October Hot Sheet: Sour Candy: How ‘Ballot Candy’ Disguises Bad Policy

10/22/2025

Facebook Created with Sketch. Twitter Created with Sketch.

Welcome back to The Hot Sheet!

Here, we give you a quick rundown of what you need to know about the 2025 ballot measure landscape — the trends, analysis, highlights of what’s on the ballot, and why it all matters. 

For more in-depth analysis, our latest voter attitudes research, and information on the measures we’re tracking, head to our Ballot Measure Hub.

2025 Ballot Measure Landscape

As of September 30, there are 24 measures confirmed for the November 4 ballot in California, Colorado, Maine, New York, Texas, and Washington. Six measures have already appeared on statewide ballots this spring in Louisiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin. 

As of October 3, BISC is still monitoring 22 active bills across six states and Washington D.C. related to direct democracy — at least nine of which seek to limit the People’s Tool. 53 bills have already passed in state houses and three others have been vetoed by governors.

The Toplines

  • BISC is tracking the growing trend of ballot measures that use ‘ballot candy’ to deceive and distract potential ‘Yes’ voters in order to pass otherwise unpopular proposals.
  • Democracy advocates in Maine are urging voters to reject Question 1, a ballot initiative that would restrict absentee voting and introduce voter ID requirements for all.
  • A district judge in Missouri has ruled that vague and misleading ballot language for the legislature’s anti-abortion, anti-trans referred measure can appear on the 2026 ballot.

Emerging Trend

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. 

November’s Question 1 initiative in Maine is one such example. Touted as simply a voter ID measure by its proponents, its scope further includes a laundry list of anti-voting proposals ranging from shortening the absentee voting period to terminating ongoing absentee status for many voters. (To learn more about why voter ID is itself anti-voting, head to BISC’s Trends Watcher page in the Ballot Hub!) Next year, 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.

Ballot Measures to Watch

Issue: Democracy

Maine Question 1: An Act to Require an Individual to Present Photographic Identification for the Purpose of Voting (CI)

What It Does: Makes a slate of changes to voting laws in Maine, including:

        • Ending ongoing absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, 
        • Requiring photo ID to vote, 
        • Eliminating two days of absentee voting, 
        • Prohibiting requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members,
        • Banning prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes, 
        • Limiting the number of drop boxes to only one per municipality

Why It Matters: The changes would radically reshape how voting looks in Maine, which boasts one of the highest voting turnouts in the nation. Absentee voting is incredibly popular in the state and approximately 45% of votes were cast by mail there in last November’s election. If passed, elderly voters and those with disabilities would be hardest hit by Question 1’s impacts; according to Save Maine Absentee Voting, about 60% of the state’s seniors vote by mail.

BISC Analysis: Eroding the Democratic Process, Piece By Piece: While lawmakers and organizations in some states appear to be heeding the Trump administration’s calls for mid-decade gerrymandering and Electoral College changes in order to sway the upcoming midterms, Question 1 is taking a different tack: disenfranchising voters by attacking the voting process itself. Seniors and voters with disabilities would lose their ability to easily and permanently register to vote by mail. Family members would no longer be able to drop off their loved one’s completed ballot. All Maine voters would be required to show photo ID at the polls, or to include an identification number or photocopy of their photo ID with their absentee ballot — despite it being notoriously difficult to obtain (and maintain) a valid ID, particularly in a rural state. In a recent opinion piece, one Maine voter reported that he’s a three-hour roundtrip drive from the closest place to get such an ID so he’d have to take the day off of work to get one. And because he’s blind, he’d likely have to hire a driver to help him make the trip. According to research by VoteRiders, about 20% of people with disabilities said they don’t have a valid driver’s license — one of the few forms of photo ID that would be accepted under Question 1’s new requirement. 

While voter ID ballot measures have been passed in nine other states in the past 15 years with relatively little fanfare, Maine’s Question 1 could prove especially problematic given its timing: if it passes this November, the new laws would no doubt affect the state’s upcoming U.S. Senate election. It’s already sizing up to be a contentious race with Democrats hoping that 2026 will be the year they unseat Sen. Susan Collins, the state’s Republican senior senator who’s held the position for nearly 30 years. With so much on the line for the state and beyond, Question 1 seems at best a thinly-veiled attempt to tilt the playing field and at worst another tactic to further disenfranchise communities and permanently erode American democracy.

Challenges to 2024 Ballot Measures

Issue: Reproductive Freedom

    • Missouri Amendment 3: Right to Reproductive Freedom (CI)
      • Legislative Challenge: In a major rebuke against the will of the people and bodily autonomy, a district court judge has confirmed questionable ballot language for a legislatively-referred measure that would largely repeal 2024’s voter-approved Amendment 3 and enshrine a ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Drafted for a second time by Missouri Sec. of State Denny Hoskins after initial language was rejected by the court, the measure still doesn’t explicitly state that the amendment would once again ban most abortions in the state. Instead, the vague and misleading language says the proposal “allow[s] abortions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape, and incest.” The ACLU of Missouri said it intends to appeal. “Despite three attempts, the state’s ballot summary still fails to give voters a clear and honest understanding that Amendment 3 would end Missourians’ fundamental right to reproductive freedom, a right we approved just last November,” said the director of policy and campaigns for the ACLU of Missouri.

In Case You Missed It

BISC’s New Podcast: Direct Democracy Diaries: The first four episodes of BISC’s podcast, Direct Democracy Diaries, are out now! Hosted by BISC’s Executive Director Chris Melody Fields Figueredo and Director of Strategic Communications Caroline Sánchez-Avakian, this show spotlights the inspiring stories of activists, organizers, and campaign leaders from across the country and their tenacious efforts to turn grassroots momentum into lasting policy change. This show touches on everything from fighting for reproductive rights via the ballot, to pushing back on authoritarianism through the power of community organizing, to the breakthrough narratives that bridge cultural divides. New episodes drop every Wednesday through the end of November — so listen now or watch the full episodes on BISC’s YouTube channel.

BISC’s Resource Library: Our Partner Portal Resource Library houses ballot measure information ranging from campaign tools, templates, and past campaign materials (Values, MOUS, RFPs, etc.) —  to campaign debriefs and memos highlighting best practices. This library is a unique resource that can help campaigns and organizations build strategies and operationalize racial equity. To request access to the library, please email [email protected]