is also required for making the reasonable effort to determine whether they are commercially available. Contracting cultural heritage institutions and collective management organisations should remain free to agree on the territorial scope of licences, including the option of covering all Member States, the licence fee and the uses allowed.
Uses covered by such licences should not be for profit-making purposes, including where copies are distributed by the cultural heritage institution, such as in the case of promotional material about an exhibition.
At the same time, given that the digitisation of the collections of cultural heritage institutions can entail significant investments, any licences granted under the mechanism provided for in this Directive should not prevent cultural heritage institutions from covering the costs of the licence and the costs of digitising and disseminating the works or other subject matter covered by the licence.
Information regarding the ongoing and future use of out-of-commerce works and other subject matter by cultural heritage institutions on the basis of this Directive and the arrangements in place for all rightholders to exclude the application of licences or of the exception or limitation to their works or other subject matter should be adequately publicised both before and during the use under a licence or under the exception or limitation, as appropriate.
Such publicising is particularly important when uses take place across borders in the internal market. It is therefore appropriate to provide for the creation of a single publicly accessible online portal for the Union in order to make such information available to the public for a reasonable period of time before the use takes place. Such portal should make it easier for rightholders to exclude the application of licences or of the exception or limitation to their works or other subject matter.
It is therefore appropriate to rely on that Office to establish and manage the portal making such information available. In addition to making the information available through the portal, further appropriate publicity measures might need to be taken on a case-by-case basis in order to increase the awareness in that regard of the rightholders concerned, for example through the use of additional channels of communication to reach a wider public.
The necessity, the nature and the geographic scope of the additional publicity measures should depend on the characteristics of the relevant out-of-commerce works or other subject matter, the terms of the licences or the type of use under the exception or limitation, and the existing practices in Member States. Publicity measures should be effective without the need to inform each rightholder individually. In order to ensure that the licensing mechanisms established by this Directive for out-of-commerce works or other subject matter are relevant and function properly, that rightholders are adequately protected, that licences are properly publicised and that legal certainty is provided with regard to the representativeness of collective management organisations and the categorisation of works, Member States should foster sector-specific stakeholder dialogue.
The measures provided for in this Directive to facilitate the collective licensing of rights in out-of-commerce works or other subject matter that are permanently in the collections of cultural heritage institutions should be without prejudice to the use of such works or other subject matter under exceptions or limitations provided for in Union law, or under other licences with an extended effect, where such licensing is not based on the out-of-commerce status of the covered works or other subject matter.
Those measures should also be without prejudice to national mechanisms for the use of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter based on licences between collective management organisations and users other than cultural heritage institutions. Mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect allow a collective management organisation to offer licences as a collective licensing body on behalf of rightholders, irrespective of whether they have authorised the organisation to do so.
Systems built on mechanisms such as extended collective licensing, legal mandates or presumptions of representation, are a well-established practice in several Member States and can be used in different areas. A functioning copyright framework that works for all parties requires the availability of proportionate, legal mechanisms for the licensing of works or other subject matter. Given the nature of some uses, together with the usually large amount of works or other subject matter involved, the transaction cost of individual rights clearance with every rightholder concerned is prohibitively high.
As a result, it is unlikely that, without effective collective licensing mechanisms, all the transactions in the areas concerned that are required to enable the use of such works or other subject matter would take place. Extended collective licensing by collective management organisations and similar mechanisms can make it possible to conclude agreements in those areas where collective licensing based on an authorisation by rightholders does not provide an exhaustive solution for covering all works or other subject matter to be used.
Such mechanisms complement collective management of rights based on individual authorisation by rightholders, by providing full legal certainty to users in certain cases. At the same time, they provide an opportunity to rightholders to benefit from the legitimate use of their works. Given the increasing importance of the ability to offer flexible licensing schemes in the digital age, and the increasing use of such schemes, Member States should be able to provide for licensing mechanisms which permit collective management organisations to conclude licences, on a voluntary basis, irrespective of whether all rightholders have authorised the organisation concerned to do so.
Member States should have the ability to maintain and introduce such mechanisms in accordance with their national traditions, practices or circumstances, subject to the safeguards provided for in this Directive and in compliance with Union law and the international obligations of the Union.
Such mechanisms should only have effect in the territory of the Member State concerned, unless otherwise provided for in Union law. Such mechanisms could include extended collective licensing, legal mandates and presumptions of representation. It is important that mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect are only applied in well-defined areas of use, in which obtaining authorisation from rightholders on an individual basis is typically onerous and impractical to a degree that makes the required licensing transaction, namely one involving a licence that covers all rightholders concerned, unlikely to occur due to the nature of the use or of the types of works or other subject matter concerned.
Such mechanisms should be based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria as regards the treatment of rightholders, including rightholders who are not members of the collective management organisation.
In particular, the mere fact that the rightholders affected are not nationals or residents of, or established in, the Member State of the user who is seeking a licence, should not be in itself a reason to consider the clearance of rights to be so onerous and impractical as to justify the use of such mechanisms.
It is equally important that the licensed use neither affect adversely the economic value of the relevant rights nor deprive rightholders of significant commercial benefits. Member States should ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the legitimate interests of rightholders that have not mandated the organisation offering the licence and that those safeguards apply in a non-discriminatory manner. Specifically, in order to justify the extended effect of the mechanisms, such an organisation should be, on the basis of authorisations from rightholders, sufficiently representative of the types of works or other subject matter and of the rights which are the subject of the licence.
To provide legal certainty and ensure that there is confidence in the mechanisms, Member States should be allowed to decide who is to have legal responsibility as regards uses authorised by the licence agreement. Equal treatment should be guaranteed to all rightholders whose works are exploited under the licence, including in particular as regards access to information on the licensing and the distribution of remuneration.
Publicity measures should be effective throughout the duration of the licence and should not involve imposing a disproportionate administrative burden on users, collective management organisations or rightholders, and without the need to inform each rightholder individually. In order to ensure that rightholders can easily regain control of their works, and prevent any uses of their works that would be prejudicial to their interests, it is essential that rightholders be given an effective opportunity to exclude the application of such mechanisms to their works or other subject matter for all uses and works or other subject matter, or for specific uses and works or other subject matter, including before the conclusion of a licence and during the term of the licence.
In such cases, any ongoing use should be terminated within a reasonable period. Such exclusion by rightholders should not affect their claims for remuneration for the actual use of the work or other subject matter under the licence. Member States should also be able to decide that additional measures are appropriate to protect rightholders.
Such additional measures could include, for example, encouraging the exchange of information among collective management organisations and other interested parties across the Union to raise awareness about such mechanisms and the option available to rightholders to exclude their works or other subject matter from those mechanisms. Member States should ensure that the purpose and scope of any licence granted as a result of mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect, as well as the possible uses, should always be carefully and clearly defined in law or, if the underlying law is a general provision, in the licensing practices applied as a result of such general provisions, or in the licences granted.
Given the different traditions and experiences in relation to mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect across Member States, and their applicability to rightholders irrespective of their nationality or their Member State of residence, it is important to ensure that there is transparency and dialogue at Union level about the practical functioning of such mechanisms, including as regards the effectiveness of safeguards for rightholders, the usability of such mechanisms, their effect on rightholders who are not members of the collective management organisation, or on rightholders who are nationals of, or resident in, another Member State, and the impact on the cross-border provision of services, including the potential need to lay down rules to give such mechanisms cross-border effect within the internal market.
To ensure transparency, information about the use of such mechanisms under this Directive should be regularly published by the Commission. Member States that have introduced such mechanisms should, therefore, inform the Commission about relevant national provisions and their application in practice, including the scope and types of licensing introduced on the basis of general provisions, the scale of licensing and the collective management organisations involved.
The Commission should publish a report on the use of such mechanisms in the Union and their impact on licensing and rightholders, on the dissemination of cultural content and on the cross-border provision of services in the area of collective management of copyright and related rights, as well as on the impact on competition. Video-on-demand services have the potential to play a decisive role in the dissemination of audiovisual works across the Union.
However, the availability of such works, in particular European works, on video-on-demand services remains limited. Agreements on the online exploitation of such works can be difficult to conclude due to issues related to the licensing of rights. Such issues could, for instance, arise when the holder of the rights for a given territory has a low economic incentive to exploit a work online and does not license or holds back the online rights, which can lead to audiovisual works being unavailable on video-on-demand services.
Other issues could relate to windows of exploitation. To facilitate the licensing of rights in audiovisual works to video-on-demand services, Member States should be required to provide for a negotiation mechanism allowing parties willing to conclude an agreement to rely on the assistance of an impartial body or of one or more mediators. For that purpose, Member States should be allowed either to establish a new body or rely on an existing one that fulfils the conditions established by this Directive.
Member States should be able to designate one or more competent bodies or mediators. The body or the mediators should meet with the parties and help with the negotiations by providing professional, impartial and external advice.
Where a negotiation involves parties from different Member States and where those parties decide to rely on the negotiation mechanism, the parties should agree beforehand on the competent Member State. The body or the mediators could meet with the parties to facilitate the start of negotiations or in the course of the negotiations to facilitate the conclusion of an agreement. Participation in that negotiation mechanism and the subsequent conclusion of agreements should be voluntary and should not affect the parties' contractual freedom.
Member States should be free to decide on the specific functioning of the negotiation mechanism, including the timing and duration of the assistance to negotiations and the bearing of the costs.
Member States should ensure that administrative and financial burdens remain proportionate to guarantee the efficiency of the negotiation mechanism.
Without it being an obligation for them, Member States should encourage dialogue between representative organisations. The expiry of the term of protection of a work entails the entry of that work into the public domain and the expiry of the rights that Union copyright law provides in relation to that work. In the field of visual arts, the circulation of faithful reproductions of works in the public domain contributes to the access to and promotion of culture, and the access to cultural heritage.
In the digital environment, the protection of such reproductions through copyright or related rights is inconsistent with the expiry of the copyright protection of works. In addition, differences between the national copyright laws governing the protection of such reproductions give rise to legal uncertainty and affect the cross-border dissemination of works of visual arts in the public domain. Certain reproductions of works of visual arts in the public domain should, therefore, not be protected by copyright or related rights.
All of that should not prevent cultural heritage institutions from selling reproductions, such as postcards. A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. The wide availability of press publications online has given rise to the emergence of new online services, such as news aggregators or media monitoring services, for which the reuse of press publications constitutes an important part of their business models and a source of revenue.
Publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications to the providers of those kinds of services, making it more difficult for them to recoup their investments.
In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, the licensing and enforcement of rights in press publications regarding online uses by information society service providers in the digital environment are often complex and inefficient.
The organisational and financial contribution of publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and further encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry and thereby foster the availability of reliable information. It is therefore necessary to provide at Union level for harmonised legal protection for press publications in respect of online uses by information society service providers, which leaves the existing copyright rules in Union law applicable to private or non-commercial uses of press publications by individual users unaffected, including where such users share press publications online.
The legal protection for press publications provided for by this Directive should benefit publishers that are established in a Member State and have their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Union. The concept of publisher of press publications should be understood as covering service providers, such as news publishers or news agencies, when they publish press publications within the meaning of this Directive.
The press publications that should be covered include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest, including subscription-based magazines, and news websites. Press publications contain mostly literary works, but increasingly include other types of works and other subject matter, in particular photographs and videos. Periodical publications published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive.
Neither should that protection apply to websites, such as blogs, that provide information as part of an activity that is not carried out under the initiative, editorial responsibility and control of a service provider, such as a news publisher. The rights granted to publishers of press publications should not extend to acts of hyperlinking. They should also not extend to mere facts reported in press publications.
The use of press publications by information society service providers can consist of the use of entire publications or articles but also of parts of press publications. Such uses of parts of press publications have also gained economic relevance. At the same time, the use of individual words or very short extracts of press publications by information society service providers may not undermine the investments made by publishers of press publications in the production of content.
Therefore, it is appropriate to provide that the use of individual words or very short extracts of press publications should not fall within the scope of the rights provided for in this Directive. Taking into account the massive aggregation and use of press publications by information society service providers, it is important that the exclusion of very short extracts be interpreted in such a way as not to affect the effectiveness of the rights provided for in this Directive.
The protection granted to publishers of press publications under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.
Publishers of press publications should, therefore, not be able to invoke the protection granted to them under this Directive against authors and other rightholders or against other authorised users of the same works or other subject matter.
That should be without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one hand, and authors and other rightholders, on the other. Authors whose works are incorporated in a press publication should be entitled to an appropriate share of the revenues that press publishers receive for the use of their press publications by information society service providers. That should be without prejudice to national laws on ownership or exercise of rights in the context of employment contracts, provided that such laws are in compliance with Union law.
Publishers, including those of press publications, books or scientific publications and music publications, often operate on the basis of the transfer of authors' rights by means of contractual agreements or statutory provisions. In that context, publishers make an investment with a view to the exploitation of the works contained in their publications and can in some instances be deprived of revenues where such works are used under exceptions or limitations such as those for private copying and reprography, including the corresponding existing national schemes for reprography in the Member States, or under public lending schemes.
In several Member States, compensation for uses under those exceptions or limitations is shared between authors and publishers.
It is a permanent measure, having the force of law until repealed. ADHERE: A step in parliamentary procedure whereby one house of the legislature votes to stand by its previous action in response to some conflicting action by the other chamber. Allows money to be spent; is not actual expenditure record. At-large elections can be held at the legislative and presidential levels. In the United State of America, some states hold at-large elections for congressional seats, when, for instance, a state's entire population warrants only one representative.
AUTHOR: The person usually a legislator who presents a bill or resolution for consideration; may be joined by others, who are known as coauthors. See also: introducer, patron, sponsor.
BILL: Draft of a proposed law presented to the legislature for consideration. BUDGET: 1 The suggested allocation of state moneys presented to the legislature for consideration; 2 a formal document that reflects the authorized expenditures of the state. CAUCUS: An informal meeting of a group of the members; most commonly based on political party affiliation, but may have other bases, such as gender, race, geographic location or specific issue. CENSURE: An action by a legislative body to officially reprimand an elected official for inappropriate or illegal actions committed by that official while in office.
The act of censuring is an official condemnation for inappropriate or illegal actions committed by a public official while holding a position of trust. Also may be titled "chief clerk" or "principal clerk. CODE: A compilation of laws and their revisions according to subject matter usually arranged by title, chapter and section ; the official publication of the statutes. COMMITTEE: A body of members appointed by the presiding officer or another authority specified by the chamber to consider and make recommendations concerning disposition of bills, resolutions and other related matters.
Charlie Baker R for his signature. On May 11, , Gov. The ruling stated that HB conflicted with Proposition , which was approved by Arizona voters in Since Arizona's Voter Protection Act requires voter approval to substantively amend or repeal a citizen initiative, Judge Brodman overturned HB and said that such a law would need to go before voters.
The state appealed the case to the Arizona Court of Appeals. On February 5, , the appeals court sided with the superior court, concluding, "H. Because H. In September , Gov. The bill was designed to allow state and local governments to provide public campaign financing programs.
SB repealed a provision in Proposition 73 —an initiative approved by voters in —that prohibited officials from accepting public funds to seek office. The ruling was based on California's laws prohibiting the legislature from substantively amending or repealing a citizen initiative without voter approval. This section features events and legislation that were not examples legislative alteration but were related to the concept.
Legislative alteration is when a a citizen-initiated state statute is put on the ballot and approved by voters and b , after it is approved, the state legislature passes a bill to amend or repeal the text within state statute that was enacted by the initiative. Examples below include, but are not limited to, the following:. On May 31, , the final day of the Nevada legislative session , the state legislature passed a bill to increase the mining tax and dedicate revenue to education striking a compromise between legislators, the mining industry, and the largest teachers' union in the state—Clark County Education Association.
Assembly Bill AB reached the two-thirds AB maintains the state's net proceeds on minerals tax structure and dedicates the revenue to a new fund for education. Clark County Education Association led two initiative campaigns to increase the state's sales tax and gaming tax to generate revenue for public schools. The initiatives qualified for the ballot on March 12, , when the deadline for the state legislature to pass the initiatives passed without any action by the legislature.
On May 31, the state legislature also amended and passed a bill related to election laws, Assembly Bill AB , to allow initiative campaigns to remove ballot measures from the ballot 90 days before the election at which voters would have decided on the petition. Ford determined that the law was constitutional and that initiatives may be withdrawn prior to the election. In October , Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske R announced that the Nevada Constitution did not permit her to remove the certified petitions from the ballot despite the law authorizing petition withdrawal.
The campaigns behind the following ballot initiatives collected enough signatures for their measures to appear on the ballot. However, the initiatives were withdrawn following deals made between initiative proponents and the state legislature and the approval of compromise legislation. Click on each link for details. In Michigan, a three-fourths supermajority vote is required in both chambers of the state legislature to repeal or amend a citizen initiative through legislative alteration.
If the state legislature approves an initiative themselves, precluding an election on it through Michigan's indirect initiative process, a simple majority is required to repeal or amend the measure. The Florida legislature passed a bill— Senate Bill 8A —as implementing legislation for Amendment 2 , which legalized medical marijuana.
He said that Senate Bill 8A's ban on smoking medical marijuana violated Amendment 2. The lawsuit argued the amendment was designed to leave the administration of marijuana to the judgment of a licensed physician and was intended to allow for medical marijuana to be smoked. Ballotpedia features , encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers.
Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion. Share this page Follow Ballotpedia. What's on your ballot? Jump to: navigation , search. Other terms commonly used to describe legislative alteration: [3] The phrase legislative tampering is commonly used to refer to legislative alteration.
Eleven of the 21 states that feature the initiated state statute power have no restrictions on how soon or with what majority state legislators can repeal or amend initiated statutes. Four states have restrictions on how soon state legislators can repeal or amend initiative statutes—ranging from two to seven years. Six states have restrictions on how large of a supermajority vote is required in the legislature to repeal or amend initiative statutes.
Two of these states have restrictions both on how soon and with what majority state legislators can repeal or amend initiative statutes.
0コメント