Waters (2003, p. 18) summarized subject limitations among state initiative law:

Every state prohibits initiatives from adopting policies that are beyond the permissible boundaries of the legislature. Some states have prohibited initiatives in the subject areas of taxes or appropriations. Nevada, for example, forbids any appropriation by initiative unless the measure also includes a tax sufficient to cover the appropriation. Alaska, Massachusetts, and Wyoming prohibit initiatives from dedicating revenues, making or repealing appropriations, creating courts, and affecting the judicial process. Several states, like Montana and Oregon, distinguish between constitutional amendments, which are permitted and constitutional revisions, which are not. Several states impose a single subject rule for initiatives meaning that all parts of the initiative must be germane.

In comparison to state law, the NI4D single subject restriction is relatively permissive. For example, Florida has a strict single subject law and the supreme court is charged with evaluating compliance prior to petition circulation. The Florida approach has resulted in the qualification of very few initiatives, only 16 during 1976 to 2000. Another consequence is Increased load on the state supreme court.

Contrary to most state laws but similar to Idaho, NI4D has no restriction on subject matter. The lack of restriction of subject matter is consistent with the notion that the people are sovereign. The lack of restriction on subject matter is balanced by the deliberative committee (Act, 3-I) and by more demanding conditions (compared to state initiative law) for the enactment of constitutional initiatives (Act, 3-L).

Jacob, 2002, p. 3 wrote:
The Democracy Act also contains a "single subject" clause, reading: "An initiative shall address only one subject, but may include related or mutually dependent parts." This wording seems clear enough and addresses a valid concern. However, experiences with state initiatives suggest this is also a potential area for courts to rollback the rights of the people. In recent years courts have markedly and arbitrarily changed their interpretation of "single-subject" and invalidated numerous initiatives that clearly contain only a one general subject. Therefore, I suggest this change to the wording: "An initiative shall address only one general subject, which may include related or mutually dependent parts."

Jacob is attempting to make the single subject clause more lenient. However, the Act takes a difference approach to help initiatives survive judicial review. The Act provides a Research and Drafting Service (Act, Section 4-F-3) and permits the deliberative committee to refine the language of an initiative (Act, Section 3-I). It is expected that these drafting aids will facilitate the drafting of initiatives which are more difficult to attack via the judiciary than is currently possible via existing state-level initiative process which largely lacks these aids. In short, the Act facilitates better drafted initiatives instead of trying to finesse the language guiding judicial review.