The citizen initiative allows voters to bypass state legislatures and propose laws for a statewide referendum. It exists in twenty-four states but has national significance because initiatives drive reform on contested issues. Recently, courts have begun to clamp down on the initiative. One significant trend is the strict enforcement of the single-subject rule to strike initiatives when they are considered too broad. Although courts are notoriously inconsistent with the rule, they assert two reasons for aggressive enforcement. First, they claim the rule’s historic purpose is to prevent any form of “logrolling”—including any imaginable aggregation of public-regarding voting blocs. Second, courts assert that regardless of the rule’s history, normative concerns require judges to aggressively enforce the rule to protect voters from confusion and “false choices.”

This Article assesses these claims. Drawing on all known state constitutional convention debates where the single-subject rule was introduced and discussed (sixty-three debates beginning in 1837), the Article shows that the rule was primarily responsive to two specific nineteenth-century problems: (1) legislative dysfunction caused by local and private laws; and (2) outdated rule-of- law concerns caused by uncatalogued statutes. Contrary to the unsupported assumption of most courts, nothing about the rule’s origin story requires courts to apply it as a strict ban on aggregating public-regarding voting blocs in statewide referenda. Moreover, drawing on up-to-date empirical research and public choice theory, the Article shows that aggressive judicial enforcement of the single-subject rule is more harmful than helpful to the initiative. As it turns out, referenda are more effective at disaggregating ballot questions than courts, and aggressive judicial enforcement mostly results in judges striking initiatives that do not align with their personal policy preferences.

The Article concludes by sketching a more constructive path forward for courts that prioritizes a deferential standard of review for generalized public policy initiatives, a heightened standard for local or private entitlements, and more collaborative remedies (like writs dividing initiatives into separate ballot questions rather than striking them in toto).