State Ballot-Initiative Analysis

Current State Prioritization

Our analysis of state ballot initiative laws (see Factor 1 below) suggests that fifteen states offer viable ballot initiative routes to amending their state constitution to implement empowered civic assembly systems.

We prioritize among those states by weighing three factors: the ballot initiative process for constitutional amendments, existing civic engagement with deliberative practice; and the national perception of the state's partisan lean. Assessments will be revised as we learn more, as the legal and political environment shifts, and as deliberation practices continue to spread.

This analysis helped support our selection of Colorado as our primary pilot for 2028, a cycle in which we envision additional campaigns in Missouri, Ohio, and Oregon. Their outcomes will govern next steps; we hope successes will spawn efforts in many more of the qualifying states.

All Qualifying States, Ranked

#	State	Score	Initiatives	Deliberation	Perception	Key Notes
1	Colorado	10	Clear Path	Strong	Clean	Citizen assemblies in Ft. Collins, Montrose, and Boulder. Bed of cross-partisan political reform. HQ of Civic League; National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation; Mediators Foundation. 55% to amend constitution.
2	Ohio	10	Clear Path	Strong	Clean	Kettering Foundation home; no time limit; simple majority. Voters already defeated a 60% supermajority proposal in 2023.
3	Missouri	9	Clear Path	Some	Clean	6/8 congressional districts (achievable); Braver Angels active. Extensive active volunteer currently combatting legislature's efforts to weaken ballot initiatives.
4	Oregon	9	Clear Path	Strong	Caution	No distribution requirement. Pacific NW brand reads as progressive nationally.
5	Nebraska	9	Clear Path	Some	Clean	Cheapest of the top tier; unicameral legislature is a built-in civic-innovation credibility signal; 38/93 counties.
6	Arizona	9	Clear Path	Some	Clean	Arizona Town Hall has been running deliberation since 1962; 2-year window, no geo distribution. Purple-state credibility is uniquely broad.
7	North Dakota	9	Clear Path	Some	Clean	Cheapest state in the nation; no distribution requirement; 1-year window. Consensus Council (Fargo, est. 1990) has run statewide deliberation and consensus-building for 35+ years, alongside the ND Humanities Council and NIF affiliates.
8	South Dakota	8	Clear Path	Limited	Clean	No geo requirement, 2-year window. Watch: 60% supermajority measure on the 2026 ballot.
9	California	7	Clear Path	Strong	High risk	Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab and the deepest deliberation infrastructure in the country; no geo distribution, simple majority. Highest perception risk (Republican net favorability roughly −35 to −45) disqualifies as initial proving ground.
10	Massachusetts	6	Significant Barriers	Strong	Caution	Harvard Ash Center and a 400-year town-meeting tradition give it the deepest deliberation culture of any state; two-round indirect amendment process. Reads as university-elite rather than urban-progressive.
11	Nevada	6	Significant Barriers	Some	Clean	No legislative veto, but must clear two consecutive general elections (~4-year cycle); only 4 congressional districts to clear. Deliberation infrastructure is the gap — needs a strong in-state partner.
12	Michigan	6	Significant Barriers	Some	Clean	340k sigs in 180 days is a real field-operation challenge; Grand Rapids Braver Angels and Detroit's civic-reinvention scene; working-class swing-state credibility.
13	Florida	6	Significant Barriers	Some	Clean	Constitutional-only route with the highest bar in the country: ~880k signatures, 60% supermajority — by far the priciest state to qualify. Village Square (Tallahassee) is a genuine bridging-org anchor, but no documented convened citizen assembly yet.
14	Montana	5	Significant Barriers	Limited	Clean	Deep red — a strong perception asset; volunteer-only signature gathering across 34/100 districts is the real organizing ask. Needs a serious grassroots partner first.
15	Arkansas	5	Significant Barriers	Limited	Clean	Strong perception profile; highest cost-per-signature of the tier due to volunteer-only rules; 15-county requirement is under active litigation.

Methodology: Qualification requires a viable initiative path (Factor 1) — see Factor 1 below for states that are not viable and excluded. Every qualifying state is scored on three factors and ranked by total: Initiative access — Clear Path = 4, Significant Barriers = 1. Deliberation culture — Strong = 3, Some = 2, Limited = 1. National perception — Clean = 3, Caution = 2, High Risk = 0. Scores run 0–10.

Factor 1: Ballot Initiative Hurdles

Twenty-four states support ballot initiatives. Six of those do not support the use of ballot initiatives for constitutional amendments, which we consider necessary for a durable implementation. Three more have major obstacles that appear insurmountable. Another six have significant barriers that can be overcome. And nine offer a relatively clear path to implementation.

▶ Open Factor 1 detail — map, state groupings & full reference table

Clear Path

North Dakota Fewest sigs (~15,600); no distribution req.; 1 year
South Dakota ~17,500 sigs; no geo req.; 2-year window. Watch: 60% supermajority on 2026 ballot
Oregon ~117k sigs; no distribution req.; 2-year window; volunteer-friendly
Colorado 35 Senate districts (2% each) in 180 days; 55% supermajority to pass
Arizona 2-year window; no geo distribution; simple majority
California No geo distribution; simple majority; nationally visible win; 180-day window
Missouri 6-of-8 congressional districts; 18 months; simple majority. Flag: legislature watching
Nebraska 38-of-93 counties; 2-year window; distributable with paid team
Ohio No time limit; 44/88 counties; simple majority. Legislature hostile — but voters defeated their 60% attempt

Significant Barriers

Nevada No legislative veto, but must pass two consecutive general elections (~4-year cycle). 4 congressional districts (trivial)
Massachusetts Indirect: legislature must approve with just 25% support across two sessions to reach the ballot, and can rewrite the submitted text outright (3/4 joint-session vote) first. ~72k sigs, two-round process
Montana Pay-per-sig banned; volunteer-only across 34/100 legislative districts; rural state
Michigan 340k sigs in 180 days requires very high-intensity parallel field op
Arkansas Highest CPRS due to volunteer-only; 15-county req; litigation ongoing
Florida Constitutional only; ~880k sigs; 60% supermajority. If other states converge toward 60% thresholds, the distinction may be cost rather than structure

Blocked

Oklahoma Unviable due to heavy restrictions: shortest window, tightest concentration cap, high signature threshold, payment ban, and residency rule; restrictions are under active legal challenge
Illinois Subject restriction — unusable for citizen assembly lawmaking
Mississippi Process legally voided since 2021
Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Utah, Washington, Wyoming No citizen-initiated constitutional amendment route. Initiatives can only be used for statutory law.

No citizen initiative process

Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin

▶ Master Reference Table — All States, Alphabetical click to expand

State	Scope	Process	Sig %	Base	Sigs Req.	Geo Req.	Window	Deadline	Pass Threshold	CPRS	Est. Cost	Ballot Path
Alaska	Statute only	Indirect	10%	Gen. election votes	~29–33k	7% of district vote in 30 of 40 House districts	365 days	Even years Due: ~August	Simple majority	~$8–12	~$250–400k	Significant Barriers
Arizona	Statute + Const.	Direct	10%/15%	Gov. election votes	~237k/~356k	None (Prop. 134 defeated Nov. 2024)	2 years	Even years Due: ~July 3	Simple majority	~$10–14	~$2.4–3.3M	Clear Path
Arkansas	Statute + Const.	Direct	8%/10%	Gov. election votes	~91k/~114k	½ req. % from 15 of 75 counties ⚑ 50-county law blocked	4 months before election	Even years Due: ~July	Simple majority	~$21	~$1.9M	Significant Barriers
California	Statute + Const.	Direct	5%/8%	Gov. election votes	~547k/~874k	None	180 days	Even years Due: ~June 25	Simple majority	~$13–18	~$7.1–9.9M	Clear Path
Colorado	Statute + Const.	Direct	5%	SOS election votes	~124,000	All 35 Senate districts	180 days	Even years Due: ~August 3	Simple majority (statute); 55% supermajority (amendment)	~$8–12	~$1.0–1.5M	Clear Path
Florida	Const. only	Direct	8%	Presidential votes	~880,000	8% from 14 of 28 congressional districts	2 years (narrowed 2025)	Even years Due: ~February	60% supermajority	~$15–25	~$13–22M	Costly If other states trend to 60%, distinction may be financial not structural
Idaho	Statute only	Indirect	6%	Registered voters	~70,000	6% in 18 of 35 legislative districts	18 months	Even years Due: ~May	Simple majority	~$3–8	~$210–560k	Blocked Statute only — no constitutional-amendment route ⚑ SJR 101 threat
Illinois	Const. only — Art. IV	Direct	8%	Gov. election votes	~364,000	None	24 months	Even years Due: ~May	60% voting OR majority total cast	—	—	Not viable Subject restriction
Maine	Statute only	Indirect	10%	Gov. election votes	~67,000	Max 25% from any single county	18 months	Even years Due: ~July prior yr	Simple majority	~$5–9	~$335–600k	Blocked Statute only — no constitutional-amendment route
Massachusetts	Statute + Const.	Both (indirect statute)	3%+0.5% (two rounds)	Gov. election votes	~72,000 (total)	Max 25% from any county	Two windows: ~9 wks + ~8 wks	Even years Two deadlines	Simple majority; ≥30% total ballots must vote on measure	~$5–9	~$360–648k	Significant Barriers
Michigan	Statute + Const.	Statute: Indirect; Const.: Direct	8%/10%	Gov. election votes	~340k/~425k	None	180 days	Even years Due: ~July	Simple majority	~$8–12	~$2.7–4.1M	Significant Barriers
Mississippi	Voided	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	Unusable
Missouri	Statute + Const.	Direct	5%/8%	Gov. votes (per CD)	~106k/~170k	5%/8% from 6 of 8 congressional districts	18 months	Even years Due: ~May	Simple majority ⚑ district-majority bill pending	~$8–14	~$850k–1.5M	Clear Path
Montana	Statute + Const.	Direct	5%/10%	Gov. election votes	~24k/~48k	5% in 34 of 100 legislative districts (statute)	365 days	Even years Due: ~March	Simple majority; pay-per-sig banned	~$16	~$384k	Significant Barriers
Nebraska	Statute + Const.	Direct	7%/10%	Registered voters	~87k/~124k	5% of reg. voters in 38 of 93 counties	2 years	Even years Due: ~July 6	Simple majority; ≥35% of all ballots must include a vote on the measure	~$6–12	~$522k–1.04M	Clear Path
Nevada	Statute + Const.	Statute: Indirect; Const.: Direct	10%	Gen. election votes	~148,800	10% from each of 4 congressional districts	~291–316 days	Even years Due: ~June	Simple majority; const. must pass two consecutive elections	~$8–14	~$1.2–2.1M	Significant Barriers
North Dakota	Statute + Const.	Direct	2%/4%	Population	~15,600/~31,200	None	365 days	Even years Due: ~July	Simple majority	~$3–5	~$47–78k	Clear Path
Ohio	Statute + Const.	Direct	6%/10%	Gov. election votes	~300k/~413k	5% of gov. vote in 44 of 88 counties	No time limit	Even years Self-select	Simple majority (voters defeated 60% attempt Aug. 2023) ⚑ further restrictions sought	~$14–16	~$4.2–4.8M	Clear Path
Oklahoma	Statute + Const.	Direct	8%/15%	Gov. election votes	~168k/~315k	Max 11.5%/20.8% from any county	90 days	Even years Due: ~August 3	Simple majority; pay-per-sig banned May 2025; circulator residency req.	~$25+	~$4.2M+	Blocked
Oregon	Statute + Const.	Direct	6%/8%	Gov. election votes	~117k/~158k	None	2 years	Even years Due: ~July 6	Simple majority; pay-per-sig banned	~$5–9	~$585k–1.05M	Clear Path
South Dakota	Statute + Const.	Direct	5%/10%	Gov. election votes	~17,500/~35,000	None	2 years	Even years Due: ~Nov prior yr	Simple majority ⚑ 60% proposed 2026 ballot	$0–$10	$0–$175k	Clear Path
Utah	Statute only	Direct	8%	Active registered voters	~175,000	8% in 26 of 29 Senate districts	316 days	Even years Due: ~April 15	Simple majority; pay-per-sig banned	~$5–10	~$875k–1.75M	Blocked
Washington	Statute only	Both (ITP direct; ITL indirect)	8%	Gov. election votes	~324,000	None	ITP: 180 days; ITL: ~295 days	Even years	Simple majority; pay-per-sig banned	~$4	~$1.3M	Blocked Statute only — no constitutional-amendment route
Wyoming	Statute only	Direct	15%	Gen. election votes	~38–45k	15% from 16 of 23 counties	2 years	Even years Due: ~June	Simple majority; pay-per-sig banned	~$10–18	~$380–810k	Blocked Statute only — no constitutional-amendment route

CPRS = Cost Per Required Signature. Estimates based on Ballotpedia 2016–2024 averages for professionally run campaigns.

Active Flags (2024–2026)

Arkansas — 2023 Act 236 (50-county law) blocked by federal court injunction (Feb 2026). Current lawful requirement: 15 counties. Under appeal.
Florida (2025 HB 1205) — No signatures can be verified July–September. Window dramatically narrowed.
Idaho (SJR 101, 2025) — Would require signatures from all 35 legislative districts. Monitor status.
Missouri (2025 proposals) — Legislature seeking district-majority-to-pass rule. Not enacted as of July 2026.
Oklahoma (SB 1027, May 2025) — Bans pay-per-signature, requires circulator residency. Under legal challenge.
South Dakota (Amendment L, Nov. 2026 ballot) — Would require 60% supermajority for constitutional amendments.
Wyoming (post-2024 turnout) — Signature requirement jumped ~37% to ~38,000–45,000 from 16 of 23 counties.

Sources

Factor 2: Existing Culture of Deliberation (For States with Initiative Process)

Where does meaningful deliberative civic infrastructure already exist — citizen assemblies that have actually met, bridging organizations with chapters on the ground, universities running deliberation programs, facilitation networks? These are the places where a citizen assembly campaign can plug into something real rather than starting from scratch.

▶ Open Factor 2 detail — map, state assessment table & scoring criteria

▶ How these ratings were determined

The deliberation culture score is a qualitative synthesis across three indicators: (1) institutions — universities, foundations, or nonprofits with active deliberation programming (not just civic engagement generally); (2) practice — documented instances of citizen assemblies, deliberative polls, citizen juries, or structured public consultations that have actually convened in that state; and (3) networks — active chapters of national bridging organizations such as Braver Angels, Living Room Conversations, or the National Issues Forums network.

Strong means at least one significant institution anchoring deliberative practice, documented past assemblies, and active bridging networks. Some means meaningful infrastructure exists in major metros but isn't statewide. Limited means largely faith-based or general civic engagement — the deliberation-specific infrastructure is thin, though that may change with the right partner. This map shows all states with an initiative process colored by deliberation strength, regardless of any other filter — national organizations doing this work should see the full picture.

▶ State-by-State Assessment & Organizations — initiative-viable states only click to expand · preliminary · verify with state partners

State	Initiative Path	Deliberation Culture	Key Organizations & Centers
Ohio	Clear Path	Strong	Kettering Foundation (Dayton — home of NIF, 60+ years deliberation research) · National Issues Forums Institute (Dayton — public deliberation network) · Citizens League of Greater Cleveland · Braver Angels Ohio (chapters: Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton) · Public Agenda (national, strong OH ties) · Living Room Conversations (OH groups active)
Colorado	Clear Path	Strong	National Civic League (Denver HQ, est. 1894; hosts Civic Genius / YOUnify citizen assembly program) · Center for Public Deliberation, CSU (Fort Collins — NCDD member; co-organized Fort Collins Civic Assembly 2025: 20 delegates, Hughes Stadium site, $150k, 22 recommendations) · Unify America (Montrose CO citizens' assembly 2022: child care accessibility, Panelot platform) · Healthy Democracy (CO climate mini-public, Fort Collins assembly partner) · Jefferson Center / CNDP (citizen juries since 1974; national but CO work) · Braver Angels Colorado · Living Room Conversations (Denver groups)
Oregon	Clear Path	Strong	Healthy Democracy (Portland — runs the Citizens' Initiative Review; state law since 2011; also ran Milwaukie citizens jury 2019 — first municipal lottery panel in OR — and Deschutes County Civic Assembly 2024) · DemocracyNext (DemNext) (OR-focused; co-organized Deschutes County assembly Sep–Oct 2024: 30 residents, youth homelessness, lottery from 12,750 letters) · Central Oregon Civic Action Project (COCAP) (Deschutes County — ran OR's first civic assembly on youth homelessness 2024; 2026 assembly on AI in partnership with Bloom Project + Citizens4Community) · Citizens4Community (partner org on 2026 Central Oregon AI civic assembly) · Bloom Project Oregon (AI-focus civic assembly platform; Deschutes/Crook/Jefferson counties 2026) · Unify America (citizen juries; Eugene OR assembly 2020: 29-person jury on housing code) · National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (Portland HQ) · Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab (strong OR partnership) · Braver Angels Pacific Northwest · Living Room Conversations Oregon
Massachusetts	Clear Path	Strong	Harvard Ash Center (Cambridge — Democratic Governance & Innovation programs) · Everyday Democracy (Hartford/national, strong New England presence) · Public Agenda · New England town meeting tradition (oldest deliberative institution in US, active in MA since 1620s) · Deliberative Democracy Consortium (MA members)
California	Clear Path	Strong	Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab (Palo Alto — leading global research center; "America in One Room" 2019) · Healthy Democracy (Petaluma CA citizens' assembly 2022 — first municipal citizens' assembly in California, 164-acre fairground decision, $450k investment) · Living Room Conversations (founded in CA, many groups) · Braver Angels California (LA, Bay Area) · NCDD member orgs (multiple CA-based)
Michigan	Significant Barriers	Some	The People (Grand Rapids HQ — Katie Fahey, ED, organized MI's landmark gerrymandering ballot initiative; org runs NH/SC/NV Forums; Michigan roots run deep) · Braver Angels Michigan (Grand Rapids — one of the more active chapters nationally) · U of Michigan Center for Local, State & Urban Policy (Ann Arbor) · Bridge Michigan (civic journalism + public dialogue) · Everyday Democracy (Michigan programs) · Detroit neighborhood assembly tradition (community-driven deliberation since 2010s)
Utah	Blocked Statute only — no constitutional-amendment route	Some	YOUnify / Civic Genius (National Civic League program; partnered with Millcreek UT mayor & council — one of the first citizen assemblies in Utah) · Envision Utah (Salt Lake City — nationally recognized public visioning methodology; large-scale citizen engagement) · Utah Foundation (civic research & public deliberation) · Braver Angels Utah · BYU Center for the Study of Elections & Democracy · LDS ward meeting culture (structured community deliberation at scale — unique civic infrastructure)
Missouri	Clear Path	Some	Braver Angels Missouri (St. Louis chapter active) · Kansas City Civic Council · Missouri Humanities Council (public deliberation programs) · Living Room Conversations Missouri · University of Missouri School of Journalism civic dialogue programs (Columbia)
Arizona	Clear Path	Some	Arizona Town Hall (Phoenix — citizen deliberation since 1962, ~100 research participants per session) · ASU Morrison Institute (public policy & civic engagement programs) · AZ Citizens Clean Elections Commission · Braver Angels Arizona · Living Room Conversations AZ
Nebraska	Clear Path	Some	Omaha Community Foundation (civic engagement grants) · Braver Angels Nebraska · University of Nebraska–Lincoln civic programs · Nebraska Civic Holiday Coalition · National Issues Forums (Nebraska affiliate groups) · Unicameral legislature tradition — 49-year history of nonpartisan civic innovation
Nevada	Clear Path	Some	Nevada Forum (nvforum.org — by The People; civic assembly scheduled Aug 2026, targeting 2027 legislature; same model as NH Forum & SC Forum: online crowd input → in-person 50–100 person lottery assembly → recommended legislation) · Braver Angels Nevada · Nevada Alliance for Civic Engagement · UNLV Lincy Institute (civic research) · Labor union deliberative infrastructure (strong in NV)
Florida	Significant Barriers	Some	The Village Square (Tallahassee HQ — leading national bridging-dialogue org since 2006; chapters have expanded to Sarasota and beyond) · Bob Graham Center for Public Service, University of Florida (Gainesville — civic engagement & policy programs) · Braver Angels Florida (multiple metro alliances) · Living Room Conversations Florida · No documented convened citizen assembly or deliberative poll yet — the gap versus the Strong-tier states
North Dakota	Clear Path	Some	Consensus Council (Fargo; est. 1990 — statewide nonprofit dedicated to bridging diverse viewpoints and building consensus across the northern plains region) · North Dakota Humanities Council (community deliberation grants, Reading & Discussion programs) · NIF forum affiliate groups (scattered statewide) · Plains Folk (NPR civic programming) · UND civic engagement programs
South Dakota	Clear Path	Limited	South Dakota Humanities Foundation (has funded deliberation events) · Faith-based civic engagement (substantial, less deliberation-specific) · Sioux Falls Metro Civic Coalition · USD civic programs
Montana	Significant Barriers	Limited	Montana Voices (civic engagement coalition) · Braver Angels Montana (Missoula chapter) · Montana Humanities Council · Missoula Civic Media Center · University of Montana civic programs
Idaho	Blocked Statute only — no constitutional-amendment route ⚑ SJR 101 threat	Limited	Boise State Univ. Institute for Policy & Social Research · Braver Angels Idaho · University of Idaho civic programs · Living Room Conversations Idaho · Note: SJR 101 threatens the initiative process itself — monitor before investing
Arkansas	Significant Barriers	Limited	Arkansas Community Foundation (civic engagement grants) · Central Arkansas Library System (civic dialogue programming) · Winrock International (civic development programs) · Faith-based civic engagement — substantial but less deliberation-specific
Wyoming	Blocked	Limited	Wyoming Humanities Council (community deliberation programs) · University of Wyoming civic programs · Braver Angels Wyoming (nascent) · Ranching community meetings — informal deliberative culture
Oklahoma	Blocked	Limited	Oklahoma Policy Institute (civic engagement programs) · Tulsa Race Massacre Centennial Commission (community deliberation model) · Oklahoma City civic organizations · OU civic programs

Key national orgs active across multiple states: The Forum model (citizen-led civic assemblies; state sites: NH Forum · SC Forum · NV Forum) · Healthy Democracy (OR, CA, CO, MA, AZ) · Unify America (OR, CO) · DemocracyNext (OR) · National Issues Forums (Kettering; nationwide affiliate groups) · Everyday Democracy (national) · Living Room Conversations (national) · Braver Angels (national chapters) · NCDD member directory

Factor 3: Political Perception: Will It Travel? (For States with Initiative Process)

For the model to succeed nationally, it must not be pre-rejected as a "coastal progressive" project. The state where it launches acts as a brand signal. This factor assesses how an initiative in each state would be received across the full political spectrum — including by audiences who are skeptical of elite liberal institutions.

▶ Open Factor 3 detail — map, state-by-state assessment & the asymmetry argument

▶ The asymmetry argument — why this matters and the evidence behind it

The key insight is that the perception problem is asymmetric. When a progressive innovation originates in California or Massachusetts, it activates a strong negative association among conservatives — "another coastal idea being imposed." When the same innovation originates in Wyoming or Ohio, that activation doesn't happen for liberal audiences, who are generally more open to validating evidence from unexpected sources. This means a Wyoming-launched citizen assembly initiative can win supporters across the full spectrum, while a California-launched one will have a built-in ceiling with roughly half the country.

Evidence from political science and recent history: Academic research on policy diffusion (Grossback, Peterson & Stimson, 2004; Shipan & Volden, 2008) shows that state-of-origin significantly affects how innovations are received by legislators and voters in other states. More concretely: the Utah Compact on immigration (2011) gained national attention precisely because it came from a red state — conservative senators who would have dismissed the same document from California called it "reasonable." Cannabis legalization gained broader public legitimacy after deeply conservative states like Oklahoma came close to passing it. The ACA's "Obamacare" label — associating it with a coastal Democrat — measurably depressed Republican favorability for the policy regardless of substance (Lax & Phillips 2012).

State favorability data: Morning Consult's state favorability tracking (2022–2024) shows California with net favorability of roughly −30 to −40 among Republican respondents nationally — among the lowest of any state. Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho consistently show +50 or higher net favorability among Republicans. Oregon and Washington sit in the −10 to −20 range — better than California, but still net-negative among the conservative audience that needs to be persuaded. Colorado is roughly net-neutral to slightly positive among Republicans — a meaningfully different position from the Pacific Northwest states, even though Trump's 2020 vote share in Oregon (40.4%) was nearly identical to Colorado's (41.9%). The difference is not the partisan split but the cultural brand: Oregon reads as Pacific NW progressive; Colorado reads as centrist Western.

Perception Assessment by State — initiative-viable states only

State	Perception Risk	Trump '20 % (conservative-brand proxy)	Assessment
Wyoming	Clean	69.9%	Strongest possible perception signal. A citizen assembly launching here is unambiguously nonpartisan — even among hard skeptics.
North Dakota	Clean	65.5%	Deep-red, rural — carries zero coastal association. No perception constraint here.
South Dakota	Clean	61.8%	Excellent perception profile. The 60% supermajority ballot measure in 2026 is the main watch item.
Arkansas	Clean	62.4%	Strong perception profile. Initiative process barriers and deliberation culture are the constraints.
Idaho	Clean	63.8%	Excellent perception signal (deep red). SJR 101 threatens the initiative process itself — that's the risk, not perception.
Oklahoma	Clean	65.4%	Very strong perception profile. Initiative process constraints (90-day window, pay-per-sig ban) are the real barrier.
Montana	Clean	56.9%	Deep red — perception is an asset. If Montana launches a ballot initiative for the model, that story travels nationally in the right direction.
Utah	Clean	58.3%	Socially conservative but civic-minded — excellent combination. An initiative in Utah would be seen as bipartisan and credible.
Missouri	Clean	56.8%	Solidly red, Midwestern — strong perception profile. Urban-rural mix (KC + STL + rural) broadens credibility.
Nebraska	Clean	58.2%	Reliable conservative credibility. Unicameral legislature tradition is an additional civic innovation signal.
Ohio	Clean	53.3%	Slightly red, Midwestern — excellent. Swing-state history adds credibility across partisan lines. Kettering Foundation home gives it civic-innovation gravitas too.
Florida	Clean	51.2%	Reliably red at the presidential level and carries no coastal-progressive association — but its size and national media profile make any launch here highly visible, so it reads as a large-scale proof point rather than a quiet deep-red signal. Cost and deliberation infrastructure, not perception, are the real constraints.
Arizona	Clean	49.1%	Purple state — broadest possible perception profile. Neither side can claim it as "theirs." Strong credibility signal.
Michigan	Clean	47.8%	Purple, Midwestern — good perception profile. Detroit + rural mix; seen as working-class, not coastal-elite.
Nevada	Clean	47.7%	Purple, Western — decent perception. Las Vegas association is apolitical. No coastal liberal brand.
Colorado	Clean	41.9%	Now a blue-trending state but not perceived as a coastal progressive brand. Denver's "Western pragmatist" identity is distinct from Pacific NW progressive culture. Morning Consult: ~net neutral among Republicans — a different category from OR/WA.
Oregon	Caution	40.4%	Trump share nearly identical to Colorado (40.4% vs 41.9%), but cultural brand is different — Portland/Pacific NW association reads as progressive to national audiences. Better than Washington. Could move toward clean if early co-sponsors include Idaho or Montana voices.
Massachusetts	Caution	32.1%	Harvard/MIT association creates elite liberal brand nationally, but MA is not "Chicago/NY/CA-level" in most people's political geography — it reads more as university-elite than urban progressive machine. Strong case for caution rather than exclusion; would benefit significantly from visible conservative co-signatories at launch.
California	High risk	34.3%	Morning Consult net favorability among Republicans: approximately −35 to −45. "California-style" is actively used as a pejorative in conservative politics and state legislatures. Excellent initiative process and deliberation culture — but as an origin state, this creates the hardest possible starting position for persuading skeptical audiences.