WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE BALLOT MEASURE LANDSCAPE RIGHT NOW
April 2026
The Toplines
- As of March 31, BISC is tracking a total of 421 ballot measures including 83 measures certified for 2026 ballots.
- BISC is monitoring 94 bills related to direct democracy filed in legislatures across 22 states as of April 17.
- Anti-tax proposals threaten critical revenue streams that state and local governments rely on to fund community services including schools, public safety departments, and more.
- About one-fifth of Oklahoma’s workforce could benefit from a minimum wage increase proposed on the state’s June primary ballot.
Emerging Trend
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.
Examples of proposed anti-tax ballot measures in 2026 include:
On the Ballot
- Utah SJR2: 60% Vote Requirement for Ballot Initiatives to Approve Taxes (LR)
- What’s Proposed: This proposal would specifically require that citizen-initiated ballot measures pass by a 60% supermajority if they’re making certain tax-related changes including, (a) imposing a new tax; (b) expanding an existing tax to apply to additional items or transactions; (c) increasing an existing tax rate; or (d) adjusting a property tax rate in a way that reduces the rate less than it would decrease under current law. Legislatively-referred proposals would not face this same hurdle.
- What’s Proposed: This proposal would specifically require that citizen-initiated ballot measures pass by a 60% supermajority if they’re making certain tax-related changes including, (a) imposing a new tax; (b) expanding an existing tax to apply to additional items or transactions; (c) increasing an existing tax rate; or (d) adjusting a property tax rate in a way that reduces the rate less than it would decrease under current law. Legislatively-referred proposals would not face this same hurdle.
- Wyoming: 50% Exemption on Property Tax for Homeowners (CI)
- What’s Proposed: This measure would create a homeowner property tax exemption for primary residences exempting the first 50% of the property’s assessed value from taxation. In order to be eligible for the exemption, homeowners will need to have been Wyoming residents for at least one year.
Potential Measures
- Colorado #156: Income Tax Rate Reduction (CI)
- What’s Proposed: Reduce the state income tax rate from 4.40% to 3.40%, resulting in reduced funding for health care policy and financing, education, and higher education by an estimated $3.3 billion in tax revenue.
- What’s Proposed: Reduce the state income tax rate from 4.40% to 3.40%, resulting in reduced funding for health care policy and financing, education, and higher education by an estimated $3.3 billion in tax revenue.
- Iowa SJR2004: Prohibit Graduated Income Tax (LR)
- What’s Proposed: The amendment would prohibit graduated individual income tax rates, where those with higher incomes might contribute more in taxes.
- What’s Proposed: The amendment would prohibit graduated individual income tax rates, where those with higher incomes might contribute more in taxes.
- Nebraska: Repeal Property, Income, and Inheritance Taxes (CI)
- What’s Proposed: The initiative would prohibit property, income, and inheritance taxes to be collected by any government entity in Nebraska.
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 less than 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.
2026 Ballot Measure to Watch
Oklahoma: Minimum Wage Increase (CI)
What It Does: Gradually raises the Oklahoma minimum wage from the present $7.25/hour to $15/hour by 2029. Beginning in 2030, the wage would be adjusted annually to keep up with rising inflation.
Why It Matters: Oklahomans haven’t seen a minimum wage increase in nearly 20 years and over that time, the value of their wage has degraded by 30%. If approved by voters, not only would Oklahomans see their first minimum wage increase in nearly 20 years but approximately one-fifth of the state’s entire workforce would see a raise. If the measure passes, the measure could lift roughly 200,000 Oklahoma children out of poverty. Since the most recent federal minimum wage increase in 2009, voters across the country have approved 14 citizen-led ballot initiatives to increase wages. BISC’s recent economic justice research found that stagnant wages remain one of the most intense and polarized economic concerns for voters, especially amid rising housing costs.
BISC ANALYSIS: Ballot Measure 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 put their thumb on the scale to do just the opposite. Oklahoma’s minimum wage initiative 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.
Like with increased signature requirements or shortened campaign timelines, this altered election timeline for SQ 832 goes beyond a simple administrative change. 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.
2026 Ballot Measure Landscape
As of March 31, BISC is tracking a total of 421 ballot measures including 83 measures certified for 2026 ballots.
2026 Outlook: Direct Democracy at a Crossroads
The 2025 landscape marked a turning point for direct democracy in the United States. Across the year, BISC’s analysis documented a clear shift: attacks on ballot initiatives are no longer isolated, reactive, or limited to election cycles. They are increasingly systematic, institutionalized, and forward-looking — designed not just to block individual measures, but to permanently constrain the People’s Tool itself. As we enter 2026, these patterns point to a more coordinated and consequential phase of democratic contestation.
The most consistent trend of 2025 was the migration of conflict after voter approval. Nebraska’s delayed and restricted medical cannabis rollout, Missouri’s continued legal resistance to voter-approved reproductive rights, and repeated post-election litigation across states show that implementation has become the preferred terrain for neutralizing voter power.
In 2026, implementation fights will continue to intensify. Likely tactics include emergency or interim rulemaking that narrows voter mandates, strategic appointments to implementing bodies, serial lawsuits designed to delay benefits beyond election cycles, and legislative efforts to condition, sunset, or retroactively weaken voter-approved laws. These moves preserve the appearance of democratic compliance while denying voters the substance of their decisions.
Courts emerged in 2025 as central arbiters of direct democracy — and increasingly as targets. Judges who enforced voter-approved reforms faced political backlash, threats of impeachment, and public intimidation. Attorneys general and secretaries of state relied more heavily on preemptive and serial litigation to control outcomes through process rather than persuasion. In 2026, courts will remain pivotal. We should expect more efforts to delegitimize judicial enforcement as “anti-democratic,” even as courts serve as one of the last institutional checks on post-election sabotage.
If 2025 was the year these trends became unmistakable, 2026 will be the year they either consolidate or are interrupted. Direct democracy is being targeted not because it fails, but because it works — particularly for communities shut out of legislative power. The outlook for 2026 is clear: defending direct democracy will require early intervention, attention to rule changes as much as policy outcomes, and sustained focus on implementation and enforcement. The stakes are not confined to a single election cycle. They extend to whether popular sovereignty remains a living principle — or becomes a procedural illusion.
Attacks on the Ballot Measure Process
In 2017, BISC monitored just 33 bills relating to the ballot measure process. Compare that to 2025 legislative sessions in which 295 bills were introduced in 43 states that would impact the ballot initiative process, at least 156 of which sought to restrict or undermine the process.
What does an attack on direct democracy look like?
Some tactics used by lawmakers who are attempting to weaken the ballot initiative process include:
- Proposing legislation to make the ballot process harder to access
- Bringing forth legal challenges against initiatives that have been already been approved by voters
- Blocking the implementation of ballot measures that have already passed
Why are the attacks happening?
Efforts to undermine and weaken ballot measures have been increasing since the 2016 election in response to progressive wins and people-powered democracy at the ballot box.
In many states, some politicians and wealthy special interests are trying to make it harder for voters to propose and pass ballot initiatives under the cover of so-called “reforms.” These attacks have escalated and have become more nuanced, sophisticated, and would have deeper impacts on the initiative process. These restrictive measures take a variety of forms, but they all serve the same function: to undermine the will of the people and diminish their decision-making power. BISC and our partners are fighting back against these attacks and spearheading the movement to #DefendDirectDemocracy.
As we continue to face rising restrictions on voting rights, reproductive freedoms, and civil liberties, it is more important than ever to protect our freedom to shape the laws that govern us — especially through ballot initiatives. Together, we can fight against the anti-democracy initiatives that threaten our livelihoods and work to build a democracy rooted in equity and justice, where all people are treated with dignity and thrive.
For more information on our analysis or to schedule an interview with one of our policy experts, please email [email protected].