Fairness Project

The Fairness Project was created in Washington, D.C., on 22 October 2015 in the immediate run-up to the 2016 US presidential election. It is funded by SEIU United Healthcare Workers West, a California health care workers union. One of the major dispute points between Democratic and Republican candidates had been the issue of whether to raise the federal minimum wage, set at $7.25 for most employees as of 2019.{{cite web|url=https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-fairness-project-vies-to-raise-the-minimum-210548841.html|title=The Fairness Project vies to raise the minimum wage at the ballot box|author=Michael Walsh|date=22 October 2015|publisher=Yahoo News|access-date=15 July 2015}} The federal minimum wage was set in 2009 and therefore real-term values have dropped significantly since then; with no confirmed prospect of a federal increase, states gradually became pressured to raise their own minimum wage values.{{cite web|url=https://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-tracker/|title=Minimum Wage Tracker|publisher=Economic Policy Institute|access-date=15 July 2018}} However, there were also deadlocks within state governments, both within state legislatures and between the legislature and governors (who could veto changes), which has led to an increasing number of local initiatives exercising their rights (either via law or state constitutions) to place proposals for statewide ballots to institute legislative change via direct democracy.{{Cite web|title=American Voters Are Turning to Direct Democracy|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/citizen-ballot-initiatives-2018-elections/558098/|publisher=The Atlantic|author=Vann Newkirk II|date=18 April 2018|access-date=12 August 2019}}

The founding executive director, Ryan Johnson, had volunteered to aid a number of these initiatives in 2015, before realising that there was nationwide interest in increased usage. This led to the creation of the Project as a coordinating nonprofit organization that could fundraise on a broader campaign structure, educate electorates of their ballot rights, and focus financial and volunteer support where it was most needed. The initial focus was to use SEIU United Healthcare Workers West's strategy of placing ballot initiatives on minimum wage in the 24 states that allow initiatives.{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/21/the-big-2016-minimum-wage-push-just-got-a-potentially-powerful-new-ally/|title=The big 2016 minimum wage push just got a powerful new ally|author=Lydia DePillis|date=21 October 2015|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=15 July 2018}}

The Fairness Project's focus for 2016 was a campaign to improve minimum wages. The campaign initially focused on three regions: Maine, California, and Washington, D.C., whose 2015 minimum wages were $7.50, $9.00, and $10.50 respectively. This provided a geographical mix and many difficulties – it was believed that while Washington and Maine would prove to be viable campaigns due to previous local votes for higher city minimum wages, California would pose a greater challenge due to a coalition of business interests that had killed the increase in the state legislature.

The proposed motions in Washington and California were fairly similar: they sought to implement an immediate small increase with additional annual graduated increases, leading to $15 in both states by 2020 and 2021 respectively. The target of the campaign in Maine was $12 by 2020 – a comparable increase to the other proposals.{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-wages/minimum-wage-hikes-in-four-states-show-path-for-labor-under-trump-idUSKBN1343Q1|title=Minimum wage hikes in four states|author=Jim Young|date=14 April 2016|publisher=Reuters|access-date=16 July 2018}}

All three proposals were initially successful by gathering the minimum number of required signatures: 365,880 for California, 23,200 for Washington, D.C.; and 60,000 in Maine.{{Cite web|url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/01/17/voters-beware-november-2016-ballot-will-likely-be-filled-with-propositions/|title=Voters beware: November 2016 ballot will likely be filled with propositions|author=Jessica Calefati|date=17 January 2015|access-date=12 August 2019|publisher=Mercury News}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/in-nations-capital-15-hour-minimum-wage-expected-to-appear-on-2016-ballot/2015/07/22/bdd9f66a-3086-11e5-97ae-30a30cca95d7_story.html|title=In nation's capital, $15-hour minimum wage is headed toward 2016 ballot|author=Aaron Davis|date=22 July 2015|access-date=12 August 2019|newspaper=Washington Post}}{{Cite web|url=https://bangordailynews.com/2015/04/16/politics/referendum-launched-for-12-maine-minimum-wage-by-2020/|publisher=Bangor Daily News|author=Mario Moretto|date=16 April 2015|access-date=12 August 2019|title=Referendum launched for $12 Maine minimum wage by 2020}} In Washington and California, support for the proposals placed pressure on the city and state governments, which caused both states to implement legislation equivalent to that in the initiatives; as a result, the proposals were withdrawn. In Maine the vote proceeded and was approved by 55.5% of the voters.{{cite web|url=https://www.pressherald.com/2016/11/23/maine-group-starts-petition-drive-to-exempt-tipped-workers-from-new-minimum-wage-rule/|title=Maine group starts petition to exempt tipped workers from new minimum wage rule|author=Dennis Hoey|date=23 November 2016|publisher=Portland Press Herald|access-date=15 July 2018}} After the vote there was a smaller campaign to reinstate the restaurant tip credit rule where tips could make up to 50% of staff wages, which would lower the effective minimum wage. {{As of|2018}}, restrictions on using tip credit were not being enforced.

As the campaigns proved to be successful, the Project expanded their support to local initiatives in the states of Colorado, Washington, and Arizona.{{cite web|url=https://www.fastcompany.com/40492697/how-the-fairness-project-helped-power-maines-medicaid-expansion|title=How The Fairness Project Helped Power Maine's Medicaid Expansion|author=Eillie Anzilotti|date=8 November 2017|publisher=Fast Company|access-date=16 July 2018}} The proposals for Colorado and Arizona also sought to raise the minimum wage to $12 by 2020, from $8.31 and $8.05 respectively.{{cite web|url=https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/09/pf/minimum-wage-state-elections/index.html|title=4 states just voted to hike their minimum wage|author=Jeanne Sahadi|date=9 November 2016|publisher=CNN Money|access-date=15 July 2018}} Washington, which already had certain areas with higher base wages, such as Seattle, settled on targeting $15.00 from $9.47 by 2020.

These additional propositions all remained on the ballot and were approved by their electorates.

In 2018, the Project made additional efforts to support local groups advocating minimum wage ballots. This support was focused in Missouri, where, together with the National Employment Law Center, a combined $537,500 was donated by advocacy groups; as well as Arkansas.{{cite web|url=http://kcur.org/post/bid-raise-missouri-s-minimum-wage-gets-funding-politically-active-nonprofits#stream/0|title=Bid to raise Missouri's minimum wage gets funding from politically active nonprofits|author=Jason Rosenbaum|date=13 November 2017|publisher=KCUR|access-date=15 July 2018}} Financial assistance was also granted in Michigan, where the proposal only narrowly satisfied the requirements one day before the deadline.{{cite web|url=https://www.bridgemi.com/economy/ballot-efforts-raise-minimum-wage-add-paid-sick-leave-beat-state-deadline|title=Michigan ballot efforts to raise minimum wage beat deadline|author=Lindsay VanHulle|date=31 May 2018|publisher=Bridge Magazine|access-date=15 July 2018}}

The Missouri ballot proposal aimed to increase the minimum wage from $8.60 to $12.00 by 2023 and eliminate the tip credit allowance.{{cite web|url=http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/missouri-businesses-and-workers-submit-signatures-minimum-wage-ballot-initiative#stream/0|title=Missouri workers submit signatures for minimum wage ballot|author=Erin Achenbach|date=2 May 2018|publisher=St.Louis Public Radio|access-date=15 July 2018}} The Michigan proposal sought to raise the minimum wage from $7.70 to $12.00 by 2022 for everyone except government workers.{{cite web|url=https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/05/21/signatures-michigan-minimum-wage-ballot-initiative/629749002/|title=Group submits 373k signatures for $12 Michigan minimum wage ballot initiative|author=Jonathan Oosting|date=21 May 2018|publisher=The Detroit News|access-date=15 July 2018}} Both ballots were voted on at the 6 November 2018 elections. Missouri voted in favour with a 61% majority.{{Cite web|url=https://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Business_amp_Money_12/Arkansas-and-Missouri-voters-approve-minimum-wage-hike.shtml|title=Arkansas and Missouri voters approve minimum wage hike|date=26 November 2018|author=Nisa Muhammed|publisher=Final Call|access-date=11 December 2018}} Michigan's legislature passed equivalent measures that removed the initiative from the ballot; these measures were repeatedly accused of enabling easier future amendments, as ballot-proposed law would require a three-quarters super-majority of each house to overrule.{{Cite web|url=https://detroit.eater.com/2018/9/5/17823282/michigan-legislature-vote-minimum-wage-paid-sick-leave|title=Michigan Legislature Approves Initiatives for $12 Minimum Wage, Paid Sick Leave|author=Brenna Houck|date=6 September 2018|publisher=Eater Detroit|access-date=11 December 2018}}

The Arkansas proposal was a pure minimum wage setup crafted by David Crouch. It aimed to increase immediately from $8.50 to $9.25, with stepped annual increments ultimately to $11.00.{{Cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/05/arkansas-direct-democracy-ballot-measures/589513/|title=How to Change Policy Without Politicians|author=Olivia Paschal|publisher=The Atlantic|date=18 May 2019|access-date=8 August 2019}} The Fairness Project donated $100,000, functionally all on the signature-gathering stage.{{Cite web|url=https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2018/07/16/campaign-finance-reports-begin-first-the-minimum-wage-effort|title=Campaign finance reports begin, first the minimum wage effort|publisher=ArkTimes|date=16 July 2018|author=Max Brantley|access-date=8 August 2019}} The proposal passed with 68% of votes in favour and was implemented.{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/11/07/arkansas-just-approved-big-minimum-wage-increase-liberal-victory-red-state/|title=Arkansas and Missouri just approved big minimum wage increases, a liberal victory in red states|author=Heather Long|date=6 November 2018|access-date=8 August 2019|newspaper=The Washington Post}}

File:Medicaid expansion map of US. Affordable Care Act.svg by state{{cite web |title=Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions: Interactive Map |url=https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/status-of-state-medicaid-expansion-decisions-interactive-map |publisher=KFF. Map is updated as changes occur. Click on states for details.}}

{{legend|#2b83ba|Not adopted}}

{{legend|#89CC7F|Adopted}}

{{legend|#FECDAC|Implemented}}]]

Starting in 2017, the Fairness Project redirected their primary focus to expanding Medicaid coverage, a joint state and federal program that covers some medical costs for those with few financial resources.{{cite web|url=https://www.natlawreview.com/article/analysis-us-supreme-court-upholds-affordable-care-act-roberts-rules|title=Analysis: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds the Affordable Care Act: Roberts Rules?|author=Edquist, Mark & O'Connor|date=29 June 2012|publisher=The National Law Review|access-date=16 July 2018}} A Supreme Court ruling in 2012 declares that states do not have to utilize the provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to as Obamacare) that expand Medicaid coverage, which requires legislation (created by state legislatures or successful ballot motions) to increase the number of individuals receiving Medicaid assistance.

The first campaign in 2017 offered support by the Project was in Maine where there was strong support to expand Medicaid. The Fairness Project donated $375,000 to aid both the campaigns to have the proposal meet signature requirements and then campaign for its passing.{{cite web|url=https://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/bill-manny/article208784784.html|title=60,000 signatures & counting: How did the upstart Medicaid expansion campaign do it?|author=Bill Manny|date=30 April 2018|publisher=Idaho Statesman|access-date=16 July 2018}} The proposal met the requirements to be added to the ballot and passed with 59% voting in favor. However, Maine law gave the power to Governor Paul LePage to veto passed ballot proposals,{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/07/13/daily-202-gop-candidates-caught-in-a-bind-on-medicaid/5b47f9c51b326b3348addea3/|title=The Daily 202: GOP candidates caught in a bind on Medicaid|author=James Hohmann|date=13 July 2018|work=Washington Times|access-date=16 July 2018}} which he used seven times, stating that he "[would] go to jail before [he] put[s] the state in red ink". He argued that a clear funding stream must be designated and in place before he would approve the law. The state house voted in favour of implementing the proposal, 85 to 58, but failed to gather the two-thirds majority needed to override. Janet Mills, succeeding Lepage, signed an executive order implementing the change.{{Cite web|url=https://www.centralmaine.com/2019/01/03/mills-signs-executive-order-to-implement-medicaid-expansion/|author=Joe Lawlor|date=3 January 2019|access-date=8 August 2019|publisher=Portland Press Herald|title=Mills' 'Executive Order 1' makes 70,000 more Mainers eligible for health insurance}}

In 2018, the Project expanded their support to three similar proposals in Nebraska, Utah, and Idaho. As of July 2018, the Utah proposal had satisfied conditions to be voted on in the November elections.{{cite web|url=http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-healthcare-initiative-passes-signature-requirements-secures-place-on-november-ballot|title=Utah health care initiative passes signature requirements, secures place on ballot|author=John Yellend|date=4 May 2018|publisher=KUTV|access-date=16 July 2018}} The proposals of Nebraska and Idaho also submitted a number of signatures they believed to satisfy ballot requirements, and despite challenges on verification, the proposals were accepted.{{cite web|url=https://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/medicaid-expansion-decision-appears-headed-to-voters/article_fb54fc92-8062-5426-ba00-9f70bf67a8ab.html|title=Medicaid expansion decision appears headed to voters|author=Don Walton|date=5 July 2018|publisher=Lincoln Journal Star|access-date=16 July 2018}}

The Project's support was important in gathering the signatures in Nebraska where $338,000 was spent to support the campaign (primarily by paid signature gatherers) – making up 93% of the pre-ballot spending.{{cite web|url=https://www.omaha.com/livewellnebraska/health/petition-drive-to-expand-medicaid-in-nebraska-forges-ahead-with/article_93acf7cd-a5f4-563a-b7c4-72fe2afef4dc.html|title=Petition drive to expand Medicaid in Nebraska forges ahead with national group's support

|author=Martha Stoddard|date=7 May 2018|publisher=Omaha World Herald|access-date=16 July 2018}} Further spending in favour of a yes vote dramatically escalated, with the Project providing over 90% of the $919,000 total campaign expenditure in Nebraska by May. Support in Idaho was comparatively lower in size and proportion, though still significant, with expenditure slightly over half a million dollars, making up 50% of proposal expenditure. Support also needed to be more focused due to a harder signature process in Idaho than most ballot states.

The ballots were successful in all three states. Idaho approved the ballot with a 61% majority, but the campaigns were tighter in Nebraska and Utah with a bare 53% vote share. The Fairness Project remained the primary donor in the three races, spending a total of over $6,000,000. Funding shares remained fairly even – with the most controversial remaining the near-90% share of the Nebraska campaign budget.{{Cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-medicaid-ballot-measures-20181116-story.html|title=How Medicaid broke through in three deep-red states, and could do the same in more|author=Noam Levey|date=16 November 2018|newspaper=LA Times|access-date=11 December 2018}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.kearneyhub.com/opinions/tyranny-of-majority/article_dcfe9fa4-fd70-11e8-af44-8b57f028335d.html|title=Tyranny of Majority|date=11 December 2018 |publisher=Kearney Hub|access-date=11 December 2018}}

The Project failed for the first time at the 2018 Medicaid ballots. A Montana ballot (that was added late to the Project's campaigns) motioned to extend the previously temporary expanded Medicaid provision and failed to pass. The ballot set a record for the most expensive campaign ever fought in the US,{{Cite web|url=https://ctmirror.org/2018/11/11/midterm-election-boosts-medicaid-expansion-challenges-remain/|title=Midterm election boosts Medicaid expansion, but challenges remain|author=Phil Galewitz|date=11 November 2018|publisher=The Connecticut Mirror|access-date=11 December 2018}}{{Cite web|url=https://eu.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2018/11/27/record-26-m-spent-defeated-tobacco-tax-measure-montana/2131216002/|publisher=Great Falls Tribune|title=Record $26M spent on defeated tobacco tax measure in Montana|author=Matt Volz|date=27 November 2018|access-date=15 August 2019}} due to the funding provisions of the proposal, which placed additional taxes on tobacco products. As well as significant funding from the Project and other like-minded donors in favour, the tobacco industry spent $17,000,000 campaigning in opposition. After a failed vote, a compromised version of the Medicaid expansion was passed in April by the Montana legislature to extend coverage until 2025.{{Cite web|url=https://www.apnews.com/cc03545f28c04e4ba97cd91c1addce17|title=Montana Legislature passes Medicaid expansion bill|publisher=AP News|author=Amy Hanson|date=18 April 2019|access-date=8 August 2019}}

A primary remaining Medicaid expansion target for the Project is Florida, with up to 445,000 citizens potentially to be covered.{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/medicaid/455239-medicaid-expansion-backers-push-ballot-measures-to-sidestep-gop|title=Medicaid expansion backers push ballot measures to sidestep GOP|author=Jesse Hellmann|work=The Hill|date=30 July 2019|access-date=8 August 2019}} Ballot measures can institute constitutional amendments but not new laws, and require over 760,000 signatures to take to ballot and a 60% vote to pass. The Project is the primary financial backer for local group Florida Decides Healthcare ($380,000 as of June 2019), enabling a first-stage target of 76,000 signatures to be met. This triggered a state supreme court review of the language used and state economists to review the expected costs of the measure.{{Cite web|url=https://news.wjct.org/post/medicaid-ballot-drive-could-be-delayed|title=Medicaid Ballot Drive Could Be Delayed|publisher=wjct|date=25 July 2019|access-date=8 August 2019}} Concerns on the possibility of various additional deadlines being met ultimately led to the state campaigning committee to postpone the plan to the 2022 ballot.{{Cite web|url=https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/post/ballot-proposal-expand-medicaid-pushed-back-2022|publisher=Jacksonville Business Journal|author=Dan Newman|date=12 August 2019|access-date=17 June 2020|title=Florida's Medicaid ballot proposal pushed back to 2022}}

Another targeted 2020 Medicaid ballot was in Oklahoma. The Project supported Oklahomans Decide Healthcare, with the 178,000 signatures necessary to be added to the ballot. Oklahoma has the third highest uninsured rate of any US state, with 5% of the adult population being affected if the state enacts Medicaid expansion.{{Cite web|url=https://aadcnews.com/2019/08/01/oklahoma-ranks-lowest-in-nords-2019-state-rare-disease-report-card/|title=Oklahoma Ranks Lowest on Programs Key to Rare Diseases on NORD's 2019 State Report Card|publisher=AADC News|author=Larry Luxner|date=1 August 2019|access-date=8 August 2019}} A 2019 bipartisan legislative working group was formed to consider potential legislative versions of the expansion.{{Cite web|url=https://oklahoman.com/article/5637379/oklahoma-legislature-forms-medicaid-expansion-health-care-working-group|title=Oklahoma Legislature forms Medicaid expansion, health care working group|author=Carmen Forman|date=30 July 2019|access-date=8 August 2019|publisher=Oklahoman}} Campaigners met the signature requirement and submitted 313,000 signatures. The proposal is set to be voted on 30 June.{{cite web|url=https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahoma-medicaid-expansion-question-placed-june-30-ballot|publisher=Public Radio Tulsa|author=Matt Trotter|date=19 April 2020|access-date=17 June 2020|title=Oklahoma Medicaid Expansion Question Placed on June 30 Ballot}}

The other Medicaid expansion ballot targeted for 2020 was in Missouri. The Fairness Project provided initial seed funding of roughly $30,000 when the campaign was announced at the end of August 2019.{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/459972-advocates-launch-petition-to-place-medicaid-expansion-on-2020-ballot-in|work=The Hill|title=Advocates launch petition to place Medicaid expansion on 2020 ballot in Missouri|author=Nathaniel Weixel|date=4 September 2019|access-date=19 June 2020}} The campaign required 160,199 signatures to be provided by 3 May, with the local campaign "Healthcare for Missouri" submitting 341,440 valid signatures. After an unsuccessful legal challenge, it was confirmed to be voted in on 4 August during Missouri's presidential primary elections.{{Cite web|url=https://www.westplainsdailyquill.net/free/article_5e8a5fd2-ab16-11ea-9e61-1724266c92d0.html|publisher=West Plains Daily Quill|title=Amendment 2 initiative to expand Medicaid is on Aug. 4 ballot|date=10 June 2020|access-date=19 June 2020|author=Kim Langston}} A successful vote is expected to cover roughly 230,000 additional adults, with the ballot also prohibiting additional constraints or requirements other than those already in place on those covered by Medicaid. As of June 2020, the Fairness Project had contributed $206,295.{{Cite web|url=https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article243434021.html|publisher=Kansas City|author=Matthew Kelly|title=Pro-Missouri Medicaid expansion committee advised by Parson ally, aided by dark money|date=11 June 2020|access-date=19 June 2020}}

The Fairness Project contributed to the passage of Michigan's Reproductive Freedom amendment and Vermont's Reproductive Liberty amendment. Both amendments secured the right to an abortion in each state's constitution.{{cite web|url=https://thefairnessproject.org/ballot-measure-campaigns|title=Ballot Measure Campaigns|website=The Fairness Project|access-date=December 29, 2022}} The project has supported similar initiatives in the states of Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Dakota for the 2024 election cycle.{{cite web|last=Edelman|first=Adam|title=Abortion rights groups look to build on their victories with new ballot measures|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/abortion-rights-groups-look-new-ballot-measures-2023-2024-rcna61317|website=NBC News|date=December 23, 2022|access-date=December 29, 2022}}

The principal other issue handled by the Fairness Project as of 2020 is paid sick leave. Although the topic was initially considered a goal for future election cycles, several of the ballot proposals supported in 2016 also had paid sick leave aspects, specifically Washington state and Arizona.

A Michigan ballot proposal was completed with over 380,000 signatures (well over the required 252,000) demanding varying levels of paid sick leave, which depended on company size.{{cite web|url=https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/05/30/paid-sick-leave-petition-michigan/655544002/|title=Paid sick leave could appear on Nov ballot|author=Alice Yin|date=30 May 2018|publisher=Detroit Free Press|access-date=15 July 2018}} The Fairness Project participated less in this signature drive, most likely due to an established local committee and significant local support willing to sign for the proposal.{{cite web|url=https://www.bridgemi.com/public-sector/optimism-grows-michigan-voters-will-decide-pot-redistricting-questions|title=Optimism grows that Michigan will decide questions|author=Lindsay VanHulle|date=19 April 2018|publisher=Bridge MI|access-date=15 July 2018}} An early sum of $100,000 was provided, with an additional $200,000 provided over the remainder of the campaign, and some minor in-kind aid, totalling 16% of campaign funds.{{Cite web|url=https://cfrsearch.nictusa.com/documents/452158/details/filing/summary?changes=0|title=Michigan Campaign Statement Summary - Fairness Project|publisher=Michigan Campaign Finance|access-date=12 October 2019}}{{cite web|url=https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/2018_Exp_Inkind_BQ_Stats_617849_7.pdf|publisher=Michigan.gov|title=Total Contributions for Michigan 2018 ballot proposals}} The Michigan legislature decided to amend the proposal before passing it, which only required paid sick-leave coverage from companies with over 50 people and placed a lower maximum cap of 40 hours per year.{{Cite web|url=https://www.apnews.com/c0f3286e8edb4cce8185013978a84d76|title=Michigan Legislature OKs gutting wage, paid sick time laws|author=David Eggert|date=5 December 2018|publisher=AP News|access-date= 12 December 2018}}

Campaigns in Texas to implement paid leave have demonstrated increased complexity compared to other "normal" ballot proposals, as the Texan attorney general asserted that a state law preventing such a requirement overrides any city-level legislation that might occur, even if generated via ballot. No statewide proposal has been offered; instead, various cities and areas have had local ballot proposals created, most notably in Dallas and San Antonio.{{cite web|url=http://keranews.org/post/group-says-it-has-enough-signatures-put-paid-sick-leave-dallas-ballot-fall|title=Group Says It Has Enough Signatures To Put Paid Sick Leave In Dallas On Ballot This Fall|author=M, Evans & C, Connelly|date=11 June 2018|publisher=KERA News|access-date=16 July 2018}} This has been driven by the decision of state capital Austin to legislate paid leave in February 2018. The Freedom Project provided a loan of $383,813.{{Cite web|url=https://texasmonitor.org/national-advocacy-groups-are-backing-the-sick-leave-effort-in-texas/|publisher=Texas Monitor|author=Mark Lisheron|date=11 October 2018|access-date=11 August 2019|title=National advocacy groups are backing the sick-leave effort in Texas}}

A Colorado proposal to implement paid family and medical leave is being supported by the Fairness Project to be placed on the November 2020 ballot. The Fairness Project provided initial funding for the local campaign group's (Colorado Families First) website. The proposal demands up to 12 weeks of leave as a standard, employment protections, and a funding set-up split equally between employers and employees. Signature gathering was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the Project's executive director stating: "The very act of going to your neighbor and asking them to sign violates all the rules of social distancing."{{Cite web|url=https://www.denverpost.com/2020/05/01/colorado-family-leave-bill-ballot/|publisher=Denver Post|author=Conrad Swanson|date=1 May 2020|access-date=18 June 2020|title=Colorado lawmakers give up on paid family leave bill, will support ballot measure}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/us/coronavirus-state-legislatures.html|work=New York Times|date=25 March 2020|access-date=18 June 2020|author1=Michael Powell|author2=John Eligon|title=Virus Brings States to a Standstill: Sessions Halt, Budgets Crater, Plans Wait}} The signature gathering continued as the Colorado governor agreed to remote signature gathering, with a requirement to submit 124,632 signatures by 3 August.{{Cite web|url=https://www.cpr.org/2020/05/27/petitioners-can-gather-signatures-remotely-for-ballot-measures-denver-district-court-rules/|publisher=CPR News|author=Bente Birkeland|date=27 May 2020|access-date=18 June 2020|title=Petitioners Can Gather Signatures Remotely For Ballot Measures, Denver District Court Rules}}

In a significant variation, the Project gave a small amount of funding to help a Colorado ballot place firm restrictions on payday lending. The ballot sought to reduce the maximum interest rate to 36% from 200%,in an effort to reduce the rate of loan default from 25%.{{Cite web|url=https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/21/payday-lenders-colorado-interest-rate-limits/|title=Payday loans have average interest rates of 129% in Colorado. A ballot measure proposes capping them|author=Brian Eason|date=21 February 2018|publisher=Denver Post|access-date=12 December 2018}} Compared to most campaigns, the Project's support was minor, with under $7000 contributed out of over $2 million, mostly donated by the like-minded PAC Sixteen Thirty Fund. The proposal received clear support, with 77.25% of voters in favour.{{Cite web|url=https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CO/91808/Web02-state.220747/#/|title=Colorado Election results|date=6 December 2018|access-date=12 October 2019}}

Since the Fairness Project operates through local organizations or hires in-state groups, and is not required to disclose donor lists, there have been complaints that the project is using dark money to influence elections,{{cite web|url=https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article228258029.html|title=Out-of-state donors, unions are pouring money into Idaho to sway Medicaid vote|date=29 March 2019|publisher=Idaho Statesman|access-date=7 August 2019}} which leads to a lack of transparency with voters unable to know exactly which groups might be trying to influence an election. This is particularly viewed as an issue with Medicaid expansion where groups with a vested financial interest might donate to the Fairness Project to shield their involvement from public awareness.

There have also been concerns about the scale of influence that a national campaigning nonprofit can use in a state election, especially when the majority of a campaign's funding is provided by the Project, such as when it funded over 90% of the Nebraska campaign. This has raised concerns about whether state voters are making a local decision by themselves. In a related complaint, there have been accusations that it is unfair for groups to support propositions that will not affect them.{{cite web|url=https://tucson.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/gop-lawmakers-advance-measures-to-rein-in-citizens-ballot-initiative/article_e3c4b5f7-544c-5703-9038-c0a1f3b75c23.html|title=GOP lawmakers advance measures to rein in citizens' initiatives|date=9 February 2017|publisher=Tucson|access-date=17 July 2018}}

Primarily in reaction to the successful ballot proposals on increased minimum wage and Medicaid expansion, various states have either employed their rights to amend proposals in an aggressive fashion or, more frequently, moved to amend their laws to implement additional restrictions on ballot proposals.{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/us/referendum-initiative-legislature-dakota.html|title=First Came a Flood of Ballot Measures From Voters. Then Politicians Pushed Back.|publisher=NY Times|author=Timothy Williams|date=15 October 2018|access-date=12 August 2019}}

The Maine government has used their right to implement changes to any proposals that receive the minimum number of signatures. The Maine governor used their right to repeatedly veto the proposal in order to continually delay the effect of the passed proposal expanding Medicaid provision.

Arizona lawmakers have proposed and brought in laws increasing technical requirements in signature gathering as have worked to repeal laws that prevent the repealing of passed ballot initiatives.{{cite web|url=https://tucson.com/news/local/arizona-lawmaker-s-proposal-may-make-it-harder-to-enact/article_7d747b96-ea68-5ee4-927c-c6f2a17baf38.html|title=Arizona lawmaker's proposal may make it harder to enact voter-initiated legislation|date=5 January 2018|publisher=Tucson|access-date=17 July 2018}}

Idaho amended their ballot requirements in 2013 to include a geographical aspect: 6% of voters' signatures must also have 6% of registered voters' signatures in at least 18 of the 35 state legislative districts. The local organization Reclaim Idaho and the Fairness Project were able to use teams of local volunteers and also targeted paid signature gatherers to cover missing districts but the change has handicapped additional efforts.

{{reflist}}

{{Spoken Wikipedia|En-Fairness Project-article.ogg|date=2019-08-30}}

• {{Official website}}
• {{cite web|url=https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_Measures_overview|title=Detailed overview of individual state ballots|access-date=17 July 2018}}

Category:Ballot measures in the United States

Category:501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations

Category:Welfare reform

Category:Referendums in the United States

Category:Medicare and Medicaid (United States)

Category:Minimum wage law in the United States