Three states adopt measures restricting nonprofit speech on elections

Hawaii, Montana, and Michigan have adopted legal measures that limit how community organizations can speak about elections and ballot questions.

Hawaii’s 2026 Legislature passed Act 11, which prohibits nonprofits and other community groups from discussing electoral issues if the law takes effect on July 1, 2027. The measure is a first-of-its-kind statute in the state. Montana voters approved Initiative 194, which follows the same model as Hawaii’s law and will take effect on January 1, 2027. Michigan passed Proposal 2, which triggers campaign finance requirements for organizations that speak out on ballot issues or elections, even when they do not urge voters to support a specific candidate. This measure will take effect 18 months after the state’s election results are certified.

The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii filed a federal lawsuit earlier in 2026 against Act 11. The Institute for Free Speech represents the institute in that case. The Institute for Free Speech has also filed lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of the new measures in Montana and Michigan. In Michigan, the nonprofit Mackinac Center for Public Policy is challenging Proposal 2. The center argues the law attempts to regulate speech and violates freedom of association. In Montana, a group of plaintiffs including the Frontier Foundation and Montana Family Foundation is suing to stop Initiative 194.

Keli'i Akina, president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, said the organization faced pressure from followers seeking guidance on ballot questions ahead of the recent general election. His colleagues created an educational guide addressing several proposed amendments related to the institute’s focus areas. Akina stated that if Act 11 had taken effect immediately, the group would have been barred from publishing that communication. He noted that defying the law could have resulted in serious penalties, including the dissolution of the organization.

Akina argued that defenders of Act 11 believe it is acceptable to limit who speaks on political issues. He contended that such measures favor wealthy individuals over average citizens who rely on advocacy groups to be heard. Akina said the wealthy will always find ways to buy a larger megaphone, while others suffer as laws strip away the ability to join together and speak on matters of public concern.

The legal challenges are currently pending in federal courts. The lawsuits seek to confirm that free speech belongs to everyone and that states cannot erase constitutional rights. The outcomes of these cases will determine whether the new statutes in Hawaii, Montana, and Michigan remain in force or are struck down as unconstitutional. The courts have not yet issued final rulings on the constitutionality of any of the three measures.