Ballot Measure-o-meter

Better Jobs for Alaska is working to raise the current $11.73/hour minimum wage to $15/hour by 2027, mandate as much as 56 hours of annual paid sick leave for employees, and prohibit employers from requiring their employees to attend meetings on political and religious topics unrelated to their jobs.

In the face of a conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court, California’s Proposition 3 would safeguard the Freedom to Marry by overturning Proposition 8, a 2008 measure that restricted marriage to one man and one woman in California’s constitution. Similar ballot measures in Colorado and Hawai’i also seek to protect marriage freedom this November.

Amendment 79 enshrines abortion rights in Colorado’s state constitution and allows abortion to be a covered service under health insurance plans for Medicaid recipients, Colorado state and local government employees, and other enrollees in state and local governmental insurance programs.

Amendment 4 to Limit Government Interference with Abortion would establish in the Florida state constitution the right to an abortion before fetal viability. If successful, the amendment would overturn the state’s 15-week and 6-week abortion bans.

The legislatively-referred constitutional amendment would remove a provision in the Hawai’i state constitution that grants the legislature power to reserve marriage to only opposite-sex couples.

Maryland’s Question 1 would add the right to an abortion to the Declaration of Rights section in the state constitution, asserting that every individual “has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom.”

Question 5 would gradually increase the minimum wage for tipped workers until it’s equal to the state’s standard minimum wage in 2029, when those tipped workers would be paid minimum wage in addition to tips received. Tipped employees in Massachusetts currently make only $6.75 compared to $15.00 for non-tipped employees.

Amendment 3 would overturn Missouri’s current near-total abortion ban by preventing the state government from denying or interfering with a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom — including abortion, childbirth, IVF, contraception, and more — up until the point of fetal viability and with exceptions after that to protect the life and health of the patient.

After a number of interferences from anti-abortion lawmakers, this November’s CI-128 would affirm in the state constitution the right to make decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion up to the point of viability.

As an Equal Rights Amendment, Proposal 1 would add to the New York state constitution protections against government action that could limit reproductive care (such as abortion bans) and against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and more.

The Citizens Not Politicians Amendment aims to end gerrymandering in Ohio by empowering citizens, not politicians, to draw fair districts using an open and transparent process. If passed by voters, it will: Create a 15-member Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission, ban current or former politicians, political party officials, and lobbyists from sitting on the Commission, and require fair and impartial districts by making it unconstitutional to draw voting districts that discriminate against or favor any political party or individual politician.

Question 7 would mandate that Nevada residents must present a form of photo identification to confirm their identity when voting in person. “It is nothing more than a calculated effort to silence thousands of eligible Nevadans, especially seniors, people of color, rural voters, students, and low-income communities,” says Shelbie Swartz of Battle Born Progress.

North Dakota’s Constitutional Measure 2 would require a single-subject for initiatives and requires proposed constitutional initiatives to  be approved at both the primary and general election in order to become effective.

Oklahoma is one of the 8 states deciding this November whether to restrict voting in their states to only U.S. citizens.  These legislatively-referred constitutional amendments don’t solve any existing problems but pair with increasingly anti-immigrant sentiments and disproportionately affect already marginalized racial and ethnic groups.

Voters in South Carolina and seven other states will be asked to decide in November on initiatives that would mandate that only U.S. citizens can vote in state elections. Such proposals often stem from unfounded conspiracies on widespread voter fraud and advocates are concerned that such language furthers anti-immigrant sentiment.

Proposition 134 seeks to increase the number of petition signatures required for citizens to be allowed to propose their own ballot initiatives to voters. To mount such a robust statewide signature-gathering campaign, advocates would need an immense amount of resources (financial, logistical, and otherwise) — effectively barring grassroots groups from being able to use the People’s Tool. Another attempt at weakening direct democracy in Arizona is Prop. 136, which would allow anyone to sue to block a ballot initiative between the time it’s filed and 100 days before the Election.

Amendment 2 will ask Kentucky voters if the legislature should be allowed to direct public taxpayer funds to private or charter K-12 schools. The Kentucky Education Association, which represents tens of thousands of public school educators across the state, has warned that the measure would hurt every public school in the state if it passes.

An anti-abortion counter measure — Initiative 434 — aims to enshrine a 12-week abortion ban in the Nebraska state constitution. It also leaves room for the legislature to enact additional limitations — up to and including a total abortion ban. The campaign has been accused of intentionally confusing voters in order to defeat the proactive abortion rights measure Initiative 439; more than 300 of 434’s petition signers filed affidavits requesting that their names be removed after being misled by the campaign.

Initiative 2124 would require employees and self-employed individuals to actively opt-in to the WA Cares Fund, the state’s long-term care program which currently grants every Washingtonian access to a $36,500 benefit for long-term care insurance. Opponents warn that passage of Initiative 2124 would effectively repeal that benefit.