Charter schools were originally intended to improve the American public education system by introducing innovative practices that could be replicated elsewhere. Charter critics and proponents alike, however, question the degree to which charter schools are truly innovative. While alarm has been raised about apparent conformity among charter schools, scant literature explores how this conformity came to pass. We test the hypothesis that innovation might be particularly hampered in states with stringent charter school authorizing regulation, which may induce charter authorizers and leaders to prefer schooling models that are pleasing to authorizers and focus narrowly on student achievement. To test this hypothesis, we develop a typology for charter schools that scores how innovative they are based on their curriculum, pedagogy, learning modality, themes, and population served. We evaluate how these innovation scores correlate with charter authorizing regulations. Overall, there is a strong and negative association between regulation and innovation.