WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE BALLOT MEASURE LANDSCAPE RIGHT NOW
October 2025 Hot Sheet Highlights
As of September 30, there are 24 measures are currently confirmed for the November 2025 ballot in California, Colorado, Maine, New York, Texas, and Washington. 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.
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 Trends
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!) 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 Measure to Watch: 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:
- Limiting the number of drop boxes to only one per municipality
- 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,
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
- Missouri Amendment 3: Right to Reproductive Freedom
- 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.
2025 Ballot Measures to Watch
As of September 30, there are 24 measures are currently confirmed for the November 2025 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.
On Ballot: November 4 – Select Highlights
- Civil Rights
- Texas: Secure Parental Rights in the Texas Constitution (LR) – Affirms in the state constitution that parents have the responsibility to “protect” their children and the right to exercise “control” of their upbringing. Texas already guarantees parental rights through statute, but this proposed constitutional amendment would elevate those rights — such as access to student records, assessments, and teaching materials (Sen. Bryan Hughes, the proposition’s author, has also authored a bill demonizing gender-affirming care and the 2021 law that resulted in a near-total ban on abortions in the state.)
- BISC ANALYSIS: The Paradox of ‘Parental Rights’: BISC’s latest research shows the concept of parental rights as a near-universal value for voters. Across all voting groups and levels of support for LGBTQIA+ rights, those surveyed shared an overwhelming belief that parents should have the final say over their children’s medical care. But how does that near-universal support begin to splinter when we apply the parental rights argument to a Texas parent refusing the measles vaccine for their infant? Or to a Missouri parent advocating for puberty blockers for their trans pre-teen? And where do parental rights interfere with a child’s? In 2024, anti-LGBTQIA+ groups attempted to qualify their own ‘parental rights’ initiative for the Colorado ballot with a petition that would have required teachers to ‘out’ trans and non-binary students to their parents regardless of concerns for the child’s safety. This year Texans will consider a constitutional amendment affirming that parents have the responsibility to “protect” their children and the right to exercise “control” of their upbringing. (Sen. Bryan Hughes, the proposition’s author, has also authored a bill demonizing gender-affirming care and the 2021 law that resulted in a near-total ban on abortions in the state.) Next November, Missourians will decide a legislatively-referred measure that would overturn 2024’s voter-approved right to reproductive freedom and enshrine a ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Critics have noted the attack on GAC and the parental rights aspect of the ballot language as two pieces of ‘ballot candy’ intended to persuade voters to sign away their rights. A failed initiative attempt in Washington this year sought, among other things, to give parents the right to inspect their public school student’s mental health records despite an existing state law that allows minors 13 and older to access mental health treatment without parental consent. As voters encounter more ballot measures that focus on parental rights, we must be vigilant in naming not only their origins but their outcomes — intended and not.
- BISC ANALYSIS: The Paradox of ‘Parental Rights’: BISC’s latest research shows the concept of parental rights as a near-universal value for voters. Across all voting groups and levels of support for LGBTQIA+ rights, those surveyed shared an overwhelming belief that parents should have the final say over their children’s medical care. But how does that near-universal support begin to splinter when we apply the parental rights argument to a Texas parent refusing the measles vaccine for their infant? Or to a Missouri parent advocating for puberty blockers for their trans pre-teen? And where do parental rights interfere with a child’s? In 2024, anti-LGBTQIA+ groups attempted to qualify their own ‘parental rights’ initiative for the Colorado ballot with a petition that would have required teachers to ‘out’ trans and non-binary students to their parents regardless of concerns for the child’s safety. This year Texans will consider a constitutional amendment affirming that parents have the responsibility to “protect” their children and the right to exercise “control” of their upbringing. (Sen. Bryan Hughes, the proposition’s author, has also authored a bill demonizing gender-affirming care and the 2021 law that resulted in a near-total ban on abortions in the state.) Next November, Missourians will decide a legislatively-referred measure that would overturn 2024’s voter-approved right to reproductive freedom and enshrine a ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Critics have noted the attack on GAC and the parental rights aspect of the ballot language as two pieces of ‘ballot candy’ intended to persuade voters to sign away their rights. A failed initiative attempt in Washington this year sought, among other things, to give parents the right to inspect their public school student’s mental health records despite an existing state law that allows minors 13 and older to access mental health treatment without parental consent. As voters encounter more ballot measures that focus on parental rights, we must be vigilant in naming not only their origins but their outcomes — intended and not.
- Texas: Secure Parental Rights in the Texas Constitution (LR) – Affirms in the state constitution that parents have the responsibility to “protect” their children and the right to exercise “control” of their upbringing. Texas already guarantees parental rights through statute, but this proposed constitutional amendment would elevate those rights — such as access to student records, assessments, and teaching materials (Sen. Bryan Hughes, the proposition’s author, has also authored a bill demonizing gender-affirming care and the 2021 law that resulted in a near-total ban on abortions in the state.)
- Criminal Legal
- Maine: An Act to Protect Maine Communities by Enacting the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act (CI) – Do you want to allow courts to temporarily prohibit a person from having dangerous weapons if law enforcement, family, or household members show that the person poses a significant danger of causing physical injury to themselves or others?
- Gov. Mills and gun rights groups argue the yellow flag law protects due process and has been effective, especially after recent reforms. Red flag supporters, including families of Lewiston shooting victims, say the current law failed to prevent tragedy and that giving families the ability to petition courts directly is critical. With the alternative measure sidelined, voters will decide only on the red flag initiative in November.
- Gov. Mills and gun rights groups argue the yellow flag law protects due process and has been effective, especially after recent reforms. Red flag supporters, including families of Lewiston shooting victims, say the current law failed to prevent tragedy and that giving families the ability to petition courts directly is critical. With the alternative measure sidelined, voters will decide only on the red flag initiative in November.
- Maine: An Act to Protect Maine Communities by Enacting the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act (CI) – Do you want to allow courts to temporarily prohibit a person from having dangerous weapons if law enforcement, family, or household members show that the person poses a significant danger of causing physical injury to themselves or others?
- Democracy
- California: Use of Legislative Congressional Redistricting Map Amendment (LRCA) – This measure, which would include a legislative finding that it is in response to redistricting in Texas in 2025, would, notwithstanding the authority of the Citizens Redistricting Commission, require the state to temporarily use the congressional districts reflected in AB 604 of the 2025–26 Regular Session for every congressional election until the new congressional boundary lines are drawn by the commission in 2031.
- BISC ANALYSIS: Engaging Voters Beyond the Politics: It’s all too easy to get caught up in the Prop. 50 headlines and proponents will need to move beyond the partisan tit-for-tat arguments if they’re going to make real headway at the ballot box. When asking voters to support a ballot measure, BISC executive director Chris Melody Fields Figueredo explains that it’s critical to ensure voters understand what’s truly at stake: “They need to understand the context. They want to understand why they’re voting for something. What is that potential impact? What is it in response to?” The campaign has to illustrate that defending the ballot isn’t just about preserving the electoral process — it’s about resisting a future where democracy is hollowed out in favor of partisan control. Proponents must make clear that Prop. 50 is a direct response to authoritarian maneuvers to rig the system and undermine fair representation on the national stage. The kind of democratic decay threatened by the gerrymandering plans in Texas and Missouri does more than limit ballot access — it opens the door to fascism by normalizing executive overreach, legislative complicity, and public disillusionment. Through Prop. 50, the campaign has an opportunity to demonstrate that ballot measures give voters the power to build a democracy rooted in integrity, accountability, and people-powered reform extending well beyond party lines.
- BISC ANALYSIS: Engaging Voters Beyond the Politics: It’s all too easy to get caught up in the Prop. 50 headlines and proponents will need to move beyond the partisan tit-for-tat arguments if they’re going to make real headway at the ballot box. When asking voters to support a ballot measure, BISC executive director Chris Melody Fields Figueredo explains that it’s critical to ensure voters understand what’s truly at stake: “They need to understand the context. They want to understand why they’re voting for something. What is that potential impact? What is it in response to?” The campaign has to illustrate that defending the ballot isn’t just about preserving the electoral process — it’s about resisting a future where democracy is hollowed out in favor of partisan control. Proponents must make clear that Prop. 50 is a direct response to authoritarian maneuvers to rig the system and undermine fair representation on the national stage. The kind of democratic decay threatened by the gerrymandering plans in Texas and Missouri does more than limit ballot access — it opens the door to fascism by normalizing executive overreach, legislative complicity, and public disillusionment. Through Prop. 50, the campaign has an opportunity to demonstrate that ballot measures give voters the power to build a democracy rooted in integrity, accountability, and people-powered reform extending well beyond party lines.
- Maine: An Act to Require an Individual to Present Photographic Identification for the Purpose of Voting (CI) – Do you want to change Maine election laws to eliminate two days of absentee voting, prohibit requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, end ongoing absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, ban prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes, limit the number of drop boxes, require voters to show certain photo ID before voting, and make other changes to our elections?
- Maine historically has one of the highest rates of voter participation in the nation — a distinction that could easily be threatened by passage of this initiative.
- BISC Analysis: Voter ID Marketing Masks Broader Vote Suppression: Why is it that the initiative has been branded by many as simply a ‘Voter ID’ measure despite its laundry list of other anti-voting proposals? The answer could lie in the banal acceptance of voter ID requirements. Across the country, 36 states already require voters to present some form of identification at the polls and on April 1, nearly 63% of Wisconsin voters opted to enshrine such a requirement in their state constitutions. Many see it as an easy (it’s not) and sensible step to protect against widespread election fraud (of which there is no sound evidence), but nothing about this initiative should be interpreted as easy or sensible. From ending ongoing absentee status for seniors and people with disabilities to shortening the absentee voting period to limiting the number of ballot drop boxes, this measure is committed to making voting infinitely more challenging.
- California: Use of Legislative Congressional Redistricting Map Amendment (LRCA) – This measure, which would include a legislative finding that it is in response to redistricting in Texas in 2025, would, notwithstanding the authority of the Citizens Redistricting Commission, require the state to temporarily use the congressional districts reflected in AB 604 of the 2025–26 Regular Session for every congressional election until the new congressional boundary lines are drawn by the commission in 2031.
- Fiscal Policy
- Colorado: The Colorado General Assembly passed House Bill 1274, referring two measures to the 2025 ballot to support the Healthy School Meals for All Program, originally established by Proposition FF in 2022. Both measures require voter approval under Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) because the state is now projected to collect more than the initially estimated $100.7 million annually, making voter consent necessary to retain revenue beyond those projections.
- BISC ANALYSIS: State Lawmakers & Local Advocates Fight to Fill Gaps in Federal Funding: Anti-hunger advocates have in recent months sounded the alarm about federal cuts to critical programs like the Emergency Food Assistance Program, SNAP benefits, and more. Simultaneously, public education advocates have been fighting back against proposed cuts to public education funding. Amid both fights, state legislatures and local school boards alike are pushing for ballot measures that would preserve or expand much-needed funding for these vital community services. The efforts mirror an emerging trend wherein citizens are taking matters into their own hands, leading ballot initiatives that ensure their communities have the services they need when governments fail to invest in them.
- BISC ANALYSIS: State Lawmakers & Local Advocates Fight to Fill Gaps in Federal Funding: Anti-hunger advocates have in recent months sounded the alarm about federal cuts to critical programs like the Emergency Food Assistance Program, SNAP benefits, and more. Simultaneously, public education advocates have been fighting back against proposed cuts to public education funding. Amid both fights, state legislatures and local school boards alike are pushing for ballot measures that would preserve or expand much-needed funding for these vital community services. The efforts mirror an emerging trend wherein citizens are taking matters into their own hands, leading ballot initiatives that ensure their communities have the services they need when governments fail to invest in them.
- Washington: Allow Investment of Long-Term Services and Supports Trust Fund (LR) – The constitutional amendment would allow Washington’s WA Cares Fund (a payroll tax-funded, state-run long-term care program providing up to $36,500 in lifetime benefits) to be invested in stocks and equities, aiming to improve the fund’s long-term solvency after a state analysis warned current funding may be insufficient.
- BISC ANALYSIS: The Growing Need to Invest in the Care Economy: The push to make the WA Cares fund more resilient is evidence of the growing holes in our social safety nets and the need to invest in the care economy. Other examples include ongoing fights in Missouri and Nebraska to defend paid sick leave policies that allow workers to care for themselves and ailing family members, an attempt last year in Missouri to lower childcare providers’ business costs amid a growing affordability crisis, and efforts to expand a free lunch program for Colorado students as food banks reel from federal defunding. As Americans continue to read headlines about threats to Medicaid Expansion and rising grocery bills, BISC is working with advocates across the country to explore policy solutions that address gaps in community care. This fall, we will be conducting critical research on the topic to measure voter concern for issues like childcare and paid sick leave, support for possible funding approaches, and more. In doing so, BISC will gain actionable insights into the experiences, needs, and values of the communities most affected by failed policies that negatively impact families and the community at-large.
- Colorado: The Colorado General Assembly passed House Bill 1274, referring two measures to the 2025 ballot to support the Healthy School Meals for All Program, originally established by Proposition FF in 2022. Both measures require voter approval under Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) because the state is now projected to collect more than the initially estimated $100.7 million annually, making voter consent necessary to retain revenue beyond those projections.
On Ballot: March 29
- Fiscal Policy
- [FAILED] Louisiana Act 1: State Taxation Policy (LR) – The proposed constitutional amendment aims to reform Louisiana’s fiscal policies, tax structure, and government spending regulations as outlined in Article VII of the state constitution. Key provisions currently in the constitution would be relocated to state law. The amendment includes several significant changes, such as:
- Requiring a supermajority vote for tax legislation
- Implementing a flat income tax rate
- Modifying property tax exemptions
- Freezing the sales tax exemption on food
- Adjusting severance and cigarette taxes
- Dissolving certain education trust funds to address unfunded liabilities and support teacher salary increases.
- [FAILED] Louisiana Act 1: State Taxation Policy (LR) – The proposed constitutional amendment aims to reform Louisiana’s fiscal policies, tax structure, and government spending regulations as outlined in Article VII of the state constitution. Key provisions currently in the constitution would be relocated to state law. The amendment includes several significant changes, such as:
- Criminal Legal
- [FAILED] Louisiana Act 2: Jurisdiction of Courts (LR) – The amendment would allow the Louisiana Legislature to establish specialized trial courts with a two-thirds supermajority vote, replacing the current simple majority rule for creating limited jurisdiction courts. It also expands the Louisiana Supreme Court’s authority to discipline lawyers, including those admitted for specific cases and out-of-state attorneys.
- [FAILED] Louisiana Act 3: Legislative Authority to Determine Crimes for Trying Juveniles as Adults (LR) – The proposed amendment would remove the current list of crimes specified in the state constitution that allow juveniles to be tried as adults under special circumstances. Instead, it would grant the Louisiana Legislature the authority to determine, through state law, which crimes can lead to juveniles being tried as adults.
- BISC Analysis: BIPOC Youth Disproportionately Affected by Prosecution Policies: Due to ongoing prejudices in the justice system as well as compounding factors such as socioeconomic status, it is children of color who are most likely to receive harsh sentences when tried as adults. The Equal Justice Initiative reports that before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses, 70% of those 14 or younger who were sentenced to die in prison were children of color. And Black youths make up 77% of Louisiana’s juvenile detention system. As lawmakers continue to pursue “tough on crime” policies, it will fall to voters to advocate for meaningful justice and rehabilitation.
- BISC Analysis: BIPOC Youth Disproportionately Affected by Prosecution Policies: Due to ongoing prejudices in the justice system as well as compounding factors such as socioeconomic status, it is children of color who are most likely to receive harsh sentences when tried as adults. The Equal Justice Initiative reports that before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses, 70% of those 14 or younger who were sentenced to die in prison were children of color. And Black youths make up 77% of Louisiana’s juvenile detention system. As lawmakers continue to pursue “tough on crime” policies, it will fall to voters to advocate for meaningful justice and rehabilitation.
- [FAILED] Louisiana Act 2: Jurisdiction of Courts (LR) – The amendment would allow the Louisiana Legislature to establish specialized trial courts with a two-thirds supermajority vote, replacing the current simple majority rule for creating limited jurisdiction courts. It also expands the Louisiana Supreme Court’s authority to discipline lawyers, including those admitted for specific cases and out-of-state attorneys.
- Democracy
- [FAILED] Louisiana Act 4: Elections to fill newly-created judgeships and judicial vacancies (LR) – The amendment would revise the process for filling judicial vacancies in Louisiana. It would require special elections to fill vacancies to be held on the next gubernatorial or congressional election date if within 12 months of the vacancy, aligning with state law. Currently, the constitution mandates the governor to call a special election within 12 months of the vacancy. Until the election, the Louisiana Supreme Court would appoint an interim judge to serve the remainder of the term, who would remain ineligible to run for the office.
On Ballot: April 1
- Democracy
- [PASSED] Wisconsin Photographic identification for voting (LR) – Shall section 1m of article III of the constitution be created to require that voters present valid photographic identification verifying their identity in order to vote in any election, subject to exceptions which may be established by law?
- BISC Analysis: The Specter of Non-Citizen Voting: Unfounded claims of widespread non-citizen voting fraud have resulted in a slate of proposed (and passed) ballot measures that seek to address this non-issue. But while the claims may be based in fiction, the potential impacts are very much a reality. A 2024 survey revealed that proving citizenship can be a challenge for 1 in 10 U.S. citizens and worse: more than 3.8 million people don’t have any form of proof of citizenship documentation, whether that be a birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate or a certificate of citizenship. Additionally the lack of documentation “disproportionately affects marginalized racial and ethnic groups.” As state legislatures look to further limit voting rights, they are both threatening voter accessibility for U.S. citizens and stripping undocumented community members of their ability to weigh in on state and local issues as previously permitted.
- [PASSED] Wisconsin Photographic identification for voting (LR) – Shall section 1m of article III of the constitution be created to require that voters present valid photographic identification verifying their identity in order to vote in any election, subject to exceptions which may be established by law?
On Ballot: May 6
- Fiscal Policy
- [PASSED] Ohio HJR 8: Local Public Infrastructure Bond (LR) – This ballot measure would amend the Ohio Constitution to permit the issuance of additional general obligation bonds of up to $2.5 billion in general obligation bonds, limited to $250 million per year, to assist local governments in funding public infrastructure improvement projects.
- BISC ANALYSIS: The Practicality and Pragmatism of Community Care Ballot Measures: While voters may disagree on which candidates they trust most or the priorities of their political parties, they are more likely to agree on practicalities that stand to improve their lives. Take for example the slate of voter-approved measures that have won minimum wage increases and paid sick leave in recent years, or the nearly 69% approval for a Nevada measure to exempt diapers from the sales tax. Or consider the fact that nearly every Medicaid Expansion ballot initiative in the country has passed. Of course, no measure is a sure thing; in November voters in California rejected a public infrastructure-related measure while Massachusetts voters rejected a measure to require tipped workers be paid the full minimum wage. But at a time when voters feel disenfranchised and disconnected from the debates taking place inside our state capitol buildings or the halls of Congress, direct democracy allows us to directly engage and make a tangible impact in our day-to-day lives — right down to funding repairs for the local roads we drive to work and water treatment for the cities and towns we call home.
- [PASSED] Ohio HJR 8: Local Public Infrastructure Bond (LR) – This ballot measure would amend the Ohio Constitution to permit the issuance of additional general obligation bonds of up to $2.5 billion in general obligation bonds, limited to $250 million per year, to assist local governments in funding public infrastructure improvement projects.
Ballot Measure Progress
Progressive policies are passing at the ballot in Red, Blue, and Purple states such as Florida, Arizona, Missouri, and Ohio. Through the power of direct democracy, the people are transforming power, advancing racial equity, and galvanizing a new progressive base.
Through the power of direct democracy, citizens have passed policies such as:
- Minimum wage increases
- Protecting and expanding reproductive freedoms
- Decriminalization of marijuana
- Paid Family Leave
- Medicaid expansion
- Taxing the wealthy
- Restoration of voting rights
- Reparations
- Transforming public safety
Attacks on the Ballot Measure Process
In 2017, BISC monitored just 33 bills relating to the ballot measure process. Compare that to 2023 legislative sessions in which 165 bills were introduced in 39 states that would impact the ballot initiative process, 76 of which sought to restrict or undermine the process.
As of September 30, BISC has tracked 295 bills across 43 states and Washington D.C. from 2025 legislative seasons related to direct democracy. At least 156 of these have featured some level of attack on the People’s Tool. We continue to monitor 22 active bills across six states and Washington D.C. related to direct democracy (at least nine of which feature some level of attack). 53 bills have already passed in state houses and three others have been vetoed by governors.
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 contact our Strategic Communications Director, Caroline Sanchez Avakian at [email protected]