Trends Watcher

Emerging & Developing Trends

BISC closely tracks emerging and emerging trends that could impact the ballot initiative process or our election processes at large — both for better and for worse.

The Specter of Non-Citizen Voting

This November, voters around the country could decide on ballot measures purporting to limit voting rights to legal U.S. citizens. So, why this year’s rash of bans? 

It all ties back to unfounded claims of widespread voting fraud and ongoing efforts to attack American voting rights. According to the Fair Elections Center, even the conservative Heritage Foundation counts only 99 suspected cases of non-citizen voting fraud nationwide since 2000. This year Arkansans will weigh in on a U.S. citizenship requirement despite an October 2025 review by the Secretary of State that found only about  0.00002% of the state’s voters were noncitizens. And that’s no typo, that is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. It’s important to note that while non-citizens do occasionally mistakenly register to vote, it’s extraordinarily rare for them to vote in elections. 

But these attacks aren’t about reducing numbers or solving a legitimate problem — they’re about causing a chilling effect that primarily impacts voters of color. A 2023 survey revealed that proving citizenship can be a challenge for 1 in 10 U.S. citizens and worse: more than 3.8 million Americans don’t have any form of proof of citizenship documentation — not a birth certificate, a passport, a naturalization certificate nor a certificate of citizenship. And 11% of respondents of color are reportedly unable to readily access such documents compared to 8% of their white counterparts. In other words: the lack of documentation disproportionately affects groups who have historically been denied equal voting rights and access. 

Placed in the light of 2026’s ongoing attacks on voting rights — from ballot measures pushing for photo ID requirements to the recent Callais decision — it’s disappointing but unsurprising to see a slate of citizenship requirements lined up for this year’s ballot. Such restrictions inevitably prevent legally eligible voters from being allowed to engage in their democracy and vote on measures and candidates that impact their communities. Critics of these kinds of proposals are particularly concerned that these limits on voting access could prevent millions of Americans from voting in 2028, resulting in a presidential election that could be decided by minority rule.

As these attempts to block people from voting grow in number and severity, pro-democracy groups across local, state, and national levels must double down to ensure voters are best equipped to navigate an elections system that is in some cases being rigged against them.

Examples of potential and confirmed 2026 ballot measures proposing citizenship requirements include:

  • Alaska 25USCV (CI):This initiative would require that only United States citizens may be qualified voters in Alaska elections.
  • Arkansas HJR 1018 (LR): The measure would provide that only U.S. citizens may vote in state or local elections.
  • Kansas HCR 5004 (LR): Proposing an amendment to the constitution of the state of Kansas to require individuals to be citizens of the United States, at least 18 years of age and a resident of the voting area in which such person seeks to vote in order to vote in this state.
  • South Dakota Amendment J (LR): An amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, clarifying that an individual must be a citizen of the United States to be eligible to vote.
  • West Virginia SJR 9 (LR): This measure would amend the state constitution to provide that only citizens in the state are qualified to vote.
  • Michigan Citizenship Requirement for Voting (CI – Potential, Signatures Submitted): This initiative would provide that only U.S. citizens can vote in elections.

Timing as Tactic

When it comes to getting a ballot measure in front of voters, timing might not be everything but it certainly comes close. During the incubation phase, supporters are tasked with balancing community needs and administrative realities in order to determine the best timeline. They take into account everything from competing issue priorities and historical voter turnout trends to candidate interplay research and campaign costs. Whether citizen-led or legislatively-referred, ballot measure sponsors carefully choose their election date based on their odds of winning. 

Then there are instances where powerful opponents might put their thumb on the scale to do just the opposite. This year’s minimum wage initiative in Oklahoma is a prime example of how strategic scheduling can serve as an indirect attack on the People’s Tool. While State Question 832 should have qualified for the November 2024 ballot, an executive order delayed the vote to the June 2026 primary — when the state is likely to see dramatically lower voter turnout compared to the presidential election. To make matters worse, by pushing the timeline back by 18 months the executive order also bypassed the first two incremental wage increases. Voters will now be asked to approve a minimum wage increase from $7.25/hour to $12/hour that would take effect January 1, 2027. That’s a tough row to hoe for the economic justice advocates who had thoughtfully selected a timeline based on both the needs of workers and the realities of business finances, especially for small businesses.

Missouri may once again see one or more heavily-debated ballot measures appear on their August primary ballot (or in a special election at an unknown date) this year. Gov. Mike Kehoe has said that he’s weighing whether to shift the timing of several measures, including one that would reinstate a near-total abortion ban and enshrine attacks on gender-affirming care for young people and another that could make it nearly impossible for grassroots advocates to pass ballot initiatives. 

Like with increased signature requirements or shortened campaign timelines, altered election timelines go beyond simple administrative changes. These kinds of politically-motivated manipulations are meant to suppress popular reforms, especially those favoring progressive causes. 

Direct democracy advocates must remain vigilant about fighting back against these seemingly mundane changes and be vocal about shifts that would make it harder for We the People to use ballot initiatives to shape the democracy our communities deserve.

Using Supermajority Requirements to Entrench Minority Rule

This November, four states will be considering antagonistic ballot measures to require ballot measures to be approved by some form of supermajority in order to pass. In some states the requirement would only apply to citizen-led measures and in others only to proposed constitutional amendments, but in each case the result is the same: minority rule. 

Unfortunately, the trend isn’t new. At least 11 states already impose some form of supermajority or heightened threshold for approval for constitutional amendments. But this year’s four simultaneous proposals are a coordinated response to the growing use of the People’s Tool to effect meaningful change. Now it appears that direct democracy opponents in four states are hoping that a supermajority requirement could be the secret to crushing popular movements at the ballot box. As thresholds rise, a smaller share of voters effectively gains outsized veto power over popular policies. The cumulative effect is a gradual tightening of direct democracy systems without necessarily eliminating them outright — preserving the appearance of voter choice while increasing the difficulty of achieving policy change.

On the Ballot

  • Missouri Amendment 4:  Require citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to pass statewide and in each congressional district.
    • As few as 5% of Missouri voters could defeat a popular measure
  • North Dakota HCR 3003: 60% supermajority for constitutional amendments 
  • South Dakota Amendment L: 60% supermajority for constitutional amendments 
  • Utah SJR 2: 60% supermajority for citizen-led initiatives making certain tax-related changes 

As opponents look to copy-paste their attacks on direct democracy from one state to the next, proponents of collaborative governance must innovate our own tactics to defend and expand the process. One interesting way that proponents of the People’s Tool are fighting back: California’s ACA 13 would require that any ballot measure proposing a supermajority must itself pass by that same supermajority. For example, if Prop. X is requiring a 60% threshold then it must be passed by at least 60% of voters. 

Anti-Tax Proposals Threaten Funding for Critical Community Services

Given the rising costs of living (an umbrella term inclusive of everything from the affordable housing shortage and high-interest student loans to higher grocery prices and power bills), it’s easy to understand why anti-tax proposals might appeal to voters. But with every cut comes a cost and it’s communities that are left on the hook. 

With every tax exemption or rate cap, leaders have to decide where to cut back on the critical services citizens rely on every day in order to balance the budget. One example is Idaho, where five years of income tax cuts led to a $4 billion reduction in state revenue. Now some state lawmakers are arguing that to steady the ship they have to make budget cuts that target voter-approved Medicaid Expansion with work requirements that could kick as many as 44% of eligible Idahoans from coverage and by underfunding Medicaid Disability services by nearly $22 million. And outside of state capitol buildings, local governments rely on property taxes to fund everything from area schools, hospitals, and public safety departments to trash collection and pot hole repair. Just last year, the Wyoming legislature passed a 25% property tax cut without a plan to backfill the funding for local governments. The state’s towns and counties subsequently lost millions in revenue. And this November, Wyoming voters will weigh in on a ballot initiative to further reduce residential property taxes by 50% for those who’ve lived in the state for at least a year — again without providing a plan to backfill for local governments. Property taxes are the single largest revenue source in most Wyoming counties, raising $2 billion statewide in 2024 alone. As such, this proposal is estimated to cost local governments an estimated $644 million in lost revenue.

So while these anti-tax proposals might sound enticing at first and maybe even provide some short-term relief to individuals when bills come due, their long-term impacts tear away at the services our communities rely on the most. Families deserve meaningful tax reform — like a progressive income tax that leaves more money in the pockets of working families and more funding for the public services on which we rely. 

One example is a potential ballot initiative to introduce a graduated income tax in Colorado, one of only 14 states that still has a flat tax rate. (In other words, a multi-millionaire and a school teacher currently pay the same 4.4% tax under state law.) With Proposal #195, there would be five distinct tax brackets; while the <5% of Coloradans who make more than $500,000/year would pay between 7.4% and 8.4% in taxes, most people would actually owe less than they do now. The graduated income tax would result in a $2.7 billion increase in revenue to be spent on K-12 public education, health care, early child care, and more. That initiative is backed by Protect Colorado’s Future, a coalition of 19 community advocacy and policy organizations that includes the Bell Policy Institute, Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (COLOR), and ProgressNow Colorado among its members.

Anti-Trans Attacks Creep Down the 2026 Ballot

As we move through the 2026 election cycle, BISC and our partners at Advocates for Trans Equality and Equality Federation are monitoring a growing slate of anti‑trans ballot measures aimed at barring gender‑affirming care for minors, excluding trans students from sports, and more.

Confirmed for Ballot 2026

  • Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2003: Trans Student Exclusion from Schools Sports and Facilities (LR)
    • What’s Proposed: Under this proposed amendment, trans students would be barred from joining sports teams that best align with their gender identity. Use of bathrooms and locker rooms would also be restricted to sex assigned at birth.
  • Colorado #109: Trans Student Exclusion from School Sports (CI)
    • What’s Proposed: Would force all school sports programs to restrict student participation based on sex assigned at birth. It also prohibits organizations from filing complaints, opening investigations, or assigning consequences to schools who follow this rule.
  • Colorado #110: Ban on Gender-Affirming Surgeries for Minors (CI)
    • What’s Proposed: Forbids healthcare providers from administering, and prescribing, gender-affirming care for minors. It also places new restrictions on insurance coverage, ensuring no state or federal funding can be applied.
  • Missouri Amendment 3: Near-Total Abortion Ban & Prohibition on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors(LR)
    • What’s Proposed: Although presented as an abortion measure, this constitutional amendment contains language that would block gender-affirming care for minors.
  • Washington IL26-638: Trans Student Exclusion from School Sports (CI)
    • What’s Proposed: Explicitly prohibits trans girls from participating in girls sports at school, using invasive physical exams and blood tests as the primary methods for establishing a student’s sex.
  • Washington IL26-001: Harming Child Abuse Victims (CI)
    • What’s Proposed: Requires teachers and school counselors to ‘out’ LGBTQIA+ students to parents and guardians. Restricts student access to help for challenges like depression, sexual assault, domestic violence, bullying, and anxiety by removing common sense records protection.

Potential

  • Maine: “An Act to Designate School Sports Participation and Facilities by Sex” (CI)
    • What’s Proposed: Requires all schools to designate sports teams, bathrooms, and locker rooms by a person’s sex assigned at birth: male, female or co-ed. This has raised notable concerns among critics, as gender identity remains a category protected from discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act.
    • Disqualification Update: Following a lawsuit that successfully challenged thousands of invalid petition signatures, Maine’s Secretary of State has invalidated the ballot initiative. The campaign unsuccessfully appealed to a Maine Superior Court, arguing the secretary of state overstepped her authority. There is a chance they will appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
  • Nebraska: Anti-Trans Sports Ban Affecting K-12, Collegiate, Intramural Teams (CI)
    • What’s Proposed: Would amend the state constitution to designate K-12, collegiate, and intramural sports teams as being either male, female, or co-ed and restrict teams designated ‘female’ to only athletes assigned that sex at birth.
  • Nevada C-07-2026: Anti-Trans Sports Ban (CI)
    • What’s Proposed: Bans trans athletes from competing in female sports altogether and is part of Gov. Lombardo’s broader anti-trans rhetoric, which aims to drive his potential supporters to the polls at the expense of the well-being, safety and belonging of trans students across the state.

Ballot measures that target trans people including youth are an attack on fundamental freedoms and an attempt to write discrimination into law. Voters deserve policies that protect people’s dignity, not political tactics that single out vulnerable communities. These efforts are part of a broader strategy to hijack the people’s tool for political gain at the expense of the trans community’s well-being and belonging. Targeting groups through the ballot is not governance — it’s cruelty disguised as policy. We will continue to support our partners pushing back on these discriminatory attacks and building a world where all communities can flourish.

Weaponizing Legislatively-Referred Measures Against Voter-Approved Ballot Initiatives

Frustrated by voters approving progressive people-powered ballot initiatives, some lawmakers have responded by attacking the initiative process, by passing laws to weaken approved policies — and increasingly by sending proposed repeals to the ballot. In other words, they can’t win fairly so they’re either rewriting the rules or demanding a rematch.

Unsurprisingly, the framing of these legislatively-referred measures is often misleading. Take for example this November’s Amendment 3: a Missouri court had to rewrite the ballot language in order to clarify that legislators’ proposal to overturn a 2024 reproductive rights initiative would, in fact, do exactly that. Or in South Dakota, where a legislator claims they’re not subverting the will of the people but merely asking voters to “clarify” their stance on the 2022 Medicaid expansion initiative that they passed at 56%.

  • Missouri Amendment 3: Near-Total Abortion Ban & Prohibition on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors(LR)
    • What’s Proposed:Overturning 2024’s voter-approved reproductive rights initiative and restoring the state’s near-total ban on abortion (e.g. exceptions for rape and incest, but only up until 12 weeks’ gestation).
      • Would also enshrine an existing ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
    • What’s at Stake:2024’s Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion up until viability and repealed the state’s abortion ban, which fell into place immediately after Roe v. Wade was struck down in 2022. That amendment also guaranteed the right to contraception, prenatal and postpartum care, miscarriage care, and more. The Missouri legislature’s proposed repeal would not only restore the state’s abortion ban, it would repeal the guaranteed right to every aspect of reproductive healthcare included in that 2024 voter-approved initiative. 
  • South Dakota: Medicaid Expansion Conditioned on 90% Federal Funding(LR)
    • What’s Proposed:Terminating South Dakota’s expanded Medicaid eligibility requirements if the federal funding match falls below 90%.
    • What’s at Stake:When passed by voters in 2022, Medicaid expansion made an estimated 50,000 South Dakotans eligible to receive benefits — and the legislature’s proposal would put them at risk of losing their Medicaid access. 

But even amid these legislative attempts to undermine voters, citizen-led initiative efforts continue to move forward. This spring, campaigns continue to collect signatures for a number of proactive initiatives including a reproductive rights initiative in Idaho, a 2028 Medicaid expansion initiative in Florida, and two direct democracy initiatives in Arkansas (by Protect Arkansas Rights and by Save AR Democracy), one in Missouri, and another in Nebraska. Ballot initiatives deliver life-changing policies for communities and advocates aren’t backing down in the face of legislative challenges.

When Voter Oppression Masks as Voter Protection

  • “Protection” in Missouri: During a September special session, some Missouri legislators felt called to “protect” voters from the tool that’s recently won them better wages, expanded healthcare access, restored abortion rights, and more. Passed in the state legislature largely along party lines and referred to the November 2026 ballot for voter approval, the so-called “Protect Missouri Voters” amendment seeks to dramatically weaken the People’s Tool. Under the amendment, citizen-led initiatives would have to pass in each of the state’s eight congressional districts in order to succeed. In other words, a single district failing to pass an initiative would mean total statewide loss. (Legislatively-referred measures, on the other hand, would still require only a simple majority.) There are no aspects of the amendment detailing how the majority of Missouri voters would be protected in the event that minority rule overrode an otherwise popular measure. The amendment’s sponsor, Rep. Ed Lewis emphasized that the concurrent majority requirement would require that a citizen-led initiative (and again: only citizen-led initiatives) have “broad geographic support” rather than the kind of broad support typically understood to be associated with election outcomes (popular vote, majority will, etc).
  • “Concern” in Utah: Frustrated by their repeated failed attempts to ignore the redistricting requirements put in place by a 2018 citizen-led ballot measure, some extremist Utah politicians are hoping to take their revenge on the initiative process itself. After a district court judge recently rejected a gerrymandered map drawn by the legislature, Gov. Cox said he had “deep, deep concerns” about direct democracy. Lawmakers have threatened to pursue a legislatively-referred amendment to limit the power of citizen-led initiatives
  • “Securing” Elections in Maine, “Repairing” the Vote in Nevada: Last fall, Maine voters soundly rejected an initiative that claimed to secure state elections through a series of voting restrictions that would have disproportionately affected older voters and voters with disabilities, rural residents, and shift workers. Proponents claimed the changes were “common sense” and “minor”, but included everything from requiring voters to show certain forms of photo ID to shortening the absentee voting period and to strictly limiting the number of ballot drop-off boxes. For the initiative’s architects, “securing” elections also meant barring family members from requesting absentee ballots for their elderly or disabled loved ones and banning prepaid postage from absentee ballot return envelopes. On the other side of the country, a Nevada group called Repair the Vote is attempting to pass their own voter ID initiative. A legislative compromise that would have required voter ID but also expanded the number of ballot drop boxes was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Lombardi, a voter ID proponent, who claimed continued concerns about the security of voting by mail. State law requires that constitutional amendments pass in two general elections; because the initiative received 73% of the vote in 2024, it needs just one more win this November to become law. Despite these continued attempts to pass voter ID ballot measures the fact remains that such laws disproportionately affect marginalized and underrepresented groups. And to what end? Studies have repeatedly shown that voter fraud is ‘infinitesimally rare’ (for example, analysis of more than 25 million ballots across six states in 2020 found that less than 0.000019% showed any signs of being suspect).

So what are we to make of these ironic calls to protect voters by eroding their rights? Or supposed concerns about respecting the will of the people? Or these bad faith efforts to secure elections from the very voters who try to engage in them? These kinds of concerted efforts to sow distrust in the People’s Tool specifically and our elections generally, are part of a larger movement by some lawmakers to undermine our entire democracy. These attacks are branded as necessary defenses in order to deceive voters and to convince us that authoritarian rule is the solution to the chaos those same authoritarians have sown. 

But there is hope, too. BISC’s November 2025 polling on authoritarianism revealed voters are interpreting attempts to restrict ballot initiatives as tied to rising authoritarianism. That’s especially true for those already feeling increasingly concerned about the state of our democracy. As more Americans understand these oppressive efforts for exactly what they are, we must stand together against those who want to make ballot initiatives and our democratic systems harder to use, and protect our power to make real change for our communities. 

Increasingly Authoritarian Tactics Deployed Against Citizen-Led Initiatives

It wasn’t long ago that officials with Gov. DeSantis’ office ordered the Florida Department of Health to threaten TV stations with criminal charges for airing paid campaign ads for Amendment 4, a citizen-led initiative that nearly restored abortion rights in the state. That news shocked free speech and election integrity advocates across the country last fall, but lately these kinds of authoritarian antics almost seem par for the course:

  • Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway sicced I.C.E. on workers gathering signatures for the citizen-led referendum effort to repeal the legislature’s gerrymandered redistricting map. Without providing evidence to back up her claims, Hanaway alleged that the campaign’s signature collection firm is using undocumented immigrants to gather initiative petition signatures. She requested that immigration officials investigate whether the firm is creating “an environment for exploitation and human trafficking to thrive.” Her office demanded details on all of Advanced Micro Targeting workers since July 2023 — everything from identity documents to payroll records and internal emails. Richard von Glahn, director of the People Not Politicians campaign behind the referendum effort, called the state attorney general’s actions “just the latest example of desperate politicians seeking to silence the voices of Missourians. It is outrageous and dangerous.”
  • A Utah judge faced threats of impeachment — and threats of violence — for upholding a 2018 voter-approved ballot initiative that created an independent, nonpartisan commission for drawing congressional district maps. Last fall the GOP-controlled legislature proposed a map that would once again solely favor Republican candidates. But Judge Gibson ruled their map failed to abide by Proposition 4 and instead selected a map drawn by grassroots groups that features one Democratic-leaning district and three Republican-leaning districts. (A map that Utah Senate President Stuart Adams insists is the “most partisan and thus the most gerrymandered map in the history of the state”.) In response to Gibson’s ruling, Rep. Matt MacPherson announced that he was in the process of drawing up articles of impeachment against Gibson. Utah judges can be impeached if the state legislature determines that they have committed high crimes, misdemeanors, or other misconduct while in office. Lawmakers’ outrage soon spilled over into the public sphere, forcing the Utah Judiciary to make a rare public statement after Gibson and other court officials began receiving violent threats.
  • A federal court judge ruled against several new anti-initiative laws in Arkansas, repeatedly stressing concerns about free speech violations.U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks blocked state officials from enforcing six new laws that would have made it nearly impossible for Arkansans to use the ballot initiative process. These include an affidavit requirement that the judge called ‘draconian’, an 8th grade reading level requirement that’s already been weaponized against several initiative campaigns this year, and unnecessary burdens placed on voters trying to sign petitions. In his 77-page ruling, Brooks wrote, “The State does not have an interest in infringing First Amendment rights for the duration of this litigation merely because an election lurks in the distance.”

Following the success of citizen-led initiatives that have improved millions of lives with improved working conditions and benefits, expanded access to Medicaid, restored reproductive rights, and more, some lawmakers have only doubled down on their attempts to sabotage the People’s Tool. It’s all part of a wider authoritarian scheme to silence voters’ voices and undermine our democracy. 

But state-based advocates are fighting back. Already, groups in Missouri, Montana, and Nebraska have launched citizen-led initiative campaigns to shore up their right to the ballot measure process. And no matter what authoritarian tactics may crop up, BISC remains committed to defending direct democracy not just as a critical means of collaborative governance but as a tool for re-imagining what American democracy can and should be.

Sour Candy: The Role of ‘Ballot Candy’ in Disguising Bad Policy

All too often, a ballot measure will be drafted with one or two popular features as an attempt to distract from its less savory — or downright controversial — aspects. It’s a tactic often referred to as ‘ballot candy’: a means of sweetening the deal in order to convince voters to support a measure they may otherwise oppose. The insidious practice takes advantage of crowded ballots and voter fatigue, with careful marketing to ensure voters associate a measure with only its most desirable aims. 

2025’s Question 1 initiative in Maine was one such example. Touted as simply a voter ID measure by its proponents, its scope further included a laundry list of anti-voting proposals ranging from shortening the absentee voting period to terminating ongoing absentee status for many voters. (Learn more about why voter ID is itself anti-voting!) In 2026, Missourians will be asked to decide two legislatively-referred proposals similarly laced with ‘ballot candy’. Amendment 3 (2026) focuses almost entirely on overturning voter-approved abortion rights in the state, but attempts to appeal to anti-trans voters by including a constitutional ban on gender-affirming care for minors — care already prohibited by statute. This tactic uses transgender people as scapegoats in a deceitful ploy to enact another extremist abortion ban in a state where many don’t understand the importance of hormone therapy or puberty blockers to trans youth. In September, Missouri lawmakers referred a measure that would make it nearly impossible to pass citizen-led initiatives while touting a ban on initiative funding by foreign adversaries (which is already illegal under federal law). And in Nebraska, one group is pursuing a ballot initiative that would raise teacher salaries to $50,000 while pushing for two others that would slash taxable property values in half and cap property tax revenue growth, potentially stripping Nebraska schools and counties of billions of dollars in public revenue. As the president of the Nebraska State Education Association said, “They are trying to use teacher compensation as the sweetener to make this sound like it’s actually good.”

As the prevalence of ‘ballot candy’ grows, good faith voter education efforts will need to follow suit. Campaigns — proponents and opponents alike — will need to be diligent with their voter engagement to ensure that communities understand the true impacts of a ballot measure beyond the carefully selected highlights featured in ads and headlines. 

The Long Arm of Authoritarianism: Illegal Gerrymandering and Attacks on Direct Democracy

While calling for a special session to focus on illegal gerrymandering at the behest of the Trump administration, Gov. Kehoe has also instructed legislators to use this time to attack Missouri’s initiative petition process. It’s no coincidence that legislators are taking advantage of the national focus on redistricting battles as a smoke screen to distract from their attacks on direct democracy. Whether it’s by creating the country’s highest vote threshold for citizen-led amendments — by requiring majority approval in each of the state’s congressional districts according to HJR 3 — or by dismantling MO-5 in Kansas City, these efforts are about weakening the power of Missourians and further concentrating it in the hands of politicians. 

Unfortunately, this assault on voters’ power in Missouri isn’t unprecedented. In 2025 alone, the Republican-majority legislature dramatically weakened Proposition A (which received 57% of the vote) and sent to the 2026 ballot an amendment to overturn voter-approved abortion rights. In recent years, the legislature put forth a measure that undermined a previously voter-approved citizen-led ballot initiative to create fair legislative districts, confusing voters during a pandemic. They tried again after voters approved Medicaid expansion. Republican state legislators have introduced bills to weaken the initiative process every legislative session since 2018. Rather than listen to their constituents, some Missouri politicians continuously undermine the will of the people and this latest effort is an attempt to put the nail in the coffin.

When political parties cannot win on the merits of the issues, they too often resort to tilting the playing field — changing the rules of the system to entrench their power. These efforts are not simply administrative — they are politically-motivated efforts to suppress popular reforms like raising the minimum wage, expanding Medicaid, and protecting reproductive rights. A visible symptom of this democratic erosion is the coordinated assault on the citizen-led initiative petition process. If left unchecked, this growing hostility toward ballot initiatives by elected officials in Missouri may permanently weaken one of the last remaining tools citizens have to effect change outside of partisan gridlock. Protecting the integrity of the initiative petition process is not simply about defending specific policies, it is about safeguarding the principle that democracy should represent and be responsive to the people it serves.

Voter ID Requirements Eroding the Spirit of the Voting Rights Act

Sixty years after the groundbreaking passage of the Voting Rights Act, Americans continue to face contrived barriers to engaging in our democracy. One especially pernicious anti-voting trend: voter ID requirements. 36 states currently have such laws in place and three ballot initiatives plus one legislatively-referred measure are looking to enshrine requirements in their state constitutions. 

  • California Initiative 25-0007:Voter Identification and Voter List Maintenance Requirements Initiative (CI)
    • Would require government-issued identification to vote in person or last four-digits of a unique government-issued identifying number with mail-in ballot. The initiative would also require the secretary of state and county election officials to maintain accurate voter registration lists, including verifying citizenship attestations and reporting what percent of voter rolls have been citizenship-verified.
  • Nevada Question 7: Voter ID Requirement (CI)
    • This amendment would mandate that Nevada residents must present a form of photo identification to confirm their identity when voting in person, or use the last four digits of their driver’s license or social security number to verify their identity when voting by mail.
    • Note: Question 7 also appeared on the November 2024 ballot. Nevada law requires that constitutional amendments receive voter approval in two elections in order to pass.
  • North Carolina Senate Bill 921: An act to amend the North Carolina constitution to require all voters to present photographic identification (LR)
    • The amendment would require photographic identification to vote, including for those not voting in person.

An October 2024 poll by NPR, PBS, and Marist revealed that many Americans (including 86% of Republicans) are concerned about voter fraud but according to the Brennan Center for Justice, research has shown that such fraud is ‘infinitesimally rare’. And what many might see as a necessary step in defending our elections against this assumed widespread election fraud is just another form of voter disenfranchisement because access to an approved form of voter ID is far from universal. A study published in 2023 by University of Maryland’s Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement in partnership with VoteRiders revealed that nearly 29 million potential voters lacked a valid driver’s license, while more than 7 million lacked any form of valid government-issued photo identification. The issue was especially prominent among voters of color, young voters, voters with disabilities, and seniors. Barriers to identification access go far beyond a long line at the DMV: would-be voters may not have the documentation required to apply for an ID (e.g. a valid copy of their birth certificate), may face harassment regarding updated gender markers, may not be able to afford the fees for a driver’s license or identification card, and more.  

At best, voter ID requirements are red tape limiting voter turnout but at worst they are a nefarious attempt to concentrate the power of those voters deemed most desirable.

BISC’s Resource Library houses ballot measure information ranging from past campaign materials to campaign debriefers to memos highlighting best practices, serving as a unique resource for campaigns to build their own strategies. To request access to the library, please email [email protected].