Three independent lenses for choosing which states to target first: how structurally open is the initiative process; whether there's an existing ground-level culture of deliberative civic engagement; and whether an initiative originating there would be received as a nonpartisan civic innovation rather than a coastal progressive project.
Which states have an accessible initiative process — structurally, not just financially. Green = easy path, yellow = non-financial barriers, red = challenging or effectively blocked, grey = no citizen initiative process exists.
| 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 | Moderate |
| 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 | Easy 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 | Moderate |
| 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 | Easy 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 | Easy 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 | Moderate ⚑ 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 | Easy Path |
| 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 | Easy Path |
| 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 | Moderate |
| 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 | Easy 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 | Moderate |
| 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 | Easy 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 | Easy Path Use statute path |
| 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 | Easy 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 | Easy 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+ | Very Challenging |
| 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 | Easy 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 | Easy 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 | Easy Path |
| 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 | Easy Path Lowest CPRS ($4.01) |
| 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 | Challenging |
CPRS = Cost Per Required Signature. Estimates based on Ballotpedia 2016–2024 averages for professionally run campaigns.
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.
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 | Initiative Path | Deliberation Culture | Key Organizations & Centers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio | Easy 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 | Easy 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 | Easy 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 | Easy 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 | Easy 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) |
| Washington | Easy Path | Strong | Living Room Conversations (strong Seattle presence) · Braver Angels Pacific Northwest · Sightline Institute (civic policy, deliberative research) · King County civic engagement programs · Washington State University civic dialogue programs |
| Michigan | Moderate barrier | 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 | Easy Path | 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 | Easy 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 | Easy 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 | Easy 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 |
| Maine | Easy Path | Some | Maine Citizens' Assembly (June 2026 — 64 delegates, 4 per county, education priorities; University of Southern Maine; Bangor) · New England town meeting tradition (oldest direct deliberative institution in US) · League of Women Voters Maine · Engage Maine · Healthy Democracy (CIR pilots 2016 & 2018 in ME) · University of Maine civic programs |
| Nevada | Easy 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) |
| North Dakota | Easy Path | Limited | 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 | Easy 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 | Moderate barrier | Limited | Montana Voices (civic engagement coalition) · Braver Angels Montana (Missoula chapter) · Montana Humanities Council · Missoula Civic Media Center · University of Montana civic programs |
| Idaho | Moderate barrier | 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 |
| Alaska | Moderate barrier | Limited | Alaska Common Ground (Anchorage — bipartisan civic dialogue) · University of Alaska Anchorage civic programs · Living Room Conversations Alaska · Independent political tradition (RCV adopted 2020) — positive signal for civic innovation |
| Arkansas | Moderate barrier | 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 | Challenging | Limited | Wyoming Humanities Council (community deliberation programs) · University of Wyoming civic programs · Braver Angels Wyoming (nascent) · Ranching community meetings — informal deliberative culture |
| Oklahoma | Very Challenging | Limited | Oklahoma Policy Institute (civic engagement programs) · Tulsa Race Massacre Centennial Commission (community deliberation model) · Oklahoma City civic organizations · OU civic programs |
For a citizen assembly initiative to win nationally, the idea 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 originating in each state would be received across the full political spectrum — including by audiences who are skeptical of elite liberal institutions.
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.
| 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. Thin deliberation culture is the constraint, not perception. |
| 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 citizen assembly initiative, that story travels nationally in the right direction. |
| Utah | Clean | 58.3% | Socially conservative but civic-minded — excellent combination. Initiative from UT 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. |
| Alaska | Clean | 52.8% | Independent streak (RCV adopted statewide) reduces partisan association. Perceived as its own thing — not a coastal state. |
| 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. |
| Maine | Caution | 44.0% | New England lean — slight liberal association in national perception, but independent political culture (Angus King) and rural character offset this. Less risky than OR/WA; monitor co-sponsors. |
| 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. |
| Washington | Higher risk | 38.8% | Seattle/Pacific NW brand is strongly associated with progressive politics nationally. Morning Consult: net negative among Republicans. Not disqualifying for a broadly-signed initiative, but starting from a harder position. |
| 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. |
The three factors don't carry equal weight — they apply sequentially. Perception is a filter: if an initiative originating in a state would be pre-rejected as a coastal progressive project by the audiences we most need to persuade, it doesn't matter how good the initiative path is. For a citizen assembly to take hold in the American imagination, it must come from a place that Americans across the political spectrum consider part of their America — not from places they associate with far-left elite culture. Initiative path is also a filter: structurally inaccessible states drop out regardless of other factors. Deliberation culture is a differentiator within the states that pass both filters — it tells us where we can plug into something real rather than building from scratch. The map below reflects this logic: states passing both filters are colored by their deliberation strength; states excluded by perception or initiative barriers appear muted.
| # | State | Combined | F1: Initiative | F2: Deliberation | F3: Perception | Key Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ohio | Tier 1 | Easy Path | Strong | Clean | Kettering Foundation home; no time limit; simple majority; ~$4.2–4.8M. Voters defeated the 60% supermajority proposal in 2023 — the public is with us even if the legislature isn't. |
| 2 | Colorado | Tier 1 | Easy Path | Strong | Clean | National Civic League HQ; statute path = simple majority at ~$1–1.5M — best culture-to-cost ratio of any viable state. 55% supermajority only applies to constitutional amendments; use statute path. |
| 3 | Missouri | Tier 2 | Easy Path | Some | Clean | 6/8 congressional districts (achievable); Braver Angels active; ~$850k–1.5M. Watch: legislature seeking district-majority-to-pass rule — verify status before filing. |
| 4 | Utah | Tier 2 | Easy Path | Some | Clean | Community meeting culture (LDS infrastructure); 26/29 Senate districts; statute only; ~$875k–1.75M. Conservative origin gives this national credibility among skeptics. |
| 5 | Arizona | Tier 2 | Easy Path | Some | Clean | Arizona Town Hall (citizen deliberation since 1962); 2-year window; no geo distribution; ~$2.4–3.3M. Purple-state credibility is uniquely broad. |
| 6 | Nebraska | Tier 2 | Easy Path | Some | Clean | 2-year window; 38/93 counties; ~$522k–1M. Unicameral legislature tradition = civic innovation credibility. Midwestern conservative brand is a perception asset. |
| 7 | Michigan | Tier 3 | Moderate barrier | Some | Lean-clean | 340k sigs in 180 days is a real logistical challenge; Grand Rapids Braver Angels; Detroit civic reinvention; ~$2.7–4.1M. Working-class swing state = broad credibility. |
| 8 | Nevada | Tier 3 | Easy Path | Some | Clean | 4 congressional districts; statute path (legislature first); ~$1.2–2.1M. Deliberation infrastructure is the gap — needs strong in-state partner before launch. |
| 9 | Montana | Tier 3 | Moderate barrier | Limited | Clean | Volunteer-only across 34/100 districts is a real organizing ask. But: ~$384k total, deep red = excellent perception signal. If Montana launches a citizen assembly initiative, that story travels the right direction nationally. Needs serious grassroots partner first. |
| 10 | North Dakota | Tier 3 | Easy Path | Limited | Clean | Cheapest state in the nation (~$47–78k); no distribution requirement; 1-year window. Thin deliberation infrastructure is the gap. Attractive as a low-cost proof-of-concept if a strong in-state civic partner exists. |