Ballotpedia's Top 15 Ballot Measures and Trends to Watch, 2024
| 2024 U.S. state ballot measures | |
|---|---|
2025 »
« 2023
| |
 | |
| Overview | |
| Scorecard | |
| Tuesday Count | |
| Deadlines | |
| Requirements | |
| Lawsuits | |
| Readability | |
| Voter guides | |
| Election results | |
| Campaigns | |
| Polls | |
| Media editorials | |
| Filed initiatives | |
| Finances | |
| Contributions | |
| Signature costs | |
| Ballot Measure Monthly | |
| Signature requirements | |
Have you subscribed yet?
Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew.
| |
October 19, 2024
Voters in 41 states will decide on 146 statewide ballot measures at the general election on November 5. This year's ballot measures address issues like abortion, ranked-choice voting, non-citizen voting, criminal justice, wages, and drug-use policies.
Earlier in 2024, voters in five states decided on nine ballot measures. Voters approved five and rejected four of these measures. On December 7, voters in one state, Louisiana, will decide on four ballot measures. Overall, 159 statewide ballot measures are certified for the ballot in 41 states in 2024. To see statewide ballot measures on the ballot in 2024, click here.
We've compiled a list of 15 ballot measures and trends to watch on Nov. 5, 2024. Click on the following links to read more about each ballot measure. The list order is based on topics or similar issues.
- Florida Amendment 4: Right to Abortion Initiative
- Southwestern Swing States, Arizona and Nevada: Right to Abortion Initiatives
- Nebraska Initiative 434 and 439: Competing Abortion Initiatives
- Amarillo, Texas, and San Francisco, California: Local Abortion Measures
- Alaska Ballot Measure 2: Repeal Top-Four RCV Initiative
- Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada RCV: Top-Four and Top-Five RCV Initiatives
- Arizona Propositions 133 and 140: Competing Electoral Systems Amendments
- Washington, D.C. Initiative 83: RCV Initiative
- Eight States: Non-Citizen Voting Ban Amendments
- Ohio Issue 1: Redistricting Commission Initiative
- California Proposition 36: Drug and Theft Crime Penalties Initiative
- Florida Amendment 3: Marijuana Legalization Initiative
- Washington Initiatives 2066 and 2117: Energy Policy Initiatives
- Colorado and Kentucky: School Choice Amendments
- Nebraska Referendum 435: Private School Education Scholarships Referendum
Abortion
Abortion has been a topic for statewide ballot measures since the 1970s. However, in 2022, following Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a then-record number of abortion-related measures were on the ballot, including three from campaigns that described themselves as pro-choice or pro-reproductive rights. In 2023, voters in Ohio approved Issue 1.
On November 5, 2024, voters decided on 11 abortion-related ballot measures—the most on record for a single year. Ten would provide for state constitutional rights to abortion: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Nevada, and South Dakota. One, in Nebraska, would limit the timeframe for when an abortion can be performed.
Both Vice President Kamala Harris (D) and former President Donald Trump (R) commented on the ballot measure trend. Harris said, “Since Roe was overturned, every time reproductive freedom has been on the ballot, the people of America voted for freedom. From Kansas to California to Kentucky, in Michigan, Montana, Vermont, and Ohio, the people of America voted for freedom.”[1] Harris endorsed several of the right-to-abortion ballot initiatives in 2024. Trump said, "But the people of Ohio decided. The people of Kansas decided. The people are now deciding, and it's taken it off the shoulders of the federal government. Always, they wanted it to be decided by the states, and Roe v. Wade didn't do that. It put it into the federal government. So, now, states are voting on it."[2] Trump, a resident of Florida, said he will vote "no" on Florida Amendment 4, which would provide for a state constitutional right to abortion.[3][4]
Florida Amendment 4
Florida Amendment 4 will be among the most-watched ballot measures on Nov. 5, including among other abortion-related ballot measures, for a few reasons:
- Florida has the largest population among the states considering abortion-related measures.
- The state has trended more Republican, at least in the previous two presidential elections.
- Florida requires a 60% vote to approve constitutional amendments, which is a higher threshold compared to other states deciding on abortion measures on Nov. 5.
Amendment 4 would add the following language to the Florida Constitution’s Declaration of Rights: “… 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.” Amendment 4 would maintain the current constitutional provision that permits a law requiring parents to be notified before a minor can receive an abortion.
Florida has a six-week abortion ban, which went into effect on May 1, 2024.
Southwestern Swing States: Arizona and Nevada
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) issued a memo saying the ballot measures guarantee "that reproductive freedom will remain a driving issue for voters this November," and that "House Republicans’ extremism will cost them in states with abortion ballot initiatives."[5]
Nathaniel Rakich, senior editor and elections analyst at FiveThirtyEight, described this idea: "Proponents of this theory often make the 'reverse coattails' argument: that abortion-rights ballot measures increase turnout among liberal voters, who will vote for Democratic candidates elsewhere on the ballot while they're at it." He also said, "[T]he data on whether these abortion-rights ballot measures goosed turnout is inconclusive."[6]
James Blair, the political director for Trump's 2024 campaign, said, "In many ways, the ballot initiatives, one could argue, are favorable to Republicans because it allows a voter to exercise their judgments on abortion policy and their state on the one hand while exercising judgment on who should serve as president [on the other]."[7]
Of the 10 states voting on abortion-related ballot measures on Nov. 5, the two states with the closest results in the last presidential election were in the Southwest: Arizona and Nevada. Both of these states also have battleground U.S. Senate elections, as well as battleground U.S. House elections.
Arizona Proposition 139 and Nevada Question 6 would both provide for a fundamental right to abortion in their respective state constitutions. Both would allow the states to prohibit or otherwise restrict abortion after fetal viability, except when certain healthcare professionals determine that an abortion is needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant woman.
Competing Initiatives: Nebraska Initiative 434 and 439
Voters in Nebraska will decide on competing ballot measures on abortion. Initiative 434 would prohibit abortions after the first trimester, except for medical emergencies or cases related to rape or incest. Initiative 439 would establish a "fundamental right to abortion until fetal viability, or when needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient."
Could voters approve both ballot initiatives? Polling indicates that both have support of around 45%, with around 15% undecided.[8] In Nebraska, when two conflicting measures are approved, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other one at points of conflict.
Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) said, "[T]his November general election ballot will host two ballot measures that appear in direct conflict with each other, which could be the first time this has happened in Nebraska’s history." He said Gov. Jim Pillen (R) would be responsible for determining whether there is a conflict per state law.[9]
The competing measures are also significant because this is the first time voters anywhere will decide on conflicting abortion-related ballot measures on the same ballot.
Cities: Amarillo and San Francisco
Abortion isn't just an issue for state ballot measures. Voters in at least two cities, Amarillo, Texas, and San Francisco, California, will decide on abortion-related local ballot initiatives on Nov. 5. Both address an issue that the state ballot measures do not: Can governments penalize individuals leaving jurisdictions where abortions are illegal or restricted to obtain abortions elsewhere?
In Amarillo, voters will decide on Proposition A, which would prohibit residents from receiving abortions outside Amarillo and prohibit people from transporting residents to locations outside Amarillo to receive abortions. In San Francisco, on the other hand, voters will decide on Proposition O, which would prohibit officials and employees from sharing information with out-of-state or federal law enforcement about state-legal abortions, decisions to have abortions, and other matters.
Amarillo Proposition A would also establish the jurisdiction as a Sanctuary City for the Unborn; declare that abortion is illegal in Amarillo, with exceptions to save the pregnant woman's life; provide that abortion-inducing drugs are unlawful contraband; designate organizations that use mail to send items intended for abortions as criminal organizations and prohibit them from operating in Amarillo; and provide that private persons have standing to bring civil actions against persons who violate or intend to violate Proposition A.
San Francisco Proposition O would also declare that San Francisco shall not "investigate or prosecute a person for having accessed or provided reproductive health care" or "assist or cooperate with such an investigation or prosecution," excluding cases involving "the use of coercion or force against the pregnant person" or "criminal negligence that harmed the health of the pregnant person;" establish the Reproductive Freedom Fund, which would receive private donations, including grants, gifts, and bequests, and distribute the funds to support "access to abortions and emergency contraception in San Francisco;" and create a new service class called Reproductive Health Clinics that are permitted throughout San Francisco, excluding certain residential areas.
Electoral systems
The ballot initiative has played a prominent role in proposing changes to state and local electoral systems across the United States. In 2024, voters will decide on a record number of statewide ballot measures on ranked-choice voting (RCV)—Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Nevada, and Oregon. There are other electoral system changes on the ballot, including competing measures in Arizona, two measures in Montana, and a top-two primaries initiative in South Dakota.
Alaska Ballot Measure 2: Repeal Top-Four RCV Initiative
While other citizen-initiated ballot measures would enact RCV, Alaska Ballot Measure 2 would repeal the state's top-four ranked-choice voting system, which was approved in 2020. Alaska is the first state to vote on repealing RCV, although several localities have adopted and then later voted on repealing the system.
In Alaska, all candidates appear on a single primary ballot regardless of their party affiliation, and the top four vote-getters advance to the general election. Then, in the general election, RCV is used to rank the four candidates.
Ballot Measure 2 would revert the state's electoral system to partisan primaries and general elections in which the candidate who receives the most votes wins the election.
In Alaska, top-four RCV was first utilized in 2022, when Mary Peltola (D) defeated Sarah Palin (R) in a special election. Phillip Izon, director of Alaskans for Honest Elections, which initiated the repeal proposal, said his grandfather found the electoral system difficult to understand in 2022. He said that was one factor that motivated his effort. Izon said, "He voted for just one person. And so if he doesn’t understand this, then there’s probably a lot of other people that didn’t understand it."[10] Rodger Painter, a former journalist and legislative staffer, said, "Like many other Alaskans, I was initially skeptical of RCV, but I now am fully onboard. The election of the first Native Alaskan, and first woman, to represent Alaska in Congress was a deciding moment. Rep. Mary Peltola came out of nowhere and it’s only because of RCV. RCV has already helped Alaskans elect more moderate legislators and will do more to change the face of politics in Alaska if the petition to repeal it is rejected."[11]
Top-Four and Top-Five RCV: Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada
Voters in Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada will decide on ballot initiatives combining top-four or top-five primaries and ranked-choice voting general elections.
Primaries would look similar in the three states but differ in terms of the number of candidates that advance to the general elections. Candidates would be listed on the same ballot regardless of the candidate's partisan affiliation. Voters would choose one candidate. In Colorado and Idaho, the four candidates who received the most votes would advance to the general election. In Nevada, the five candidates who received the most votes would advance to the general election.
Voters would then use ranked-choice voting in general elections to rank the four or five candidates that advanced from the primaries. The system that combines top-five primaries and RCV general elections, such as what is proposed in Nevada, is sometimes called final-five voting.
Nevada is also unique amongst the initiative-and-referendum states in that citizen-initiated constitutional amendments must be approved twice. Voters approved Question 3 in 2022, with 52.94% voting to approve the initiative.
Competing Amendments: Arizona Propositions 133 and 140
Voters in Arizona will decide on two constitutional amendments related to electoral systems—Proposition 133 and Proposition 140. Republicans in the Arizona State Legislature voted to place Proposition 133 on the ballot, while Proposition 140 is a citizen-initiated ballot measure from the Make Elections Fair PAC.
Proposition 133 would add the existing system of partisan primaries to the Arizona Constitution. Proposition 140 would require primaries in which candidates, regardless of partisan affiliation, appear on a single ballot and a certain number advance to the general election, such as top-two or top-four primaries.[12] These two systems contradict. In Arizona, when two ballot measures of the same type (both are constitutional amendments) contradict and both pass, the measure that receives the most votes would supersede the other at points of conflict. However, determining those points of conflict could require the courts. Barry Markson, a legal analyst for KTAR, said, "It definitely could result in litigation, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. My expectation would be that the now-losing proposition would say that although part of the referendum was in conflict with the other, not the entire thing was. They may try to have part of their initiative stay."[13]
Proposition 140 would prohibit using public funds to administer partisan primaries at the federal, state, and local levels, except for presidential preference primaries that allow independents to participate. The ballot initiative would also extend beyond primaries to general election systems. The ballot initiative would require the use of ranked-choice voting in general elections when three or more candidates advance from the primaries (for one-winner general elections).
Washington, D.C. Initiative 83
RCV is also an issue on local ballots. From 1965 to 2023, there were at least 74 local ballot measures related to RCV. In 2024, voters in five cities will decide on RCV, including adopting RCV in Richmond, California, and Oak Park, Illinois, a non-binding measure on RCV in Peoria Township, Illinois, and a measure to repeal RCV in Bloomington, Minnesota. The largest jurisdiction to vote on ranked-choice voting on Nov. 5 is the nation's capital, Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C., Initiative 83 would establish ranked-choice voting for elections in Washington, D.C., beginning in 2026. Voters would be permitted to rank up to 5 candidates, including a write-in candidate. RCV would be used in federal elections, including the presidential election, and municipal elections.
The ballot initiative would also change the district's primaries from being closed to semi-closed, meaning that unaffiliated voters would be allowed to vote in a political party's primary election.
Citizenship
Eight States to Vote on Non-Citizen Voting Bans
Bans on noncitizen voting at the state level have become more frequent since 2018. Voters in six states approved ballot measures banning noncitizen voting from 2018 to 2022. In 2024, eight state legislatures referred constitutional amendments to the ballot to prohibit the state or local governments from allowing non-citizen voting. The eight states are Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.
As of 2024, municipalities in California, Maryland, and Vermont, along with Washington, D.C., allowed noncitizens to vote in some local elections. In November, voters in Santa Ana, California, decided on a ballot measure to allow noncitizens to vote in municipal elections.
Jack Tomczak, Vice President of Americans for Citizen Voting, which supports the ballot measures, said, "We, and legislators who sponsor these, are getting ahead of fixing a problem that maybe has not reared its head as much in these states. It’s not like it’s happening everywhere and it must be stopped immediately. But preemption is not a bad thing." Jonathan Diaz, Director of Voting Advocacy for the Campaign Legal Center, said, "These proposed constitutional amendments are aimed really at two things: preventing local governments in those states from allowing non-U.S. citizens to vote in local elections, and advancing this false narrative that non-U.S. citizens are somehow participating in U.S. elections in large numbers, which is totally unsupported by any evidence or facts."[14]
Redistricting
Ohio Issue 1
Voters in Ohio will address one ballot measure on November 5—Issue 1, a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment to change the state's redistricting process for congressional and state legislative districts.
The ballot initiative would create a new 15-member non-politician commission, named the Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC), which would be responsible for developing and adopting redistricting plans. The CRC would have 15 members: five Republicans, five Democrats, and five individuals who are independents or members of other political parties.[15]
The CRC would replace the Ohio Redistricting Commission, a seven-member politician commission established in 2015 for state legislative districts, and the multi-step process established for congressional districts in 2018.
Issue 1 would require “the statewide proportion of districts… that favors each political party shall correspond closely to the statewide partisan preferences of the voters of Ohio.”
Currently, the Ohio Constitution includes language about favoring or disfavoring political parties and statewide partisan preferences. However, there is disagreement regarding whether these provisions are intended as binding requirements or as aspirational guidelines, as noted in a legal motion from Senate President Matt Huffman (R) and former House Speaker Bob Cupp (R).[16][17][18][19][20] Issue 1 would provide a method for determining partisan preferences in redistricting, which you can learn more about here.
Andrew Tobias, the chief political reporter for Cleveland.com/The Plain Dealer, said, "The change likely will threaten, or at least make more competitive, some of the 10 Ohio congressional districts that range from solidly Republican to safe Republican, measured by past election results."[21] Heading into November, Ohio has 15 congressional districts, of which Republicans hold 10 and Democrats hold five.
Citizens Not Politicians, the political action committee (PAC) behind Issue 1, has received funding from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Article IV, among other organizations. The opposition PAC, Ohio Works, was established after the most recent campaign finance deadline, which means financial information is not yet available.
Criminal Justice
California Proposition 36
California Proposition 36 would make several changes to 2014's Proposition 47, which reduced penalties for certain crimes—such as theft and shoplifting of goods valued at no more than $950 and certain drug possession offenses—for those without prior convictions for murder, rape, certain sex offenses, or certain gun crimes. The effect of Proposition 47 on criminal activities in succeeding years is a topic of debate in California.
Proposition 36 would change those policies, such as charging theft and shoplifting, including when the goods are valued at less than $950, as felonies when the person has two or more prior theft-related convictions. People convicted of these crimes could face prison sentences of up to three years, instead of the current six-month limit. Sentences could also be adjusted based on the value of the stolen property. The ballot initiative would increase penalties for certain drug offenses and add fentanyl to the list of drugs that lead to felony charges when possessed with a loaded firearm.
The ballot initiative would create a new offense called treatment-mandated felonies for individuals with two or more prior drug convictions who are found in possession of fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine. If the individual agrees not to contest the charge, they would be referred to treatment following an evaluation for substance use and mental health. Those who successfully complete treatment would have their felony dismissed. However, individuals who fail to complete treatment would be required to serve up to three years in state prison. As of 2024, state law classified the possession of illegal drugs as a misdemeanor.
Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger (R) said, "This truly is targeted toward the people that have been doing the smash and grabs and individuals that are repeat offenders, that have used the provision of 47 as a loophole and understand how to manipulate the system."[22] Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who supported Proposition 47 in 2014, said, "[Proposition 36] has nothing to do with retail theft. That initiative is about going back to the 1980s and the War on Drugs."[23]
Marijuana
Florida Amendment 3
Marijuana has been a recurring trend for ballot measures since at least 2010, though there were a few before then. From 2010 to 2023, there were 24 ballot measures to legalize the recreational or personal use of marijuana. In 2024, three states will decide on marijuana legalization ballot measures: Florida, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
In Florida, Amendment 3 is one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns this year and, between supporters and opponents, the most expensive marijuana-related ballot measure election on record. The most expensive marijuana legalization ballot measure, before 2024, was California's Proposition 64, which voters approved in 2016. Proposition 64 saw $27.14 million in contributions, including $25.07 million from supporters and $2.08 million from opponents. As of October 14, Florida Amendment 3 saw $121.67 million between supporters and opponents. Supporters of Amendment 3, led by the Smart & Safe Florida PAC, received $101.38 million. Opponents, led by the Keep Florida Clean PAC, received $20.91 million.
Amendment 3 would legalize recreational marijuana, including the possession of up to three ounces of marijuana. Existing Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers would be authorized to sell marijuana for personal use.
The Florida Democratic Party and former President Donald Trump (R) endorsed Amendment 3, while the Florida Republican Party and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) oppose the proposal.
Energy
Washington Initiatives 2066 and 2117
Voters in Washington will decide on two ballot initiatives related to the state's energy policies, including natural gas regulations and carbon tax credit trading programs, also known as cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax. Both have the support of the Let's Go Washington PAC. Brian Heywood, CEO of Taiyo Pacific Partners, founded the PAC and is the committee's largest donor.
Initiative 2066 would prohibit state and local governments from restricting access to natural gas, among other provisions. Initiative 2117 would repeal the 2021 Washington Climate Commitment Act (CCA), a state law that provides for a cap-and-invest program designed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 95% by 2050. The program limits the state's total carbon emissions. Businesses emitting over 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide must purchase allowances to cover their permitted greenhouse gas emissions. Initiative 2117 would also prohibit the state from enacting similar programs.
Washington Senate Minority Leader John Braun (R-20), who supports the initiatives, said, "[T]he bill targeting natural gas likely would never have existed if it wasn’t for the cap-and-tax law. They are cut from the same cloth. For that reason, the passage of both I-2117 and I-2066 would give Washington lawmakers incentive to think more about household budgets and less about appeasing special interests and billionaire donors when considering future carbon-related policies."[24]
Gov. Jay Inslee (D) stated, "This initiative [Initiative 2117] — this defective, deceptive, dangerous initiative — only guarantees one thing, and that's more pollution."[25] He also said, "We don't want a message from Washington State going to the rest of the political class of members of Congress and legislators to think this was potentially rejected. So, this is a very important national fight that we're having here in Washington State."[26]
Education
Constitutions and School Choice: Colorado and Kentucky
Supporters of school choice programs, defined as policies that provide families with taxpayer funding for private education or homeschooling, are seeking to expand these policies through constitutional amendments in two states, Colorado and Kentucky.
Colorado Amendment 80 would add a new section to the Colorado Constitution stating that "Each K-12 child has the right to school choice," defined as "neighborhood, charter, private, and home schools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education." The ballot initiative would also provide that "parents have the right to direct the education of their children" and "all children have the right to equal opportunity to access a quality education."
Kentucky Amendment 2 would provide that General Assembly can "provide financial support for the education of students outside the system of common schools." The legislature voted to place the amendment on the ballot following several court rulings. In 2022, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled against a program offering tax credits to individuals or businesses that donate to nonprofits providing scholarships for private school students.[27] In 2023, a circuit court judge found that charter school funding legislation violated the Kentucky Constitution.[28]
Nebraska Referendum 435
Nebraska Referendum 435 would repeal legislation that allocates $10 million each year for a scholarship program for eligible students to cover costs to attend accredited private schools. That legislation would provide that the average scholarship amount awarded per student must not exceed 75% of the statewide average general fund operating formula per student.
Support Our Schools, the campaign behind Referendum 435, earlier qualified another referendum against a bill establishing a nonrefundable tax credit for donations to scholarship-granting organizations for private school scholarships. However, the legislature repealed the bill, leaving no legislation to overturn, and that referendum was removed from the ballot. The legislature then passed the private school scholarship bill. Jenni Benson, president of the Nebraska State Education Association, said the repeal-and-replace vote was a "cowardly and cynical attempt to deny Nebraskans their right to vote."[29] Sen. Lou Ann Linehan (R-39), who sponsored both bills, said, "We took it from 25 million to 10 with no escalator, and it’s no longer a tax credit. That’s what they said the problem was. ... we listened, and we adjusted to what they said was problematic."[30]
Since 2000, there have been at least three veto referendums against school choice policies—Arizona Proposition 305 (2018), Utah Referendum 1 (2007), and Washington Referendum 55 (2004). Voters repealed the legislation in each case.
Election coverage by state
Click your state on the map below to navigate to relevant election information.
See also: Elections by state and year.
Election resources
Footnotes
- ↑ The Guardian, "Abortion rights activists worry about Democrats piggybacking on the cause: ‘This is not a ploy'," May 9, 2024
- ↑ Roll Call, "Interview: Sean Hannity Interviews Donald Trump on Fox News - June 5, 2024," June 5, 2024
- ↑ Fox News, "Trump opposes Florida's Amendment 4, which offers unfettered abortion access: 'It's radical'," August 30, 2024
- ↑ NPR, "'I'll be voting no.' Trump clarifies his stance on the abortion amendment in Florida," August 30, 2024
- ↑ Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, "Interested Parties Memorandum: House Republicans’ Extremism Will Cost Them in States With Abortion Ballot Initiatives," April 5, 2024
- ↑ ABC News, "Abortion-rights ballot measures may not help Democrats as much as they think," July 30, 2024
- ↑ Washington Post, "Inside the Trump campaign’s ground game," October 4, 2024
- ↑ Emerson Polling, "Kansas, Iowa, Missouri & Nebraska Polls," accessed October 11, 2024
- ↑ Nebraska Secretary of State, "Secretary of State certifies two abortion-related petitions for general election ballot," August 23, 2024
- ↑ The Fulcrum, "Voters may change elections, not just decide them, in the fall," May 16, 2024
- ↑ The American Prospect, "Ranked-Choice Voting Draws Bipartisan Ire," June 21, 2024
- ↑ The Arizona State Legislature would need to pass a bill to determine the number of candidates that advance from primaries to general elections. Legislators would have until November 1, 2025, to pass the legislation. Should that not occur before the deadline, the Arizona Secretary of State would determine the number. Legislators could change the number after that, but not for six years.
- ↑ KTAR, "Proposition 133 and Proposition 140 will shape the future of elections in Arizona," September 26, 2024
- ↑ NBC News, "GOP efforts to crack down on noncitizen voting extend to state ballot measures," September 14, 2024
- ↑ Note: The commission would have 15 members: five from the political party whose candidate for governor received the most votes in the last election (First Major Party), five from the party whose candidate received the second most votes (Second Major Party), and five individuals who are not affiliated with either of these parties (Independents). As of 2024, the two major parties were the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, which had been the case since 1867.
- ↑ Ohio Supreme Court, "Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Commission," October 6, 2021
- ↑ Ohio Capital Journal, "Countering Ohio redistricting challenge, commission members discredit anti-gerrymandering arguments," October 20, 2023
- ↑ Statehouse News Bureau, "Ohio Republicans resolve leadership spat over redistricting commission. Panel will meet Wednesday," September 20, 2023
- ↑ Article XI, Section 6(A)(B): "The Ohio redistricting commission shall attempt to draw a general assembly district plan that meets all of the following standards: (A) No general assembly district plan shall be drawn primarily to favor or disfavor a political party. (B) The statewide proportion of districts whose voters, based on statewide state and federal partisan general election results during the last ten years, favor each political party shall correspond closely to the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio."
- ↑ Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(a): "The general assembly shall not pass a plan that unduly favors or disfavors a political party or its incumbents."
- ↑ Cleveland.com, "Gov. Mike DeWine, U.S. House speaker Mike Johnson to headline fundraiser for anti-redistricting amendment campaign," August 24, 2024
- ↑ Cronkite News, "California’s Prop. 36, which would again toughen criminal penalties, sparks debate," September 30, 2024
- ↑ Politico, "California Democrats try to change the subject from shoplifting to drugs," September 16, 2024
- ↑ The Chronicle, "John Braun: Protect energy choice, stop a natural gas ban by approving I-2066," October 11, 2024
- ↑ Axios, "Inslee fights repeal of his signature cap-and-trade law," September 16, 2024
- ↑ Volts, "Washington Governor Jay Inslee on his last big climate fight," June 14, 2024
- ↑ Associated Press, "Kentucky Supreme Court strikes down school choice provisions," December 15, 2022
- ↑ Associated Press, "Kentucky judge strikes down charter schools funding measure," December 11, 2023
- ↑ Nebraska Examiner, "Pillen approves Nebraska’s newest ‘school choice’ law as opponents weigh next steps," April 24, 2024
- ↑ USA Today, "Nebraska experiences déjà vu during ongoing battle over school choice," July 3, 2024