Major votes are taking place all across the country.
I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”
Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.
Two important notes.
- The Tangle team observes federal bank holidays, so we are off on Monday for Columbus Day. We'll be back in your inbox on Tuesday.
- We are sending today’s members-only Friday edition to everyone for free. If you’re not yet a member and enjoy this piece, you can subscribe here for more Friday editions like this one.
Introduction.
This election is about more than just Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. It’s about more than just the balance of power in the House and Senate, about more than just the future of the Democratic and Republican parties. While the importance of those races goes without saying, this election is also about local issues. This year, 160 statewide ballot measures have been certified for the ballot in 41 states, the vast majority of which will be decided on Election Day.
In September, we published an essay making the case for voting, highlighting the importance of local elections and noting that ballot initiatives specifically are “an opportunity to, overnight, change the law in your state.” That power is especially apparent in 2024, when voters are directly deciding how their states will address issues like abortion, criminal justice, school choice, and election systems across the country. The outcomes of state-specific measures will also affect the status quo, galvanizing or stymying advocacy for these issues at a national level.
Today, we’re focusing on 10 ballot initiatives that we think exemplify this moment in U.S. politics. In Tangle fashion, we’ll give a neutral overview of the measure and what advocates and opponents are saying about it. However, we won’t be giving our take — the intent of this piece is to highlight a selection of ballot initiatives that tell a story about the salient issues of this election. We’ll let you decide what arguments sound the strongest to you.
Of course, choosing just 10 ballot measures to cover means we won’t cover many that are of equal importance. We selected these 10 with a mind toward geographic diversity, relevance to national issues, and originality. We’ll also be including a list of other noteworthy initiatives for further reading, and you can read about every ballot measure in each state here.
Abortion access in Florida.
Voters in Florida will be deciding on an amendment on abortion access that ranks among the top three most contributed to ballot initiatives in the U.S. this year ($72 million). If passed, Amendment 4 would add language to the Florida Constitution’s Declaration of Rights stating, “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” In Florida, viability is defined in state law as “the stage of fetal development when the life of a fetus is sustainable outside the womb through standard medical measures.”
A vote in favor of Amendment 4 would add the language, while a vote in opposition retains the current language and abortion restrictions in Florida, which only grant access to the procedure until six weeks of pregnancy and prohibit it unconditionally thereafter. In either case, the state will retain a provision that parents be notified before a minor can receive an abortion. The measure requires a 60% majority to pass.
The arguments for the initiative: The arguments in favor of the change hold that Florida’s current restrictions on abortion infringe upon pregnant patients’ bodily autonomy and create dangerous situations when they experience complications in their pregnancies without the option to pursue abortion. Some advocates also argue that constraining abortions post-viability to only when the health of the mother is at stake is a fair compromise.
The arguments against the initiative: Mirroring the arguments in favor, opponents argue that abortion is definitionally an infringement on the rights of the unborn. Due to the flexibility of what a healthcare provider could deem as a necessary protection for the health of the mother, the opposition paints the amendment as extreme. If a healthcare provider deems it in the interest of their patient’s health, opponents complain, this amendment provides language that would make abortions legal up until the moment of birth.
Drug crime and theft penalties in California.
California’s Proposition 36 would increase penalties for some thefts and certain drug crimes, while adding fentanyl to an existing list of drugs that carry a felony charge for possession in conjunction with carrying a loaded firearm. It also seeks to address homelessness through mandated drug and mental health treatment for people convicted of certain crimes.
A yes vote on Proposition 36 would reverse aspects of Proposition 47, approved in 2014, which reclassified some crimes —including some drug possession — from felonies to misdemeanors. A no vote supports maintaining certain drug and theft crimes as misdemeanors.
Proposition 36 would automatically classify a crime involving $950 or less of stolen goods by an offender with two or more prior theft-related convictions as a felony. It would also increase the maximum prison or jail sentence for these crimes from six months to three years, depending on the offender’s criminal history, and allow the length of the sentence to increase based on the amount of property stolen. Recent polls suggest a majority of voters favor the measure.
In August, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed 10 bills broadly targeting property and retail crime in the state, many of which contain similar provisions to Proposition 36.
The arguments for the initiative: Supporters say Proposition 36 is a common-sense measure in response to increasing rates of substance abuse and theft across the state. They say the initiative would help addicts access treatment while ensuring that serial offenders face harsher penalties commensurate with their patterns of criminal activity. Others say the measure is a necessary adjustment to Proposition 47 after a decade of assessing its effectiveness. Additionally, advocates argue the initiative would restore strict accountability for drug traffickers while helping people who are being harmed by the fentanyl crisis.
The arguments against the initiative: Proposition 36’s opponents view the effort as the wrong solution to a real problem. They argue that the initiative is born out of legitimate concerns about crime but would not address the issue at its root, instead returning the state to the failed policies of the past. Some argue that the recent bills signed into law by Newsom already create harsher penalties for theft and drug crime, making Proposition 36 overkill. Others contend the reduced sentences mandated by Proposition 47 are not responsible for California’s increase in crime, and that rolling back key parts of it would only exacerbate overcrowding in state prisons.
K-12 vouchers in Nebraska.
A complicated fight on school choice is playing out in Nebraska. In 2023, Gov. Jim Pillen (R) signed a tax-credit voucher program into law. The bill allowed donors to give money to a scholarship program that funded private or religious schools. In exchange, donors would get a dollar-for-dollar tax credit on the money they contributed. The law was structured as a $25 million tax credit, in exchange for matching donations to the state’s education program.
Advocates for public schools in Nebraska opposed the bill and created a petition to repeal the law. After that petition drew enough signatures to become a ballot initiative, the state legislature overrode the previous law and passed a new version that allocated $10 million, rather than $25 million, to private school vouchers through donations and repealed the tax-credit match. Public school advocates responded to that new bill by proposing Referendum 435, an amendment to end both the tax credit and the state appropriation of private school scholarship funds.
A vote to “retain” would uphold the existing bill authorizing the state treasurer to administer the current $10 million scholarship program. A vote to “repeal” would effectively end the program and return Nebraska’s system to how it operated before the 2023 program was implemented.
The argument for the initiative: Public school advocates say programs like this one eventually erode state funding for public schools, which are already struggling. They also argue that these scholarship grants overwhelmingly benefit wealthy families who can afford to donate and get the grants to send their children to private institutions. Additionally, they say that legislators in favor are playing legislative tricks by changing the bill after the amendment push, hoping to stop voters from having a chance to roll back the original legislation.
The argument against the initiative: Proponents of the amendment argue that this bill gives families more options when deciding where to send their kids to school, adding that the program will benefit underprivileged students who will be eligible to apply for scholarships through the fund to attend private or religious schools. Many say opposition to the bill is coming from misinformation spread by public school advocates, who are biased against religious and private education.
Marijuana legalization in North Dakota.
In North Dakota, Measure 5 would legalize recreational marijuana, allowing individuals to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana, 4g of concentrate, and 300mg of edibles. The measure, which was filed by former Bismarck Mayor Steve Bakken (R), would also allow individuals to grow up to three cannabis plants each with a limit of six plants per household.
The measure requires a 60% majority to pass. A majority of North Dakotans have voted for measures to legalize recreational marijuana twice in the past 6 years, but both measures have fallen short of the 60% threshold — 55% voted in favor of a 2022 measure while 59% voted for a 2018 measure.
Currently, marijuana possession and usage for recreational purposes is illegal in North Dakota, with the ingestion of any amount of marijuana punishable by up to 30 days in prison. However, North Dakotans legalized medical marijuana usage in 2016. A yes vote would legalize marijuana possession and usage within the limits defined by Measure 5, while a no vote would retain the status quo.
Arguments for the initiative: Proponents argue that enforcing marijuana laws is not worth the cost of police resources, which can be better spent elsewhere. Moreover, marijuana legalization can provide economic stimulus to North Dakota and allow it to compete in the industry with neighboring states Montana and Minnesota, which have already legalized the drug (South Dakota is voting on a similar legalization measure this November).
Arguments against the initiative: Opponents say that the risks of increased marijuana usage are being downplayed, stressing that normalization and routine use can carry long-term health risks. Furthermore, opponents say that legalizing marijuana will actually increase the strain on law enforcement, who will have to respond to an increase in traffic accidents caused by recreational drug use. Critics also doubt that legal marijuana sales will meaningfully slow down the black market, as they simultaneously worry that an increase in access and normalization will make it too easy for minors to access the drug.
Minimum wage in Arizona.
Arizona’s Proposition 138 would amend the state constitution to change how tipped workers are paid. Currently, businesses in Arizona can pay tipped workers $11.35 — $3 less than the current minimum wage of $14.35 — if the worker’s take-home pay, including tips, amounts to or exceeds the minimum wage. Proposition 138 would allow businesses to pay tipped workers 25% less than the hourly minimum wage ($10.76 per hour), provided the worker’s take-home pay, including tips, amounts to the minimum wage plus $2 an hour for all hours worked. Effectively, the change would lower tipped workers’ base salary but only if their take-home pay equalsed what they would make under the standard minimum wage plus $2.
A yes vote supports the amendment to change the state’s minimum wage system, while a no vote supports keeping the current system in place.
Another measure in Arizona, Proposition 212, failed to make the ballot but would have increased the minimum wage to $18 per hour and continued to increase it proportionally with inflation. Arizona voters previously voted to establish a state minimum wage in 2006 and increased it in 2016, along with a provision to increase the minimum wage in proportion to the cost of living (as measured by the Consumer Price Index).
Arguments for the initiative: Supporters of Proposition 138 say it would increase workers’ take-home pay by pegging the existing tip credit to a percentage of minimum wage rather than a flat $3. They stress the importance of constitutionally protecting the state’s “tip credit” system, which they argue is necessary to guarantee a solid base wage with the potential for more significant earnings through tips. Other supporters say the amendment would give businesses with tipped workers financial flexibility to pay workers less than minimum wage while they still made a good hourly wage with tips.
Arguments against the initiative: Opponents argue that tipped workers should be paid the full minimum wage and worry that enshrining the tip credit system in the state constitution would set back future efforts, like Proposition 212, to enact this reform. Many critics of Proposition 138 were proponents of Proposition 212 and see 138 as a means of undercutting that effort. They suggest the amendment would increase the gap between tipped workers’ base salary and the amount they earn from tips, exacerbating these workers’ existing financial struggles and making them overly reliant on tips. They also reject the idea that this initiative is designed to benefit workers, instead contending that it amounts to a windfall for business owners who would be able to reduce their payroll expenses.
Noncitizen voting in North Carolina.
In North Carolina, voters will have an opportunity to adopt an amendment that would change the language in the state constitution about noncitizen voting by passing House Bill 1074. The proposed law says, in part, “Only a citizen of the United States who is 18 years of age and otherwise possessing the qualifications for voting shall be entitled to vote at any election in this State.”
Right now, it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in North Carolina in federal or state elections. However, the language in the state constitution currently grants the right to vote to “every person born in the United States and every other person who has been naturalized, 18 years of age.” If adopted, the amendment would change the language to, “Only a citizen of the United States who is 18 years of age,” removing the phrase “every other person who has been naturalized.”
A yes vote favors passing the measure, while a no vote would keep the current language in place.
The arguments for the initiative: Proponents of the amendment acknowledge that noncitizen voting is already illegal, but make the case that the amendment clarifies the language in the state constitution and prevents any potential legal challenges down the road that might allow noncitizens to vote. Furthermore, some states and cities are passing or have passed laws allowing noncitizens to vote, and proponents say that clarifying the state constitution with this amendment will prevent similar laws from being passed in North Carolina.
The arguments against the initiative: Opponents of the measure argue that elections are already secure in North Carolina, and the bill is simply intended to spread mistrust about elections and stoke anti-immigrant sentiment. It will not change the law about who can and can't vote, critics say, but removing language about naturalized citizens could create confusion among immigrants who have a right to vote legally. In other words, passing the amendment might make immigrants who have been naturalized believe they cannot vote when they can.
Psychedelics in Massachusetts.
In Massachusetts, voters will have an opportunity to legalize plant-based psychedelic drugs. Question 4 on the November ballot proposes a new law making natural psychedelic substances like psilocybin mushrooms, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), and mescaline legal for use by people 21 and older at licensed therapy centers. The law would also decriminalize possession and growth of psychedelic substances for personal use, though it would not legalize the sale of these drugs in commercial shops.
In sum, a "yes" vote on Question 4 would:
- Create a Natural Psychedelic Substances Commission and Advisory Board to regulate the licensing of psychedelic substances and services
- Authorize individuals 21 years of age or older to grow, possess, and use a personal amount of psychedelic substances
- Impose an excise tax at a rate of 15% on the sale of psychedelic substances at licensed administration facilities
- Authorize localities to levy an additional tax of up to 2% on psychedelic substances and regulate the time, place, and manner of the operation of natural psychedelic substance license
The arguments for the initiative: Proponents of Question 4 have two main arguments. First, they want to continue addressing the negative effects of the war on drugs while ensuring people don't face heavy criminal penalties for possessing these substances. Second, they argue that recent studies have shown psychedelics have therapeutic benefits for conditions like addiction, depression and PTSD, and that legalizing these drugs would allow them to be used in treatment. Specifically, proponents argue that psychedelics could provide more effective treatment options for veterans and addicts.
The arguments against the initiative: Opponents say passing Question 4 would contribute to the proliferation of drug use in the state and ultimately make these drugs more accessible to minors. Some argue that allowing home-grown psychedelics would create a black market for these drugs, while others note that in other states where similar amendments have passed, psychedelic treatment has become exorbitantly expensive. They argue legalization is another for-profit corporate scheme that will make communities more dangerous by unnecessarily legalizing these drugs for non-medical use.
Redistricting in Ohio.
Ohio voters will have only one ballot initiative to decide on this fall, which is also the only initiative on redistricting in any state this year. Issue 1 proposes establishing the Ohio Citizen Redistricting Committee (CRC), a 15-member non-political group responsible for adopting state legislative and congressional districting plans. A yes vote is in favor of establishing the CRC, while a no vote would retain the Ohio Redistricting Commission — a seven-person committee of elected executives and leaders appointed by the state legislature — for redistricting decisions.
As defined by Issue 1, the CRC would be composed of five Democrats, five Republicans and five independents, screened and appointed by a panel of four retired judges — two Democrats and two Republicans. The deliberations of the proposed commissions are required to be public, and all their decisions require nine affirmative votes to carry. If passed, Ohio would become the ninth state to establish a non-political commission to decide congressional redistricting and the tenth for state-level redistricting. Despite being the ballot measure with the sixth-highest donations to its cause, no political action committees exist in opposition.
The arguments for the initiative: Ohio’s current process only conditionally involves its redistricting commission, but it still allows the state legislature the first opportunity to draw its own districts by supermajority, a condition that reformers argue allows representatives to set favorable boundaries to retain their power. In the case that the legislature does not decide, supporters say the current redistricting committee’s mix of elected politicians would always favor the political majority.
The arguments against the initiative: Opponents worry that the committee would be appointed by and formed of members who are not accountable to the public via the democratic process. Furthermore, the commission would add more costs to the Ohio budget and does not create clear enough definitions for the “independents” comprising the critical swing votes. Opponents also claim that a similar plan in Michigan ended up diluting black representation through district packing.
Top-four and ranked-choice voting in Idaho.
Idaho’s Proposition 1 would establish top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting for federal, state, and some local offices. A top-four primary would place candidates from every party together on one ballot and send the top four vote-getters to the general election. Proposition 1 allows but does not require each candidate to list their party affiliation, clarifying that candidates do not represent parties in elections.
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) allows voters to select and rank multiple candidates and uses an instant-runoff system to determine a winner: Until a candidate receives a majority of votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is removed from the race and every voter who selected that candidate has their vote reassigned to the candidate they next prefer. Once a candidate reaches a majority, that person is declared the winner (we explained how the system works in more detail in our piece on primary reform).
A yes vote would be in favor of both changes, while a no vote would deny both changes and keep the current system in place. It is not possible for voters to approve one reform but not the other. Proposition 1 does not affect how Idaho voters participate in a presidential election.
Currently, Idaho uses a traditional closed-party primary system that allows every registered party to send one candidate, as decided by their party’s own rules, to compete in the general election. The state also prohibits the use of RCV in any of their elections.
The arguments for the initiative: Proponents of a top-four primary argue that a closed primary system shuts independents out of the electoral process unfairly. Additionally, supporters of RCV argue that allowing voters to select multiple candidates will allow more moderate candidates that may not be the first choice of a plurality of voters a better chance to compete, which could depolarize the way candidates run in primary elections.
The arguments against the initiative: Opponents of RCV argue that the measure is driven by national organizations and is not the result of a grassroots movement of Idaho voters. Additionally, critics of the top-four primary system cast it as a more complicated version of open primaries, which would be a better way to address the concerns of unaffiliated citizens not voting. Conversely, Proposition 1 proponents continue, a top-four primary tilts the tables towards Democrats — who are a considerable minority in Idaho — and removes the ability of state Republicans to decide who represents their party.
Top-four and ranked-choice voting in Alaska.
While other states are voting on proposals to implement electoral system changes like ranked-choice voting (RCV), Alaska is voting to roll their changes back. In 2020, a narrow 50.6% majority of voters passed a measure that replaced partisan primaries with an open top-four primary system and established RCV for general elections, including the presidential election.
This year, Alaskans will vote on whether to return to their prior system. Alaska Ballot Measure 2 would repeal the measure that established a top-four primary system and RCV for general elections. A yes vote favors eliminating the top-four and RCV system, and a no vote supports keeping the recently passed reforms intact.
So far, opponents of Ballot Measure 2 have significantly outraised the initiative’s backers. However, a series of polls conducted in 2023 found that Alaskan voters favored repealing RCV.
The arguments for the initiative: Advocates argue that outside interest groups influenced the vote to adopt RCV in 2020 and are doing so again with Ballot Measure 2, noting the contributions from non-Alaska-based interest groups in support of the top-four and RCV system. Proponents of the measure also criticize aspects of the RCV vote tabulation process, such as exhausted ballots, which they say lead to undemocratic outcomes. Further, they suggest that RCV confuses voters, often resulting in them unintentionally helping elect a candidate they don’t support.
The arguments against the initiative: Opponents argue that open primaries and RCV better reflect the will of the voters than the previous election system. They say the top-four primary system enhances the democratic process by giving voters the freedom to vote for any candidate they want and advancing candidates with broader appeal from primaries to the general election. Some of the measure’s opponents note that the top-four primary paired with RCV has already resulted in more diverse candidate pools and outcomes — since adopting the changes, Alaska has elected a never-Trump Republican senator, a Democratic House representative, and a pro-Trump Republican governor. Others add that RCV helped blunt the effects of extreme partisanship on both sides of the aisle by eliminating the incentives for politicians to cater to the fringes of their parties.
The others.
Many states are voting on ballot measures related to the issues covered above. They include:
- Abortion access in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, and South Dakota.
- Changes to electoral systems in Arizona, Colorado, Washington, D.C., Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota.
- Changes to minimum wage laws in Alaska, California, Massachusetts, Missouri, and Nebraska.
- Criminal justice reform in Arizona and Colorado.
- Drug legalization in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota.
- Noncitizen voting in Iowa, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.
- School choice in Colorado and Kentucky.
A few other measures that caught our eye:
- In Arizona, voters will decide whether to make it illegal to enter the state from Mexico outside of legal ports of entry.
- In Colorado, voters will decide whether to ban trophy hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynxes.
- In Connecticut, voters will decide whether to allow any voter to request a mail-in ballot.
- In Florida, voters will decide whether to make school board elections partisan.
- In Missouri, voters will decide on whether to add one additional riverboat casino license for a particular stretch of the Osage River.
- In Utah, voters will decide whether to pass a ballot measure that allows the state legislature to amend or revoke ballot measures once they are passed.
- In Washington, voters will decide whether to repeal a cap-and-trade law that puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions and requires the state’s biggest polluters to reduce their carbon footprint.
