Trends Watcher

Civil Rights: 8 Criminal Legal Reform: 14 Democracy: Elections, Government, and Judiciary: 39 Direct Democracy: 4 Economic Justice: 9 Education: 13 Environment: 5 Fiscal Policy: 31 Healthcare: 8 Reproductive Freedom: 11 Miscellaneous: 9

*Learn more about these ballot initiative categories

2024 Emerging Trends

As BISC prepares for continued success in 2024 with three main issue areas (Reproductive Freedom, Direct Democracy, and Economic Justice) leading the way, we are closely tracking emerging trends that could impact the ballot initiative process or our election processes at large — both for better and for worse.

Uptick in Ballot Measure Misinformation

In the final days leading up to Election Day, BISC has seen an uptick in mis-, dis-, and mal-information targeting progressive ballot measures. Research shows that voters are more likely to vote “no” or skip a ballot measure on the ticket if they feel they don’t have enough clarity about the initiative’s impact or are simply confused by its language. Bad actors across the country are using this dynamic to their advantage, actively deploying convoluted and misleading messaging to confuse voters because they know that these amendments are widely popular with constituents across the political spectrum.

  • Florida: Anti-abortion opponents are running ads that falsely claim Amendment 4 “overturns Florida’s parental consent law, allowing abortions for minors without parents’ permission.”
    • In reality, Amendment 4 reverses a near-total abortion ban that currently places undue burdens on medical providers and patients alike but does not undo parental consent laws.
  • Ohio: Far-right politicians are running ads that falsely claim Issue 1 is “a democrat scheme to rig elections and turn Ohio blue.” 
    • In truth, Issue 1 outlines tangible plans to combat gerrymandering that favors any one political party by creating a citizen-led commission comprised equally of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. 
  • New York: Bad actors are leaning on anti-immigrant sentiments to rouse opposition to Proposal 1 by running ads that falsely claim the amendment provides “special rights for illegal immigrants.” 
    • In actuality, Proposal 1 has nothing to do with immigration and does not grant special rights to any group. Instead, it protects abortion rights and prevents the government from discriminating against New Yorkers based on gender, age, ethnicity, pregnancy status, disability status, or sexual orientation. 

Campaigns Spend Big in Final Weeks of the Election

Campaigns to support or oppose ballot measures across the country have reportedly raised a combined total of over $417 million. With only days remaining until the General Election, campaigns and their opponents are still raising dollars and investing sizable sums to sway voters. 

  • The Arizona for Abortion Access PAC has raised more than $35 million and spent over $31 million total in support of Prop. 139, making it the most expensive initiative in the state this year. For the final pre-election reporting period October 1-19, the campaign spent over $8 million on TV, radio, and digital ad buys, according to the state’s campaign finance database. When combined with opposition efforts, the state’s $36 million raised makes it the second-most expensive abortion-related ballot measure on the 2024 ballot.
  • Prop. 131 in Colorado is a ballot initiative to introduce top-four open primary elections and ranked-choice voting for several key offices. It’s been backed by some of the state’s wealthiest donors including former DaVita CEO Kent Thiry, whose associated nonprofit, Unite America, claims to be invested in over two dozen other such efforts across the country (to the tune of a reported $70 million). Colorado Voters First, the campaign behind the initiative, has reported just shy of $14.3 million in spending as of October 31 according to the state’s campaign finance database. This is reportedly one of only nine ballot measure campaigns in the last 30 years to surpass $10 million in spending in the state, and could ultimately fall in third or fourth place within that ranking.
     
  • Combined, support and opposition campaigns for Florida’s Amendment 3 and Amendment 4 have raised over  $225 million since 2023. No doubt spurring the outsized spend is the state’s supermajority requirement; both will require at least 60% of the vote in order to succeed at the ballot box. 
    • With a total of $125 million raised between proponents and opponents, the marijuana legalization measure Amendment 3 is reportedly the most expensive ballot measure in the country. Its campaign team estimates that the state officials have spent $50 million in taxpayer money in an attempt to defeat the measure using TV spots, radio ads, and more.
    • With a total of $125 million raised between proponents and opponents, the marijuana legalization measure Amendment 3 is reportedly the most expensive ballot measure in the country. Its campaign team estimates that the state officials have spent $50 million in taxpayer money in an attempt to defeat the measure using TV spots, radio ads, and more.
  • Winning for Missouri Education, the campaign behind Amendment 2 in Missouri, is smashing the previous record for the most expensive ballot measure in state history. The citizen-initiated measure would legalize sports betting and allow licensing fees and a 10% wagering tax to be appropriated for public schools and higher education. According to the Missouri Ethics Commission campaign finance database, the campaign has raised more than $40 million this year — well beyond the previous record holder, 2006’s $31 million campaign to protect stem cell research. In the final pre-election reporting period alone (October 1 to October 24), the campaign reported spending nearly $19 million on advertising.
  • $8 million in last-minute donations from conservative donors are fueling opposition to  New York’s proposed Equal Rights Amendment, Proposal 1. The handful of donors include billionaires Liz and Dick Uihlein, known for their support of former President Donald Trump and anti-LGBTQ+ organizations. According to the New York State Board of Elections database, the Vote No on Prop One campaign has reported spending just shy of $5 million on TV, radio, and digital ads as of October 21. One ad that has made the rounds on television and social media plays on anti-immigrant sentiments, falsely claiming that the measure would grant immigrants ‘special rights’ when in fact Proposal 1 has nothing to do with immigration and does not grant special rights to any group.

Some States Experiencing A Rise in Ballot Measure Counts

While the 161 total measures on ballots nationwide in 2024 is on par for recent years, a number of states are experiencing an increase. In fact, voters in Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Nevada will be asked to decide the fate of more measures than they’ve seen in decades.

  • The 13 measures on the Arizona ballot this November marks the largest total for the state since 2006’s count of 19. Notably, 11 of the 2024 measures are legislatively-referred constitutional amendments or state statutes, while only two are citizen-led efforts.
  • Colorado voters will be deciding a total of 14 ballot measures for the first time since 2008. That ballot held ten citizen-initiated measures and four legislatively-referred, compared to this year’s equal split of seven and seven.
  • It’s been 24 years since Massachusetts voters last saw at least five questions on their ballot; there were eight total measures proposed in 2000.
  • This November’s seven ballot measures in Nevada is the most since 2006’s ten.

Eleventh-Hour Legal Challenges

In the final days and weeks leading up to ballot printing deadlines, ballot measure supporters and opponents across the country rushed to file or fend off legal challenges that could affect how voters weigh the measures — if at all. Such legal battles are becoming more common as progressive issues continue to win with voters, and as a result some legislators are trying to block the will of the people when they don’t like the results.

  • Two Republican Missouri legislators and an anti-abortion activist unsuccessfully sued to have the abortion rights Amendment 3 removed from this November’s ballot, arguing that it should have outlined which of the state’s laws would be affected by restoring the right to abortion. Despite a lower court ruling that briefly left the fate of the amendment uncertain, a 4-3 decision by the Missouri Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of keeping the abortion rights measure on the ballot for voters to decide. 
  • In Nebraska, the abortion rights amendment (Initiative 439) and its anti-abortion countermeasure (Initiative 434) survived a combined total of three lawsuits in the final weeks leading up to the finalization of the state’s ballots. A referendum to repeal a law that allows the state to use public tax dollars for private school scholarships (Referendum 435) also survived a last-minute legal challenge. Finally, the citizen-led effort to legalize and regulate medical marijuana use (Initiatives 437 and 438) continue to await a court’s decision following a lawsuit that questions their petition signatures following a series of charges against a signature collector and public notary. 
  • The fate of Constitutional Amendment G in South Dakota will not be decided for another month following Election Day. That’s because a series of scheduling snafus following Life Defense Fund’s most recent legal challenge to the abortion rights amendment will not be heard in court until December 2. This is the anti-abortion group’s second lawsuit over Amendment G, their first having been dismissed by a circuit court judge in July. The plaintiffs allege that Dakotans for Health violated a 2018 law that targeted paid petition circulators. That policy had been partially repealed and replaced with laws in 2019 and 2020 that were ultimately overturned in court. Life Defense Fund claims that despite those 2019 and 2020 laws being struck down, abortion rights advocates were still beholden to the original 2018 statute. 
  • With only weeks to go until Election Day, the Utah Education Association is suing to have the legislatively-referred Amendment A disqualified. The state’s largest teachers union says that Amendment A misleads voters by implying that funding for public education will be protected when the proposed removal of a constitutional safeguard actually threatens it. The attempt follows a successful lawsuit by voting rights advocates that invalidated Amendment D, also arguing the amendment’s language was false and misleading. A district court judge agreed and said that while it will still appear on ballots due to timing, votes on the issue won’t be counted. Legislators still hoping to weaken the People’s Tool appealed the case to the Utah Supreme Court, but the decision to void Amendment D held firm.

Attempts by State Lawmakers to Subvert the Will of the People

From increased signature count requirements to extended legal challenge timelines, BISC closely follows the myriad of tactics used by state lawmakers to undermine the ballot initiative process itself. But even when a citizen-led initiative succeeds at the ballot box or a legislatively-referred measure is rejected, some lawmakers continue to fight against voters’ wishes — even to the point of ignoring or overruling election outcomes altogether. Below are just a few examples of those in power attempting to (and sometimes succeeding at) subverting the will of the People.

  • Michigan: In 2018, Michigan advocates gathered far more than enough signatures than necessary to qualify for the ballot a measure to raise the minimum wage and another to allow workers to earn paid sick leave. Rather than permitting the obviously popular initiatives to appear on the state ballot, the Republican-led legislature passed them as bills — then during the same legislative session amended the policies to be a shadow of what they were intended to be. Nearly six years later, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the legislative bypass was an unconstitutional violation of the voters’ right to the ballot initiative process. In the majority’s opinion Justice Welch wrote that, “The people bestow power unto the branches of government, not the other way around.” Unfortunately, the ruling is limited to when Michigan legislators use the ‘adopt and amend’ strategy within a single legislative session and doesn’t preclude lawmakers from simply using a longer timeline to subvert the spirit of the initiative process.
  • Montana: In the 2022 General Election Montana voters rejected the legislative-referred constitutional amendment, LR-131. The GOP-backed measure purported to enact so-called ‘Born Alive’ restrictions rooted in anti-abortion fear mongering, but in reality would have also criminalized health care providers for providing compassionate end-of-life care for nonviable infants.Just a few months later, conservative lawmakers went on to resurrect the LRCA and pass it as a bill during the 2023 legislative session in defiance of the statewide vote. Fortunately, the aspect that criminalized health care providers was absent from the bill version and the resulting policy was largely moot given existing state and federal laws.
  • Ohio: After voters passed Issue 1 by a 14-point margin in November 2023, GOP legislators quickly set to work with attempts to prevent Ohioans from benefiting from the win. 27 legislators announced their official opposition to the amendment, vowing to “do everything in [their] power to prevent [anti-abortion] laws from being removed based upon perception of intent.” Four legislators proposed a policy that would strip courts of the power to interpret the constitutional amendment and granted that right to the legislature. Others worked with anti-abortion group End Abortion Ohio to draft a total abortion ban, with exceptions only for the life of the pregnant patient. Another Republican-sponsored bill sought to direct local government funds to crisis pregnancy centers if the county or municipality was found to have funded “any entity that supports, promotes, or provides abortions” in the wake of Issue 1.
  • Utah: The Utah Legislature made headlines in July when the state supreme court unanimously ruled against lawmakers’ ‘infringement’ on direct democracy. At the heart of the issue was 2018’s ‘Better Boundaries’ Proposition 4 that created an independent redistricting commission (not unlike the one being proposed by Ohio this November), tasked with drawing new congressional district boundaries. Despite voters passing the ballot initiative, the 2021 GOP-led state legislature demoted the commission into an ‘advisory’ role — one whose advice they opted to dismiss in favor of their own gerrymandered maps that protected existing Republican-majority power. Supreme court justices have sent the legislature’s substitute policy (2020’s Senate Bill 200) back to a Utah district court where the State must prove lawmakers had a compelling reason to usurp the will of the People and draw their own gerrymandered map. Legislative leaders accused the state Supreme Court of ‘creating chaos’ and called a special session to propose Amendment D, an LRCA that could have granted legislators the right to alter or repeal citizen initiatives altogether — effectively stripping voters of the right to meaningly co-govern — had it not been invalidated by a district court judge (a decision later upheld by the Utah Supreme Court).

Special Interest-Backed Initiatives Posing as Economic Justice

The economy and its effects on household budgets are understandably top-of-mind for voters in any election cycle. This November, voters across the country will have an opportunity to support economic justice measures like minimum wage increases, paid sick leave requirements, affordable housing strategies, and more. But some ballots will also include special interest-backed initiatives that may appear to provide relief when in fact they pose notable risks to pocketbooks and public benefits.  

  • Arizona: Voters in Arizona will be asked to weigh in on Prop. 138, the ‘Tipped Workers Protection Act’, a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment that despite its name would actually allow tipped workers to be paid 25% less per hour than the minimum wage. Worker advocacy group Raise the Wage Arizona has argued that the measure’s title is, “misleading to the point of fraud” and unsuccessfully sued to have it removed from the ballot. The Arizona Restaurant Association is advocating for the LRCA, and formed the ‘Save Our Tips AZ’ political action committee shortly before speaking in favor of the bill during the legislative session. In fact the PAC’s reported chairman and treasurer are the president and chief operating officer of the Arizona Restaurant Association, though its website makes no mention of affiliation with the organization. A Democratic state representative said she felt “bamboozled” upon learning that the policy’s advocates wearing “Save Our Tips” t-shirts in the committee hearing were actually in upper management at ARA member restaurants, not tipped workers.
  • Colorado: Property taxes have been a hot topic for the many Americans who could benefit from meaningful tax relief, and Coloradans are no exception. So it’s no surprise that two citizen-initiated ballot measure campaigns (backed by the conservative special interest groups Advance Colorado and Colorado Concern) were able to collect the 100,000-plus signatures necessary to earn a place on the statewide ballot. But experts were quick to point out how these purported savings would actually cost Coloradans in the long run. Initiative 50 aimed to set a cap on property tax revenues (and require a statewide vote for local districts to retain revenues beyond the cap). Up to $1 billion in property tax revenues would be lost by its third year of implementation. Initiative 108, which sought to reduce valuation for property assessments, was expected to cut into property tax revenues by $3 billion. Such a dramatic change in state revenues could have necessitated that lawmakers use the state’s general fund to backfill K-12 public education funds by nearly $190 million across the 2025-2026 biennium, make an estimated $800 million in cuts to higher education and $450 million in cuts to local highway funding, and more. An August special session dedicated to legislators successfully reaching a deal regarding property taxes ultimately led to the two citizen-initiated ballot measures being withdrawn by their sponsors. 
  • Washington: Initiative 2124, a measure to require that workers choose whether to opt into the state’s long-term care insurance program, is one of three initiated proposals sponsored by the conservative Let’s Go Washington group that was founded by millionaire hedge fund manager Brian Heywood. The insurance program currently grants the state’s citizens access to a $36,500 benefit for long-term health care. A coalition of groups opposing Initiative 2124 have said that its passage would effectively repeal the WA Cares Fund. Lawmakers supporting the measure say it would save taxpayers money; the 0.58% tax reportedly costs an employee earning $50,000 annually about $24 per month. Washington’s Office of Financial Management has estimated that Initiative 2124’s repeal of the required WA Cares Fund tax could cost the state between $12.6 and $31.2 million within its first three fiscal years. Additionally, there is concern that a wave of opt-outs by those who assume they won’t need the benefit in the future could make the program more expensive for those who continue to opt in, many of who already have or anticipate the need for long-term health care.

Defending the Freedom to Marry from SCOTUS Intervention 

There is growing concern that an increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court could overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that upheld the freedom to marry nationwide, grounding them in the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In his 2022 concurring opinion to the Dobbs decision that overturned 1973’s Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas said that the court should also revisit other decisions — including Obergefell. 

Two short years later, a conservative Florida-based legal group has filed a brief on behalf of Kim Davis. The former Rowan County Clerk made headlines in 2015 when she repeatedly refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing her personal religious beliefs. Liberty Counsel founder and Chairman Mat Staver didn’t mince words about the case’s intent, saying in a press release that, “This case has the potential to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and extend the same religious freedom protections beyond Kentucky to the entire nation.”Legislatively-referred initiatives in California, Colorado, and Hawai’i are proactively asking voters to uphold the freedom to marry by removing outdated and legally moot language from their state constitutions. Democratic Assemblyman Evan Low, upon introducing his 2023 proposal to repeal Proposition 8, said in a statement, “Although same-sex marriage is legal, it could be temporary. We have to remain vigilant, unwavering in our dedication to equality.”

Anti-Abortion Officials Using Red Tape to Tie Up Reproductive Freedom Ballot Measures

Concerned about proven voter support for reproductive rights (particularly given the streak of wins since 2022’s Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade) anti-abortion lawmakers are increasingly relying on bureaucratic red tape in their fight to prevent the measures from succeeding at the ballot box — or even from reaching the ballot box at all. While secretaries of state in Arkansas and Montana spent the month of July working to prevent complete counts of petition signatures, state committees in Arizona and Florida are editorializing statements otherwise intended to provide voters with unbiased information about initiatives.

  • Arkansas: Sec. of State John Thurston refused to count signatures gathered by paid collectors working with Arkansans for Limited Government. He claimed that the campaign failed to submit the required documentation, despite his office having assured campaign staff that they had turned in all necessary paperwork — and then some. Unfortunately, the Arkansas Supreme Court sided with him in a 4-3 decision to deny the measure a place on the ballot. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Karen R. Baker asked, “Why are the respondents and the majority determined to keep this particular vote from the people? The majority has succeeded in its efforts to change the law in order to deprive the voters of the opportunity to vote on this issue, which is not the proper role of this court.”
  • Florida: A new financial impact statement for Amendment 4 alleges that the state may be expected to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, resulting in lawsuits that would be costly. The conference tasked with drafting the analysis included Gov. DeSantis appointees: Chris Spencer — the governor’s former budget chief, Rachel Greszler — a co-author of Heritage Fund’s Project 2025, and Michael New — a social research professor at Catholic University of America.
     
  • Montana: Following the submission of ballot petitions to her office, Sec. of State Christi Jacobsen instructed county clerks to toss out signatures by ‘inactive’ voters — registered voters who had not voted in two recent elections or updated their addresses. Campaigns were given no advance notice of the decision, and only learned of the strategy with the help of an anonymous tipster.

Legal Challenges Targeting Reproductive Freedom Measures

While lawsuits regarding ballot initiatives are not uncommon, for those leading campaigns to restore or protect reproductive freedom it increasingly seems as though a lawsuit at some point in the process is an inevitability. In 2024, 7 of the 10 confirmed reproductive rights measures plus Arkansas have been forced to mount a legal challenge or defend themselves from one: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Montana, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, and South Dakota. 

Of those eight total, Arizona, Florida, Montana, New York, and South Dakota have so far survived legal challenges by lawmakers and anti-abortion organizations alike that sought to block qualified measures from the November 5 ballot.

Record-Breaking Reproductive Freedom Initiative Petitions

But despite the attacks on these reproductive freedom measures, and a growing number of threats to states’ signature-gathering processes, it is clear that voters are eager for opportunities to decide for themselves the future of abortion rights in their states. This year reproductive freedom campaigns across the country are breaking their states’ records for the number of petition signatures, including Montana’s 117,000 signatures and Colorado’s 240,000 signatures. Advocates in Arizona collected more than 820,000 petition signatures — equivalent to 1 in 5 Arizona voters! Missourians for Constitutional Freedom even gathered nearly 20,000 signatures on April 2 alone, setting a state record for the most signatures collected in a single day.

And while a robust signature count by no means guarantees a win on Election Day, it’s a noteworthy temperature check for support of an initiative. Take for example the 710,000 signatures submitted by Ohio abortion advocates for in 2023. Issue 1 would go on to win with nearly 57% of the vote at 2,227,384.

Citizenship Voting Requirements

This November, voters in Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin will be asked to decide whether to mandate that only U.S. citizens can vote in their state elections. The measures follow unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud, and pair with increasingly anti-immigrant sentiments — sometimes strategically. In Missouri, for example, the citizenship question is considered by some to be ‘ballot candy’ intended to entice voters to support the proposed ranked-choice voting ban that is included in the same legislative-referred constitutional amendment.

While citizenship voting requirements are not new (six states have passed them since 2018), a recent survey reveals that proving citizenship may not be so easy 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,” with 11% of respondents of color unable to readily access such documents compared to 8% of their white counterparts.

Election Denialism & Ballot Hand-Counting

Over the past four years, election denialism has transformed American democracy. What was once a small, fringe, extremist belief is now a growing and increasingly dangerous enclave of the population that includes election officials among them. Already this year, Wisconsin voters passed two legislatively-referred initiatives rooted in allegations of fraud during the 2020 election while voters in three South Dakota counties rejected citizen-initiated measures that would have required ballots be counted by hand.

Two additional citizen-led efforts in Arkansas and North Dakota would have required, among other things, that ballots be hand-marked and hand-counted. Neither campaign was able to collect enough signatures to meet deadlines for the November 5 election, but it’s unlikely this is the last we’ll see of them.

Counter Measures

Counter measures are used to strategically divide and distract opponents, drain campaign funds, and cause voter confusion. BISC’s research going back to 2016 shows that voters take voting on ballot measures seriously and don’t want to make mistakes. When voters don’t have enough information about a ballot measure or are confused, they are more likely to vote “no” or skip voting on the measure. These more complicated ballots require a nuanced messaging approach, increasing the cost of voter education efforts in an already expensive and crowded election cycle.

There are additional risks if competing measures do appear on the ballot. 17 states have statutory or constitutional provisions about what happens when there are two competing measures on the ballot. In Nebraska for instance, the measure with the most votes supersedes the other on all points of conflict, but the measure with the least affirmative votes is not wholly superseded. In Arizona, the measure with the most votes wholly supersedes the other. This Fall, Nebraska voters will see two competing abortion rights measures on the ballot: one to protect reproductive freedom up until viability with exceptions thereafter, and one that bans abortions after the first trimester with some exceptions. In a presumed attempt to mislead Nebraska voters, the anti-abortion groups behind this measure have even used branding similar to the Protect Our Rights campaign. Further, at least 300 of the counter measure’s petition signers have filed affidavits to remove their names after claiming that the anti-abortion campaign had misled them. In April, anti-abortion politicians in Arizona accidentally leaked their plans to try and defeat the Arizona for Abortion Access Act by placing two legislatively-referred constitutional amendments banning abortion on the 2024 ballot to intentionally mislead voters and sow confusion. While the LRCAs did not come to fruition, the plan did reveal their ready willingness to disrupt direct democracy in order to suppress reproductive freedom.

Reproductive Freedom Ballot Measure Landscape: 2024 Outlook

As of August 30, 2024, measures concerning reproductive freedom have qualified for the ballot in 11 states. 

There is ongoing litigation challenging the abortion bans in most of these states, but without a constitutional amendment establishing a right to abortion, it is not certain that the respective supreme courts in these states will find the bans unconstitutional.

Reproductive Freedom Measures on Ballot 2024:

  • Arizona Proposition 139: This amendment, sponsored by Arizona for Abortion Access, would allow for abortions until the point of fetal viability, somewhere between 24 and 26 weeks. Abortion is currently banned at 15 weeks in the state.
    • There have been no shortage of attempts to block or defeat this amendment. In the spring, anti-abortion politicians in Arizona accidentally leaked their plans to place two legislatively-referred constitutional amendments banning abortion on the 2024 ballot to intentionally mislead voters and sow confusion. While those LRCAs did not come to fruition, the plan did reveal their ready willingness to disrupt direct democracy in order to suppress reproductive freedom. Later, Arizona Right to Life unsuccessfully sued to disqualify the measure. The organization also initially alleged that the campaign was misleading voters (by “telling people that it’s about women’s rights”), but ultimately withdrew that piece of their challenge.
  • Colorado Amendment 79: Coloradans for Protecting Reproductive Freedom‘s measure would enshrine abortion in the state constitution. It would also allow 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. Because it amends the state constitution, Amendment 79 will need at least 55% of the vote in order to pass.
  • Florida Amendment 4: Floridians Protecting Freedom (FPF) is leading the statewide Yes on 4 campaign of allied organizations and concerned citizens working protect the right to abortion up until the point of viability, or when necessary to protect the patient’s health. The fate of Amendment 4 is especially important due to the state’s new six-week abortion ban. Florida has the highest threshold in the country for ballot measures to pass: Amendment 4 needs to win at least 60% of the vote this November in order to succeed.
  • Illinois Question 1: Rather than traditional ballot initiatives, Illinois instead looks to non-binding advisory questions that can serve to inform voters’ support for future policy. During the 2024 legislative session, legislators referred to the November ballot the following question: Should all medically appropriate assisted reproductive treatments, including, but not limited to, in vitro fertilization, be covered by any health insurance plan in Illinois that provides coverage for pregnancy benefits, without limitation on the number of treatments?
  • Maryland Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative: The Right to Reproductive Freedom initiative is a legislative-backed measure that 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, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one’s own pregnancy.”
  • Missouri Amendment 3: Missourians for Constitutional Freedom’s measure would prevent the government from denying or interfering with a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom up until the point of fetal viability. Notably, Missouri was the first state in the country to ban all abortions (with limited exceptions) after the fall of Roe.
  • Montana CI-128: Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights are advocating for a ballot measure that 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.
    • The MSRR campaign has appeared in court numerous times throughout the process as state officials repeatedly sought to block or derail the ballot initiative process during the filing and qualification phases alike. Each time the courts have upheld the right to direct democracy, ensuring that voters will have an opportunity to decide the fate of the amendment.
  • Nebraska Initiative 439: The Protect Our Rights campaign has proposed a ballot measure that would constitutionally protect abortion until fetal viability—usually around 24 to 26 weeks—or to save the pregnant person’s life or health.
    • Unfortunately, Nebraska has an anti-abortion counter measure (Initiative 434) that has also qualified for the November ballot. It aims to enshrine a 12-week abortion ban in the state constitution, with limited exceptions for rape, incest, and to protect the life of the patient, but it also leaves room for the state legislature to enact additional limitations up to and including a total ban. The campaign has used branding similar to Protect Our Rights in order to confuse voters and more than 300 of its petition signers have filed affidavits requesting that their names be removed after being misled by the campaign.
      • State law dictates that if both initiatives pass, then the measure that earns the most votes will supersede the other on all points of conflict — but will not erase it entirely. As such, Nebraskans will need to vote FOR Initiative 439 and AGAINST Initiative 434 in order to protect abortion rights in their state.
    • A second anti-abortion initiative campaign that sought to grant rights to a fetus equal to that of a person (and include zero exceptions for rape, incest, or medical emergencies) failed to gather enough support to continue their attempt.
  • Nevada Question 6: A coalition of abortion rights advocates called Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom are backing a ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to include abortion before fetal viability as a fundamental right, adding a layer of protection for reproductive rights in the state.
  • New York Proposal 1: This legislatively-referred initiative would protect abortion rights as part of an expanded Equal Rights Amendment that will appear on the ballot in November. Specifically on abortion, the measure protects against discrimination for pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes and would protect against government action that could limit reproductive care.
  • South Dakota Amendment G: Dakotans for Health is sponsoring an initiative that would make abortions legal in the first trimester but allow the state to regulate abortion in the second and third trimesters. Abortion is currently banned at all points of pregnancy in South Dakota, with limited exceptions.
    • While the South Dakota Secretary of State validated the measure for the November election, opponents of abortion have accused the campaign of violating signature-gathering laws and are suing to have the ballot measure voided. The case will not be decided until December 2024.

Direct Democracy Ballot Measure Landscape: 2024 Outlook

The direct democracy measures on the 2024 ballot reflect the notable attacks on the initiative process by opposition forces.

Direct Democracy Measures – Highlights on Ballot 2024:

  • Arizona Proposition 134: Distribution Requirement for Initiatives Amendment [OPPOSE]: This legislatively-referred constitutional amendment would introduce a signature distribution requirement for initiative petitions, mandating that a percentage of signatures come from each legislative district. The amendment would complicate and impede the initiative process even more in the state, potentially limiting the ability of citizens to enact change through direct democracy altogether. 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.
  • Arizona Proposition 136: Legal Challenges to Constitutionality of Initiatives [OPPOSE]: This constitutional amendment allows a person to contest the constitutionality of an initiative measure or amendment in superior court after it has been filed and prohibits the Secretary of State from certifying or printing an amendment or measure that is found unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction.
  • North Dakota Constitutional Measure 2: Single-Subject Requirement for Initiatives and Require Constitutional Initiatives to be Passed Twice [OPPOSE]: North Dakota’s Republican-dominated legislature successfully referred a constitutional amendment to the ballot establishing a single-subject rule, raising the signature requirement for initiatives from 4% to 5% of the state population, and requiring that initiatives be approved first on the primary election ballot. The legislature referred a similar measure to the ballot in 2020 that failed, with 61.61% of voters rejecting it.
  • Utah Amendment D:Legislative Alteration of Ballot Initiatives and Foreign Contributions Ban [VOID; OPPOSED]: Grants Utah legislature the right to repeal laws that have been passed, adopted, or even rejected by voters.
    • Note: While Amendment D will appear on Utah’s November 5 ballot, a district court judge has ruled the LRCA void and votes on the measure will not be counted. The Utah Supreme Court has upheld that decision following an appeal by legislative leadership.

Economic Justice Ballot Measure Landscape: 2024 Outlook

The economic justice measures on the 2024 ballot reflect broader national trends and conversations surrounding workers’ rights, wages, and housing affordability.

Economic Justice Measures – Highlights on Ballot 2024:

  • Alaska Ballot Measure No. 1: Minimum Wage Increase and Paid Sick Leave [SUPPORT]: Better Jobs for Alaska has qualified for the ballot a citizen-led initiative that would gradually raise the state’s minimum wage to $13 per hour effective July 1, 2025, to $14 per hour effective July 1, 2026, then finally to $15 per hour effective July 1, 2027, and allow the wage to be annually adjusted for inflation thereafter. The measure would also allow employees to accrue up to 40 or 56 hours of annual paid sick leave, depending on whether their employer has fewer than 15 employees versus 15 or more. After achieving statehood in 1959, Alaska became the first state to establish a minimum wage higher than the federal level. Impressively, it maintained this distinction for over 30 years, consistently holding the highest minimum wage rate among all states.
  • Arizona Proposition 138: Lower Tipped Worker Wages [OPPOSE]: The amendment would allow tipped workers to be paid 25% less per hour than the minimum wage, provided their total tips plus wages are not less than the minimum wage plus $2 for all hours worked. Raise the Wage Arizona filed a lawsuit to remove the measure from the ballot, claiming the title misleads voters into believing it will protect tipped workers when, in fact, it exploits them by allowing an even lower minimum wage than the current sub-minimum wage.
  • California Proposition 32: $18 Minimum Wage [SUPPORT]: This measure would increase California’s minimum wage to $18 by 2026. Employers with 26 or more workers will be subject to the $18 minimum wage on January 1, 2025 while employers with 25 or less employees will see an increase to $17 in 2025 and reach the full $18 on January 1st, 2026. Thereafter, the measure provides that the minimum wage increases based on changes in the U.S. Consumer Price Index. Advocates cite the pandemic, increased cost of living, and the need to attract workers as reasons for the adjustment.
  • Massachusetts Question 3: Unionization and Collective Bargaining for Transportation Network Drivers [SUPPORT]: Supported by New England United for Justice, this measure guarantees Uber, Lyft and other transportation network drivers the right to unionize—allowing them to negotiate the terms and conditions of their work.
  • Massachusetts Question 5: Require the Full Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers with Tips on Top [SUPPORT]: 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. According to the Yes on 5 campaign, the current minimum wage for tipped employees in Massachusetts is only $6.75 compared to $15.00 for non-tipped employees.
  • Missouri Proposition A: Minimum Wage Increase and Paid Sick Leave [SUPPORT]: Missourians for Healthy Families and Fair Wages has qualified their measure to gradually increase the minimum wage to $15.00/hour and adjust thereafter based on changes in the Consumer Price Index each January beginning in 2027. Additionally, the initiative requires employers to provide one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked.
  • Nebraska Initiative 436: Paid Sick Leave [SUPPORT]: This measure, sponsored by Nebraskans for Paid Sick Leave, requires employers to provide one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. Workers at a job with fewer than 20 employees could earn up to five days of paid sick leave per year; those at jobs with more than 20 employees could get seven.

Types of Ballot Measures:

There are several types of key ballot measure issue areas, including:

  • Direct Democracy: Laws governing ballot measures and the initiative process
    • Signature Gathering 
    • Language Development 
    • Protection and Implementation of Ballot Measures
  • Reproductive Freedom: Policies and legal protections to act on decisions regarding pregnancy
    • Reproductive Health: A continuum of physical, mental and social-emotional care pertaining to the reproductive system at all stages of life. 
    • Reproductive Rights: Largely focused on abortion, contraception, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) legal policies.
  • Economic Justice: Systemic policies that end the cycle of poverty and prevent wealth inequality
    • Worker Rights
    • Wages and Benefits 
    • Paid Sick Leave 
    • Paid Family Leave  
    • Fair Lending 
    • Housing
  • Democracy: Policies that pertain to our governing systems 
    • Voting Rights 
    • Elections 
    • Campaign Finance
    • Redistricting
  • Fiscal Policy: Policies that pertain to taxation and government spending
    • Income Taxes 
    • Property Taxes 
    • Corporate and Business Taxes 
    • State Budgets 
    • Education Funding 
  • Civil Rights: Guarantees of equal social opportunities and protection under the law, regardless of race, religion, or other characteristics
    • Racial Equality 
    • Gender Equality 
    • Marriage Equality 
    • Criminal Legal Reform
  • Health Justice: Access to equitable and affordable quality health care for all
    • Medicaid Expansion 
    • Universal Healthcare 
    • Cost Transparency 
    • Full-Body Healthcare 
  • Education: Policies in the educational sphere that govern the operation of education systems
    • Public Education Funding and Vouchers
    • School-to-Prison Pipeline 
    • Curriculum
    • School Choice 
  • Environmental Protection: Policies that impact the protection of the natural environment, conservation of natural resources and the existing natural environment
    • Oil & Gas 
    • Mining 
    • Air Quality 
    • Recycling 
    • Land Use 
  • Immigration: Policies that influence migration for permanent settlement, temporary labor migration, migration for family reunification and migration of highly skilled workers

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].