Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

2018 U.S. state ballot measures
2019 » « 2017
Overview
Scorecard
Tuesday Count
Deadlines
Requirements
Lawsuits
Readability
Voter guides
Election results
Year-end analysis
Campaigns
Polls
Media editorials
Filed initiatives
Finances
Contributions
Signature costs
Ballot Measure Monthly
Signature requirements
Have you subscribed yet? Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew. Click here to learn more.

This page provides an overview of the readability scores of the ballot titles and summaries of ballot measures certified to go before voters in 2018.

A readability score is an estimation of the reading difficulty of a text. Measurements used in calculating readability scores include the number of syllables, words, and sentences in a text. Other factors, such as the complexity of an idea in a text, are not reflected in readability scores.

In 2018, 108 statewide ballot measures were certified for ballots. Voters in states with ballot measures read questions on their ballots asking them whether to approve or reject a measure. As the text of ballot measures is often multiple pages of statute or constitutional law, someone is tasked in each state with writing a shorter title and summary to appear on the ballot for the measures.

Readability index details

Ballotpedia uses two formulas, the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), to compute scores for the titles and summaries of ballot measures. The FRE formula produces a score between a negative number and 100, with the highest score (100) representing a 5th-grade equivalent reading level and scores at or below zero representing college graduate-equivalent reading level. Therefore, the higher the score, the easier the text is to read. The FKGL formula produces a score equivalent to the estimated number of years of U.S. education required to understand a text. A score of five estimates that a U.S. 5th grade student would be able to read and comprehend a text, while a score of 20 estimates that a person with 20 years of U.S. formal education would be able to read and comprehend a text. Ballotpedia uses Readable.io to calculate the scores.

Learn more about these formulas in the formulas section below.

Overview

2018 highlights

HIGHLIGHTS

The average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for the ballot titles or questions of all 2018 statewide ballot measures was between 19 and 20; average state scores ranged from eight to 42.

The average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for the ballot summaries or explanations of all the 2018 statewide ballot measures that were given a summary or explanation was 16; average state scores ranged from seven to 43.

The states with the lowest average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Levels for ballot titles or questions were Alaska, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts with 8, 9, and 11, respectively.

The states with the lowest average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Levels for ballot summaries or explanations were Alaska, Wisconsin, and North Carolina with 7, 8, and 9.

The states with the highest average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Levels for ballot titles or questions were Connecticut, West Virginia, and Georgia with 42, 34, and 32.

For ballot summaries or explanations the highest average grade levels were in Idaho, Arizona, and New Mexico with 43, 28, and 23.

Average ballot title grades were lowest for language written by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission (10), initiative petitioners (15), and attorneys general (16).

Average ballot title grades were highest for language written by special state boards and state legislatures.

Legislative research offices and counsels were responsible for the lowest average summary grades at 14; special state boards came in second at 15, and secretary of states third at 16.

The states with the longest ballot titles or questions on average were Arkansas, Oklahoma, Ohio, North Dakota, South Carolina, and New Hampshire, all of which did not feature additional ballot summaries or explanations.

The states with the shortest ballot titles or questions on average were Florida, Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Idaho; all of these except Hawaii did feature additional ballot summaries or explanations.

To see the readability of individual certified measures, click here.

Analysis by state

Title and summary grades

Readability averages by state
State	Average title grade	Average # of words	Average summary grade	Average # of words	Number of measures
Alabama	30	62	14	286	4
Alaska	8	14	7	316	1
Arizona	23	36	28	121	5
Arkansas	22	274	N/A	N/A	3
California	14	17	16	73	16
Colorado	28	96	N/A	N/A	13
Connecticut	42	96	N/A	N/A	2
Florida	13	13	17	56	12
Georgia	32	70	16	99	7
Hawaii	13	20	N/A	N/A	2
Idaho	16	20	43	93	2
Indiana	28	59	N/A	N/A	1
Kentucky	17	38	N/A	N/A	1
Louisiana	24	46	N/A	N/A	6
Maine	24	48	N/A	N/A	6
Maryland	22	109	N/A	N/A	2
Massachusetts	11	24	16	410	3
Michigan	22	34	15	104	3
Missouri	16	104	14	178	8
Montana	18	103	N/A	N/A	4
Nebraska	28	58	N/A	N/A	1
Nevada	22	55	17	926	6
New Hampshire	12	130	N/A	N/A	2
New Jersey	13	88	12	113	1
New Mexico	24	77	23	103	6
North Carolina	21	33	9	229	6
North Dakota	20	138	N/A	N/A	4
Ohio	16	143	N/A	N/A	2
Oklahoma	12	147	N/A	N/A	6
Oregon	15	98	14	136	6
Rhode Island	9	74	N/A	N/A	3
South Carolina	24	137	N/A	N/A	1
South Dakota	18	25	12	147	6
Utah	16	75	14	668	7
Virginia	22	42	N/A	N/A	2
Washington	12	44	16	75	5
West Virginia	34	79	N/A	N/A	2
Wisconsin	18	63	8	188	1

Title and summary ease rating

Expand the table for Flesch Reading Ease averages by state by clicking [show] below.

Readability averages by state
State	Average title ease	Average # of words	Average summary ease	Average # of words	Number of measures
Alabama	-10	62	46	286	4
Alaska	60	14	49	316	1
Arizona	-9	36	-10	121	5
Arkansas	22	269	N/A	N/A	4
California	7	17	29	73	16
Colorado	-10	96	N/A	N/A	13
Connecticut	-32	96	N/A	N/A	2
Florida	18	13	16	56	12
Georgia	-10	70	30	99	7
Hawaii	41	20	N/A	N/A	2
Idaho	18	20	-47	93	2
Indiana	1	59	N/A	N/A	1
Kentucky	41	38	N/A	N/A	1
Louisiana	5	46	N/A	NA	6
Maine	9	48	N/A	N/A	5
Maryland	6	109	N/A	N/A	2
Massachusetts	60	24	28	410	3
Michigan	-1	34	14	104	3
Missouri	25	104	31	178	8
Montana	15	103	N/A	N/A	4
Nebraska	-4	58	N/A	N/A	1
Nevada	8	55	24	926	6
New Hampshire	41	130	N/A	N/A	2
New Jersey	44	88	39	113	1
New Mexico	1	77	6	103	6
North Carolina	4	33	51	229	6
North Dakota	14	138	N/A	N/A	4
Ohio	16	143	N/A	N/A	2
Oklahoma	41	147	N/A	N/A	6
Oregon	21	98	28	136	6
Rhode Island	56	74	N/A	N/A	3
South Carolina	6	137	N/A	N/A	1
South Dakota	9	25	37	147	6
Utah	28	75	30	668	7
Virginia	17	42	N/A	N/A	2
Washington	35	44	22	75	5
West Virginia	-24	79	N/A	N/A	2
Wisconsin	23	63	57	188	1

Analysis by the author of ballot language

The person or office responsible for drafting the ballot language for statewide ballot measures varies by state. In some states, the ballot language for different types of measures is drafted by different persons or offices. Moreover, some states require collaboration. For example, the secretary of state might draft the language, but it requires approval by the attorney general.

Readability averages by state
Author type	Average title grade	Min-max range	Average summary grade	Min-max range	Number of measures	Number of states
State legislature	22	8-54	N/A	N/A	62	23
Secretary of state	19	10-38	16	8-26	30	7
Attorney general	16	9-28	18	10-53	39	6
State board	30	15-65	15	14-16	12	3
Florida Constitution Revision Commission	10	1-19	17	10-19	6	1
legislative research and counsel	17	10-31	14	13-17	6	1
Initiative petitioners	15	9-25	20	17-24	9	4

Unique cases:

• For Oregon Measure 101, a veto referendum on the ballot in January, a legislative committee composed of three state representatives and three state senators was tasked to draft the referendum's ballot title and ballot summary—a task typically assigned to the attorney general. The bill calling for the committee to draft the language passed along partisan lines. Four Democrats and two Republicans were appointed to draft the ballot language, and veto referendum petitioners challenged the language, and, ultimately, it was altered by the Oregon Supreme Court. Ultimately, the language had a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 16, and the summary had a grade of 19.

• In Alaska, the ballot language for Measure 1 was drafted by the Alaska Lieutenant Governor. The measure had a ballot title Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 8, and the summary had a grade of 10.

• For the Hawaii Constitutional Convention Question the ballot question was mandated by the constitutional provision requiring the question to be automatically referred to the ballot. The question has a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 10.

Historical readability scores

Ballot language readability analsyes Ballot measure readability scores, 2024 Ballot measure readability scores, 2023 Ballot measure readability scores, 2022 Ballot measure readability scores, 2021 Ballot measure readability scores, 2020 Ballot measure readability scores, 2019 Ballot measure readability scores, 2018 Ballot measure readability scores, 2017

Reilly and Richey (2011)

Political scientists Shauna Reilly and Sean Richey conducted a study of 1,211 statewide ballot measures from 1997 to 2007 and concluded that more voters skipped voting on ballot measures when the titles and summaries were harder to read. To conduct the analysis, Reilly and Richey found the readability scores of the measures using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formula. They found that:

• Oklahoma measures had the lowest average readability score at grade level 9.
• New Mexico measures had the highest average readability score at grade level 28.
• Colorado had both the highest score and lowest score for individual measures, with one at grade level 5 and one at grade level 95. Colorado had the second-highest level of variation in readability scores between measures.
• Only four states—Oklahoma, Connecticut, North Carolina, and South Dakota—had average readability scores equivalent to a high school grade level (9-12) in the U.S. All other states measured had scores above a high school grade level.

2017 ballot measures

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2017

In 2017, the average ballot question required 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education) to read and comprehend, according to the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) formula. The FKGL scores of the 27 statewide ballot measures ranged from 7 to 42 years of formal U.S. education.

The ballot titles for the four initiatives on the ballot in 2017 had a lower mean FKGL score than titles for legislative referrals. The average score for initiatives was 14. The average score for legislative referrals was 23.

2018 readability scores

Ballot Measure:	Title grade:	Title ease:	Title word count:	Summary grade:	Summary ease:	Summary word count:	Author:
Washington Advisory Vote 19, Non-Binding Question on Oil Spill Tax Repeal	18	24	32	N/A	N/A	N/A	Washington Attorney General
Utah Nonbinding Opinion Question 1, 10 Cents per Gallon Gas Tax Increase for Education and Local Roads	14	43	29	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Hawaii Constitutional Convention Question	10	51	15	N/A	N/A	N/A	set by constitution
New Mexico Bond Question D: Higher Education, Special Schools, and Tribal Schools	27	-1.6	107	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
New Mexico Bond Question B: Public Libraries	24	5	93	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
New Mexico Bond Question C: School Buses Bond	22.5	17	93	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
New Jersey Public Question 1: School Projects Bond	13	44	88	12	38.5	113	state legislature
Rhode Island Question 2: Higher Education Facilities Bond Measure	25	-78	3	12	22	27	state legislature
New Mexico Bond Question A: Senior Citizen Facilities	27	-9	99	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Maine Question 3: Transportation Bond Issue	30	-13	61	N/A	N/A	N/A	secretary of state
Maine Question 4: University of Maine System Bond Issue	24	9	49	N/A	N/A	N/A	secretary of state
Maine Question 2: Wastewater Infrastructure Bond Issue	20.5	7	33	N/A	N/A	N/A	secretary of state
Maine Question 5: Community Colleges Bond Issue	19	20	36	N/A	N/A	N/A	secretary of state
Florida Amendment 13, Ban on Wagering on Dog Races Amendment	1	91	3	10	35	16	Florida Constitution Revision Commission
Florida Amendment 10, State and Local Government Structure Amendment	10.7	30.5	7	16.9	7.3	75	Florida Constitution Revision Commission
Florida Amendment 11, Repeal Prohibition on Aliens’ Property Ownership, Delete Obsolete Provision on High-Speed Rail, and Repeal of Criminal Statutes Effect on Prosecution Amendment	16	-2	8	15	19	51	Florida Constitution Revision Commission
Florida Amendment 9, Ban Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling and Ban Vaping in Enclosed Indoor Workplaces Amendment	13	25.5	12	18	11	53	Florida Constitution Revision Commission
Florida Amendment 12, Lobbying Restrictions Amendment	8	51	8	24	-16	33	Florida Constitution Revision Commission
Florida Amendment 7, First Responder and Military Member Survivor Benefits, Supermajority Board Votes for College Fees, and State College System Amendment	19	-20	11	18.5	-1	62	Florida Constitution Revision Commission
Florida Amendment 6, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights, Judicial Retirement Age, and Judicial Interpretation of Laws and Rules Amendment	3	83	5	16	23	74	Florida Constitution Revision Commission
Florida Amendment 3: Voter Approval of Casino Gambling Initiative	17	-9	9	24	13	103	initiative proponents
Florida Amendment 4: Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative	21	-50	3	16.7	30.7	62	initiative proponents
Nevada Question 4: Medical Equipment Sales Tax Exemption Amendment	13	27	53	11	36	340	secretary of state
Missouri Amendment 2: Medical Marijuana and Veteran Healthcare Services Initiative	16	11	103	16	14	164	secretary of state
Missouri Amendment 3: Medical Marijuana and Biomedical Research and Drug Development Institute Initiative	15	23	115	18	11	235	secretary of state
Oklahoma State Question 793, Right of Optometrists and Opticians to Practice in Retail Establishments Initiative	15	19	172	N/A	N/A	N/A	initiative petitioners
North Dakota Measure 1: Ethics Commission, Foreign Political Contribution Ban, and Conflicts of Interest Initiative	19	13	173	N/A	N/A	N/A	North Dakota Secretary of State
Michigan Proposal 3, Voting Policies in State Constitution Initiative	23	-5	35	14	26	102	state board
North Dakota Measure 2: Citizen Requirement for Voting Amendment Initiative	21	15	79	N/A	N/A	N/A	North Dakota Secretary of State
South Dakota Constitutional Amendment W, State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process	20.9	-8.3	26	14.0	22.4	201	attorney general
Michigan Proposal 2: Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative	21	-2.0	31	16	-3	107	state board
Missouri Amendment 1: Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting	12	29	110	16	27	265	secretary of state
Arizona Proposition 126: Prohibit New or Increased Taxes on Services Initiative	20	13	36	13	45	48	attorney general
Arizona Proposition 127: Renewable Energy Standards Initiative	26	-18	41	29	-17	161	attorney general
Ohio Issue 1: Drug and Criminal Justice Policies Initiative	17.5	11.5	166	N/A	N/A	N/A	state board
Missouri Proposition B: $12 Minimum Wage Initiative	10	52	108	8	57	93	secretary of state
Oregon Measure 105: Repeal Sanctuary State Law Initiative	12	28	73	14	21	124	attorney general
Idaho Proposition 2: Medicaid Expansion Initiative	13	36	19	33	-13	71	attorney general
Massachusetts Question 2: Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative	11	60	26	19	19	322	secretary of the commonwealth
Massachusetts Question 1, Nurse-Patient Assignment Limits Initiative	11	60	26	14	39	608	secretary of the commonwealth
Utah Proposition 3: Medicaid Expansion Initiative	10	50	95	14	29.5	670	Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel
Michigan Proposal 1, Marijuana Legalization Initiative	21	4.5	35	14	18	102	state board
North Dakota Measure 3, Marijuana Legalization and Automatic Expungement Initiative	21	5	223	N/A	N/A	N/A	North Dakota Secretary of State
Oklahoma State Question 788: Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative	12	35	202	N/A	N/A	N/A	initiative petitioners
Colorado Proposition 109: "Fix Our Damn Roads" Transportation Bond Initiative	31	-13	65	N/A	N/A	N/A	Colorado Title Board
Washington Initiative 940: Police Training and Criminal Liability in Cases of Deadly Force Measure	9	50	50	16	27	77	Washington Attorney General
Maine Question 1: Payroll and Non-Wage Income Taxes for Home Care Program Initiative	25	8	53	N/A	N/A	N/A	secretary of state
Alaska Ballot Measure 1, Salmon Habitat Protections and Permits Initiative	8	60	14	10	49	316	Alaska Lieutenant Governor
Utah Proposition 2: Medical Marijuana Initiative	12	36	97	14	29	873	Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel
South Dakota Initiated Measure 25, Tobacco Tax Increase Initiative	22	-5.4	32	14.6	31.3	184	attorney general
Missouri Proposition C: Medical Marijuana and Veterans Healthcare Services, Education, Drug Treatment, and Public Safety Initiative	15	20	136	15	21	167	secretary of state
South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative	18.1	15.3	28	13.7	28.9	182	attorney general
Montana I-186, Requirements for Permits and Reclamation Plans of New Hard Rock Mines Initiative	13	29	121	N/A	N/A	N/A	initiative proponents, with review by state officials,
Nebraska Initiative 427, Medicaid Expansion Initiative	28	-4	58	N/A	N/A	N/A	secretary of state
North Dakota Measure 4, Special License Plates and Free Access to State Parks for Volunteer Emergency Responders Initiative	17	22	76	N/A	N/A	N/A	North Dakota Secretary of State
Michigan Repeal Prevailing Wages and Fringe Benefits on State Projects Initiative
Arkansas Issue 5, Minimum Wage Increase Initiative	25	24	59	N/A	N/A	N/A	initiative proponents
California Proposition 11: Ambulance Employees Initiative	12	22	20	14	22	76	attorney general
California Proposition 12: Farm Animal Confinement Initiative	11	33	18	12	33	80	attorney general
California Proposition 4: Children's Hospital Bonds Initiative	13	10	12	27	-16	92	attorney general
Oklahoma State Question 788: Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative	12	35	202	N/A	N/A	N/A	initiative petitioners
Utah Proposition 4: Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative	15	17	102	14	22.5	940	Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel
Wisconsin Question 1: Elimination of State Treasurer Amendment	18	23	63	8	57	188	Wisconsin State Legislature and Wisconsin attorney general
Virginia Question 1: Property Tax Exemption for Flood Abatement Amendment	17	32	33	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Indiana Public Question 1: Balanced Budget Amendment	28	1	59	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
South Carolina Amendment 1: Appointed Superintendent of Education Amendment	24	6	137	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Missouri Amendment 4: Management and Advertisement of Bingo Games Amendment	12	38	68	12	28	86	secretary of state
New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 2: Independent Ethics Commission	26.5	-17	44	20	4	152	secretary of state
Georgia Amendment 3, Forest Land Conservation and Timberland Properties Amendment	46	-57	101	16	14	98	state legislature
California Proposition 71: Effective Date of Ballot Measures Amendment	15	-4.5	9	13	46	46	California attorney general
Maryland Question 2: Election-Day Voter Registration Amendment	14	25	35	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Virginia Question 2: Remove Restriction on Residence for Surviving Spouse of Disabled Veteran Tax Exemption Amendment	26	1	51	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Oregon Measure 102: Removes Restriction that Affordable Housing Projects Funded by Municipal Bonds be Government Owned	12	22	75	14	25	108	attorney general
Maryland Question 1: Gambling Revenue Dedicated to Education Lockbox Amendment	30	-13	182	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
South Dakota Constitutional Amendment Z, Single-Subject Rule for Constitutional Amendments	21	-3.5	29	11	41	76	attorney general
Oklahoma State Question 801: Allow Certain Voter-Approved Property Taxes to Fund School District Operations Amendment	9	53	54	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
New Hampshire Question 1, Taxpayer Standing to Bring Legal Actions Against Government Amendment	13	38	213	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Alabama Amendment 3: Board of Trustees Membership for University of Alabama	34	-25	68	16	31	327	state legislature
Georgia Amendment 4: Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Amendment	16	35	30	13	42	64	state legislature
New Hampshire Question 2, Right to Live Free from Governmental Intrusion in Private and Personal Information Amendment	10	44	47	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
North Carolina Legislative Appointments to Elections Board Amendment	19.5	-4	23	9	42	300	legislature and the NC Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission
South Dakota Constitutional Amendment Y, Changes to Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Amendment	13.3	30.3	17	10.7	51.1	164	attorney general
Georgia Amendment 2: Business Court Amendment	30	-4	65	13	39	86	state legislature
Kentucky Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment	17	41	38	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Louisiana Amendment 6: Phase-In of Tax Increases from Property Reappraisal Amendment	35	-15	79	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Utah Constitutional Amendment C: Changes Related to Special Legislative Sessions and State Revenue	15	30	101	14.5	32	803	Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel
North Carolina Judicial Selection for Midterm Vacancies Amendment	46	-55.7	101	8	54	352	legislature and the NC Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission
Utah Constitutional Amendment B: Tax Exemption for Property Leased by a Government Entity	18	29	36	13	39	330	Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel
Louisiana Amendment 4: No Dedication of Transportation Trust Fund Revenue to State Police Amendment	16	26	25	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Alabama Amendment 1: Ten Commandments	29	-15	53	12	49	261	state legislature
Alabama Amendment 2: State Abortion Policy	33	-7	76	14	43	287	state legislature
Alabama Amendment 4: Legislative Vacancies	25	6	52	12	50.5	270	state legislature
Arizona Proposition 125, Adjustments to Elected Officials’ and Corrections Officer's Retirement Plans Amendment	23	-21	27	28	-11	106	attorney general
Arkansas Issue 2, Voter ID Amendment	32	-39.5	52	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Florida Amendment 5: Two-Thirds Vote of Legislature to Increase Taxes or Fees Amendment	16	33	85	N/A	N/A	N/A	Florida State Legislature
North Carolina Voter ID Amendment	18	-8	13	10	36	115	legislature and the NC Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission
North Carolina Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment	11	42	14	7	60	120	legislature and the NC Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission
Georgia Referendum A: Homestead Municipal Property Tax Exemption	38	-22.5	87	17	29	124	state legislature
Missouri Proposition D: Gas Tax Increase, Olympic Prize Tax Exemption, and Traffic Reduction Fund Measure	21.5	18	86	11	48	260	secretary of state
Georgia Referendum B: Include Business-Financed Properties in Existing Non-Profit Mentally Disabled Housing Tax Exemption	18	24	32	16	27	77	state legislature
Montana LR-128: Property Tax for State University System Measure	12	34	26	N/A	N/A	N/A	state legislature
Arizona Proposition 306, Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure	28	-23	47	32	-30	115	attorney general
California Proposition 7: Legislative Power to Change Daylight Saving Time Measure	12	17	18	15.5	32	80	attorney general
Oregon Measure 101: Healthcare Insurance Premiums Tax for Medicaid Referendum	16	22	216	19	20	214	Legislative Drafting Committee
Massachusetts Question 3: Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Veto Referendum (2018)	11	60	21	15	27	300	secretary of the commonwealth
Missouri Proposition A: Right to Work Referendum	25	8	106	14	41	155	Missouri secretary of state
Maine Question 1: Ranked-Choice Voting Delayed Enactment and Automatic Repeal Referendum	24	20	56	N/A	N/A	N/A	secretary of state
Arizona Proposition 305: Expansion of Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Referendum	20	6	31	40	-37	175	attorney general

Formulas

The Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formulas use the same variables and are inversely correlated, meaning that as one increases the other decreases.

Flesch Reading Ease

In the 1940s, Rudolf Flesch developed the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) test. The U.S. Department of Defense uses the FRE to help craft its documents and manuals. The FRE computes a score based on the number of syllables, the number of words, and the number of sentences in a text. The FRE formula is as follows:

The FRE formula was designed to produce a score between 0 and 100, with the highest score (100) representing a 5th-grade equivalent reading level and the lowest score (0) representing college graduate-equivalent reading level. However, a score can be negative, representing increased difficulty. Therefore, the higher the score, the easier the text is to read. Rudolf Flesch created the following guide to interpreting FRE scores:

Score	School level
90 to 100	5th grade
80 to 90	6th grade
70 to 80	7th grade
60 to 70	8th and 9th grade
50 to 60	10th to 12th grade
30 to 50	College
0 to 30	College graduate

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level

In 1975, J. Peter Kincaid recalculated FRE to give a score in the form of a U.S. school grade level for use by the U.S. Navy. This new formula became known as the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) test. Like FRE, the FKGL computes a score based on the number of syllables, the number of words, and the number of sentences in a text. The FKGL formula is as follows:

The FKGL produces a score equivalent to the estimated number of years of education required to understand a text. A score of 9 estimates that a U.S. 9th grade student would be able to read and comprehend a text, while a score of 18 estimates that a person with 18 years of U.S. formal education would be able to read and comprehend a text.

Limitations

As the FRE and FKGL, along with other readability tests, do not measure the difficulty or complexity of the ideas expressed in ballot measure titles and summaries, they may underestimate or overestimate the ability of voters to comprehend a text. Political scientist Shauna Reilly, who utilizes readability indices in her research, noted their limitations, stating:

“

There are limitations to the value of these measurements. No mathematical formula can tell us how complex the ideas of the passage are nor whether the content is in a logical order. Further, these mathematical equations exist in a vacuum and cannot explain the context of the passage.

”

Prior research

Ballot Question Readability and Roll-off: The Impact of Language Complexity

In 2011, political scientists Shauna Reilly and Sean Richey published an article in Political Research Quarterly on research they conducted to answer the question of whether the difficulty or complexity of ballot measure language correlated with voters skipping voting on a ballot measure. The authors referred to voters casting ballots but skipping a ballot measure as voter roll-off. To measure the difficulty or complexity of ballot measure language, Reilly and Richey calculated Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores for 1,211 statewide ballot measures from 1997 to 2007. Reilly and Richey concluded that lower readability scores correlated with higher rates of voter roll-off. In their model accounting for state and year variations, Reilly and Richey only found one variable with a stronger influence on voter roll-off than readability—whether or not a ballot measure was on a primary election ballot compared to a special election ballot.

Reilly and Richey calculated the mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score for each state, except Arkansas, Illinois, and West Virginia, with at least one ballot measure during the 10-year period from 1997 to 2007. The state with the highest mean score was New Mexico, which had a mean FKGL score of 28 years of education. The state with the lowest mean score was Oklahoma, which had a mean FKGL score of nine years of education. The following table is from Reilly and Richey's research and contains the number of ballot measures analyzed in each state, the mean, minimum, and maximum readability score of measures in each state, and the standard deviation of the readability scores for measures in each state:

State	Measures	Mean	Mean U.S. equivalent	Standard deviation	Minimum	Maximum
Oklahoma	38	9	High school	1.1	7	12
Connecticut	1	11	High school	0	11	11
North Carolina	1	11	High school	0	11	11
South Dakota	36	12	High school	2.1	7	17
Alaska	30	13	Associate's degree	5.3	8	30
California	105	13	Associate's degree	1.8	9	18
North Dakota	13	13	Associate's degree	2.8	9	18
Idaho	16	14	Associate's degree	2.3	12	20
Iowa	5	14	Associate's degree	4	11	21
Massachusetts	18	14	Associate's degree	2.1	10	19
Michigan	18	14	Associate's degree	3.1	9	21
Mississippi	3	14	Associate's degree	5	8	18
Oregon	94	14	Associate's degree	1.7	11	18
Rhode Island	35	14	Associate's degree	6.1	6	33
Washington	57	15	Bachelor's degree	2.8	10	22
Montana	29	16	Bachelor's degree	7.4	11	52
New Hampshire	8	16	Bachelor's degree	5	10	27
Utah	6	16	Bachelor's degree	5.3	10	24
Arizona	70	17	Master's degree	3.1	11	26
Florida	40	17	Master's degree	5	8	38
Indiana	6	17	Master's degree	3.5	13	23
Louisiana	61	17	Master's degree	6.8	8	44
Ohio	19	17	Master's degree	4.9	9	30
Tennessee	6	17	Master's degree	5.8	10	25
Vermont	1	17	Master's degree	0	17	17
Alabama	32	18	Master's degree	6.4	12	35
Kansas	4	18	Master's degree	1.7	16	20
Maine	66	18	Master's degree	6.6	8	37
Nebraska	37	18	Master's degree	3.4	11	25
Wyoming	12	18	Master's degree	12	12	25
Missouri	27	19	Ph.D.	8.2	8	44
Nevada	36	19	Ph.D.	6.4	11	42
New York	8	19	Ph.D.	8.3	8	35
Maryland	11	20	Ph.D.	4.1	13	26
Texas	84	20	Ph.D.	12	12	45
Wisconsin	3	20	Ph.D.	16.6	17	23
Georgia	33	22	Ph.D.	10.4	10	57
Hawaii	10	22	Ph.D.	10.9	10	44
Kentucky	7	22	Ph.D.	6.1	14	30
Virginia	3	22	Ph.D.	3.2	19	25
New Jersey	20	23	Ph.D.	6.6	13	34
Pennsylvania	6	24	Ph.D.	5.4	17	33
South Carolina	19	25	N/A	10.8	16	63
Minnesota	1	26	N/A	0	26	26
Colorado	62	27	N/A	15.2	5	95
New Mexico	14	28	N/A	9.3	12	39
Arkansas	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Illinois	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
West Virginia	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

See also

• 2018 ballot measures
• Ballot measure readability scores, 2017
• Ballot title

External links

• Readable.io

Additional reading

• Reilly, Shauna, and Sean Richey. "Ballot Question Readability and Roll-off: The Impact of Language Complexity." Political Research Quarterly 64, 1. (2011): 59-67.