# BallotQuestions.vote — full text > BallotQuestions.vote is an independent, nonpartisan tracker that explains U.S. statewide ballot measures in plain language, with every fact traced to a cited source. > > BallotQuestions.vote is an independent, privately operated reference site. It is not a government website, not affiliated with any election office, and not an official election authority. For official ballot information, contact your state or local election authority. Corpus last updated: 2026-09-02. Source of record: https://ballotquestions.vote/llms.txt --- ## Arizona Proposition 141: Prohibit Taxes and Fees on Vehicle Miles Traveled and Monitoring Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/az/prohibit-taxes-and-fees-on-vehicle-miles-traveled-and-monitoring-amendment/ - State: Arizona (AZ) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: legislative referral - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Taxes and revenue; Transportation - Last updated: 2026-09-02 ### What it does Proposition 141 would amend the Arizona Constitution to bar state and local governments from taxing or charging a fee based on the number of miles a vehicle travels, and from limiting or monitoring an individual's vehicle miles traveled without the owner's consent. It would not restrict a mileage-based program for commercial vehicles crossing state lines, or a mileage tax or limit that applies only to a government-owned vehicle. The Legislature referred it in 2025 as Senate Concurrent Resolution 1004, ahead of any state proposal to replace shrinking fuel-tax revenue with a mileage-based fee. ### What supporters say (Arizona Free Enterprise Club) - Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, supports the amendment because his organization opposes vehicle-miles-traveled programs. - Supporters say a constitutional ban is needed to head off any future mileage tax being discussed as a replacement for declining fuel-tax revenue. ### What opponents say - State Sen. Priya Sundareshan asked how the state would fund and repair highways without that kind of revenue and called it premature to prohibit a mileage program before gathering information about vehicle-miles data. - Opponents note that electric vehicles do not pay the state's 18-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax that funds the Highway User Revenue Fund, and argue that a shift toward electric vehicles could erode the state's ability to build and repair roads without some alternative funding mechanism. ### Sources - Arizona Legislature — 2026 Ballot Measure Analyses (Prop. 141, SCR1004): https://www.azleg.gov/ballot-measures-2026-analyses/ - Ballotpedia — Arizona Prohibit Taxes or Fees on Miles Traveled in Motor Vehicle Amendment (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Prohibit_Taxes_or_Fees_on_Miles_Traveled_in_Motor_Vehicle_Amendment_(2026) - Land Line Media — Arizona voters could slam the brakes on mileage taxes: https://landline.media/arizona-voters-could-slam-the-brakes-on-mileage-taxes/ - Arizona Capitol Times — 2026 ballot measure would ban tax or fee on vehicle miles traveled: https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2025/07/07/2026-ballot-measure-would-ban-tax-or-fee-on-vehicle-miles-traveled/ --- ## Arizona Proposition 142: Prohibit Race- or Ethnicity-Based Preferential Treatment, Public Education Offices, and Disciplinary Policies Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/az/prohibit-race-or-ethnicity-based-preferential-treatment-public-education-offices/ - State: Arizona (AZ) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: legislative referral - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Civil rights; Government structure; Education - Last updated: 2026-09-02 ### What it does Proposition 142 would amend the Arizona Constitution to expand the state's existing 2010 ban on race- or ethnicity-based preferential treatment in public employment, education, and contracting. It would bar public entities from requiring applicants, employees, students, or contractors to endorse preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity as a condition of admission, graduation, employment, contracting, or receiving a scholarship, restrict public universities from spending taxpayer funds on certain diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, and prohibit school disciplinary policies that treat students differently because of race or ethnicity. House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-Goodyear) sponsored the referral; a Maricopa County judge allowed it onto the ballot in July 2026 over a legal challenge. ### What supporters say (Goldwater Institute) - House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-Goodyear), whose measure was drafted with the Goldwater Institute, says it closes loopholes in the state's 2010 affirmative-action ban (Proposition 107) that he argues have let public institutions continue race-based policies under the banner of diversity, equity and inclusion. - The Goldwater Institute says the amendment ensures people are considered based on merit rather than race or ethnicity. ### What opponents say - Opponents who challenged the measure in Maricopa County Superior Court argued it improperly restricts university diversity, equity and inclusion programs and school disciplinary policy in ways a judge ultimately allowed to proceed to the ballot over their objection. ### Sources - Arizona Legislature — 2026 Ballot Measure Analyses (Prop. 142, HCR2044): https://www.azleg.gov/ballot-measures-2026-analyses/ - Ballotpedia — Arizona Proposition 142, Prohibit Race- or Ethnicity-Based Preferential Treatment, Public Education Offices, and Disciplinary Policies Amendment (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_142,_Prohibit_Race-_or_Ethnicity-Based_Preferential_Treatment,_Public_Education_Offices,_and_Disciplinary_Policies_Amendment_(2026) - Arizona Capitol Times — DEI restrictions can go on the Arizona ballot, judge rules: https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2026/07/28/dei-restrictions-can-go-on-the-ballot-judge-rules/ --- ## Arizona Proposition 143: Prohibit School District Payroll Deductions for Labor Organization Dues and Collective Bargaining Agreements Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/az/prohibit-school-district-payroll-deductions-for-labor-organization-dues-and-coll/ - State: Arizona (AZ) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: legislative referral - Status: did not qualify - Topics: Labor and wages; Education - Last updated: 2026-09-02 ### What it does Proposition 143 would have amended the Arizona Constitution to bar school districts and their employees from using public money, resources, or work time to support labor-organization activity, including payroll deductions for union dues, and would have separately barred the state and other political subdivisions from entering collective-bargaining or exclusive-representation agreements with any labor organization. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled on July 24, 2026 that combining those two subjects in one amendment violated the Arizona Constitution's separate-amendment rule, and ordered the Secretary of State not to place it on the ballot. It will not appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot. ### What supporters say - Sponsors in the Legislature, who referred the measure as House Concurrent Resolution 2040, said it would stop school districts from using public payroll systems and work time to support union activity. ### What opponents say (Arizona Education Association) - The Arizona Education Association argued in its lawsuit that the ballot title was misleading and that the measure improperly combined two unrelated subjects — school districts' funding of union activity, and a separate ban on the state or any political subdivision negotiating with a labor union. - Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gregory Como ruled the measure violated the Arizona Constitution's separate-amendment rule, writing that it would have been constitutional if limited to barring public schools from using taxpayer funds to support labor organizations, but that the broader ban on state and political-subdivision bargaining made it an impermissible bundling of unrelated changes. ### Sources - Arizona Legislature — 2026 Ballot Measure Analyses (Prop. 143, HCR2040): https://www.azleg.gov/ballot-measures-2026-analyses/ - Ballotpedia — Arizona Proposition 143, Prohibit School District Payroll Deductions for Labor Organization Dues and Collective Bargaining Agreements Amendment (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_143,_Prohibit_School_District_Payroll_Deductions_for_Labor_Organization_Dues_and_Collective_Bargaining_Agreements_Amendment_(2026) - Arizona Capitol Times — Judge says anti-union ballot item unconstitutional: https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2026/07/28/judge-says-anti-union-ballot-item-unconstitutional/ - Ballotpedia News — Arizona courts block two conflicting school choice-related ballot measures, leaving 2026 without a citizen initiative: https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/08/20/arizona-courts-block-two-conflicting-school-choice-related-ballot-measures-leaving-2026-without-a-citizen-initiative/ --- ## Arizona Proposition 144: Voter Identification and Citizenship Voting Requirements Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/az/voter-identification-and-citizenship-voting-requirements-amendment/ - State: Arizona (AZ) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: legislative referral - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Elections and voting; Civil rights - Last updated: 2026-09-02 ### What it does Proposition 144 would amend the Arizona Constitution to declare that only citizens may register and vote in Arizona elections, and that election results are decided solely by eligible citizens' votes. It would require every in-person voter to show government-issued photo identification, require mail voters to be identified beyond current signature verification, remove non-government forms of identification such as a bank statement from the accepted list, bar foreign nationals from spending money to influence state elections, and require every polling place to offer on-site ballot tabulation. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the measure's ballot language on August 18, 2026. ### What supporters say - Supporters in the Legislature who referred the measure, House Concurrent Resolution 2001, said its central purpose is declaring that only citizens may register and vote in Arizona elections and that election results are decided solely by eligible citizen voters. ### What opponents say - Critics who challenged the measure's ballot language argued it improperly combines unrelated subjects — voter qualifications, voter identification, ballot tabulation, legislative authority over elections, and campaign finance — into a single amendment. - Opponents say thousands of eligible Arizona voters who lack a government-issued photo ID could be unable to vote if the current list of accepted identification, which includes non-government documents such as a bank statement, is narrowed. ### Sources - Arizona Legislature — 2026 Ballot Measure Analyses (Prop. 144, HCR2001): https://www.azleg.gov/ballot-measures-2026-analyses/ - Ballotpedia — Arizona Proposition 144, Voter Identification and Citizenship Voting Requirements Amendment (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_144,_Voter_Identification_and_Citizenship_Voting_Requirements_Amendment_(2026) - KJZZ — Arizona Supreme Court upholds Fontes' Prop. 144 election reform ballot language: https://www.kjzz.org/elections/2026-08-19/arizona-supreme-court-upholds-fontes-prop-144-election-reform-ballot-language --- ## Arizona Proposition 145: Prohibit State Confiscation of Military Family Empowerment Scholarship Account Funds and Void Conflicting Laws Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/az/prohibit-state-confiscation-of-military-family-empowerment-scholarship-account-f/ - State: Arizona (AZ) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: legislative referral - Status: did not qualify - Topics: Education; Government structure - Last updated: 2026-09-02 ### What it does Proposition 145 would have amended the Arizona Constitution to bar the state from confiscating Empowerment Scholarship Account funds belonging to the children of military families, and would have voided any future law that undermines that right, not only provisions specific to military families. The Legislature referred it as House Concurrent Resolution 2048 after a deal on broader ESA program reforms between the Arizona Education Association and House Republicans fell through. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Kreamer ruled it violated the state constitution's separate-amendment rule, and the Arizona Supreme Court upheld that ruling on August 18, 2026, removing it from the ballot. ### What supporters say - Legislative sponsors said the measure would guarantee that Empowerment Scholarship Account funds belonging to military families' children could not be confiscated by the state, regardless of future legislative changes to the ESA program. ### What opponents say - Voucher critics told the Arizona Supreme Court the measure was an unconstitutional 'Trojan horse' because its provision voiding any future law that undermines the military-family right would also have voided unrelated future legislation, not just rules specific to military families. - Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Kreamer ruled the measure violated the separate-amendment rule, finding that although its two components were facially similar, they concerned multiple sections of the constitution, combined subjects historically treated separately, and were qualitatively dissimilar — the void-conflicting-laws provision also reached the constitutional right of citizens to propose their own laws, a subject distinct from ESA funds for military families. ### Sources - Arizona Legislature — 2026 Ballot Measure Analyses (Prop. 145, HCR2048): https://www.azleg.gov/ballot-measures-2026-analyses/ - Ballotpedia — Arizona Proposition 145, Prohibit State Confiscation of Military Family Empowerment Scholarship Account Funds and Void Conflicting Laws Amendment (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_145,_Prohibit_State_Confiscation_of_Military_Family_Empowerment_Scholarship_Account_Funds_and_Void_Conflicting_Laws_Amendment_(2026) - KJZZ — 2 Arizona school voucher measures won't be on the ballot after Supreme Court rulings: https://www.kjzz.org/elections/2026-08-18/2-arizona-school-voucher-measures-wont-be-on-the-ballot-after-supreme-court-rulings - Ballotpedia News — Arizona courts block two conflicting school choice-related ballot measures, leaving 2026 without a citizen initiative: https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/08/20/arizona-courts-block-two-conflicting-school-choice-related-ballot-measures-leaving-2026-without-a-citizen-initiative/ --- ## Arizona Proposition 212: Restrict Empowerment Scholarship Account Funds and Require State Board of Education Oversight Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/az/restrict-empowerment-scholarship-account-funds-and-require-state-board-of-educat/ - State: Arizona (AZ) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: did not qualify - Topics: Education - Last updated: 2026-09-02 ### What it does Proposition 212, known to its campaign as the Protect Education Act, would have added an income cap of $150,000 for eligibility in Arizona's Empowerment Scholarship Account program, required standardized testing and fingerprint clearance for staff at ESA-funded private schools, and given the State Board of Education added oversight of the program. The campaign, run by public-school advocates and union members, reported collecting about 420,000 signatures. On August 18, 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a ruling requiring duplicate signatures to be removed before calculating the validity rate, which left the count below the roughly 255,949 valid signatures required, so it will not appear on the ballot. ### What supporters say (Protect Education) - The Protect Education campaign, made up of public-school advocates and union members, said the measure would add income limits and accountability requirements — including standardized testing and staff fingerprint clearance — to a voucher program they argued had grown with too little oversight. ### What opponents say (Center for Arizona Policy) - The Center for Arizona Policy welcomed the measure's removal from the ballot, framing the signature ruling as protecting the state's Empowerment Scholarship Account program from the restrictions the initiative would have imposed. ### Sources - Arizona Legislature — 2026 Ballot Measure Analyses (Prop. 212, I-09-2026): https://www.azleg.gov/ballot-measures-2026-analyses/ - Ballotpedia — Arizona Proposition 212, Restrict Empowerment Scholarship Account Funds and Require State Board of Education Oversight Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_212,_Restrict_Empowerment_Scholarship_Account_Funds_and_Require_State_Board_of_Education_Oversight_Initiative_(2026) - KJZZ — 2 Arizona school voucher measures won't be on the ballot after Supreme Court rulings: https://www.kjzz.org/elections/2026-08-18/2-arizona-school-voucher-measures-wont-be-on-the-ballot-after-supreme-court-rulings - Ballotpedia News — Arizona courts block two conflicting school choice-related ballot measures, leaving 2026 without a citizen initiative: https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/08/20/arizona-courts-block-two-conflicting-school-choice-related-ballot-measures-leaving-2026-without-a-citizen-initiative/ --- ## Arizona Proposition 316: Limit Local Tax Rate on Groceries to 2% of Base Price and Require Voter Approval to Increase Tax Rate Measure - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/az/limit-local-tax-rate-on-groceries-to-2-of-base-price-and-require-voter-approval/ - State: Arizona (AZ) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: legislative referral - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-09-02 ### What it does Proposition 316 would bar a city, town, or other local tax jurisdiction from imposing or raising a sales tax on groceries above 2% of the base price without voter approval. A jurisdiction already taxing groceries at 2% or below could not raise that rate above 2% even with a vote. A jurisdiction that taxed groceries above 2% as of January 1, 2025 would have its rate frozen at that level, unable to raise it further. The Legislature referred the measure as House Concurrent Resolution 2021 in 2025; state figures show 70 of Arizona's 91 incorporated cities and towns taxed groceries for home consumption in 2024, though Phoenix, Tucson, and Mesa do not. ### Fiscal impact A fiscal note on the measure estimates that municipal sales-tax revenue statewide would fall by about $227 million if voters approve the cap and it takes effect in fiscal year 2028, as reported by the Tucson Sentinel. ### What supporters say - State Rep. Leo Biasiucci (R) said he personally does not believe essential foods like eggs, milk, and meat should be taxed, calling them things every family needs to survive. ### What opponents say - Mayors of Arizona municipalities that tax groceries have said the resulting revenue loss would hit their communities hard; officials in the small town of Taylor note that food-tax revenue makes up more than 30 percent of its budget. ### Sources - Arizona Legislature — 2026 Ballot Measure Analyses (Prop. 316, HCR2021): https://www.azleg.gov/ballot-measures-2026-analyses/ - Ballotpedia — Arizona Proposition 316, Limit Local Tax Rate on Groceries to 2% of Base Price and Require Voter Approval to Increase Tax Rate Measure (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_316,_Limit_Local_Tax_Rate_on_Groceries_to_2%25_of_Base_Price_and_Require_Voter_Approval_to_Increase_Tax_Rate_Measure_(2026) - Ballotpedia News — Arizona 2026 ballot measure would require voter approval to raise local grocery sales taxes, cap them at 2%: https://news.ballotpedia.org/2025/06/23/arizona-2026-ballot-measure-would-require-voter-approval-to-raise-local-grocery-sales-taxes-cap-them-at-2/ --- ## Arizona Proposition 317: Designate Drug Cartels as Terrorist Organizations and Require State DHS to Address Threats Measure - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/az/designate-drug-cartels-as-terrorist-organizations-and-require-state-dhs-to-addre/ - State: Arizona (AZ) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: legislative referral - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Public safety; Criminal justice; Immigration - Last updated: 2026-09-02 ### What it does Proposition 317 would enact a state statute declaring drug cartels — defined as any association of persons whose members engage in human trafficking, drug trafficking for profit, or an act of terrorism — to be terrorist organizations under Arizona law, and would direct the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to do everything within its authority to address the threat cartels pose. House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R) has pursued similar language for several years; a version passed the Legislature in 2023 as House Bill 2675 but was vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs (D). The Legislature referred this version directly to the November 2026 ballot as House Concurrent Resolution 2055. ### What supporters say - House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R), the measure's longtime sponsor, has pursued the terrorist designation for drug cartels for several years, framing it as part of a broader effort to address cartel activity at the border. ### What opponents say (ACLU of Arizona) - Darrell Hill of the ACLU of Arizona argued the measure's language is loaded and could be used to justify deploying law enforcement or other resources at the border beyond what is necessary, and warned it could sweep up innocent people under a terrorist designation. - Critics say the designation would, at best, accomplish nothing legally and, at worst, could be invoked by a future governor to justify sending military forces to the border. ### Sources - Arizona Legislature — 2026 Ballot Measure Analyses (Prop. 317, HCR2055): https://www.azleg.gov/ballot-measures-2026-analyses/ - Ballotpedia — Arizona Proposition 317, Designate Drug Cartels as Terrorist Organizations and Require State DHS to Address Threats Measure (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_317,_Designate_Drug_Cartels_as_Terrorist_Organizations_and_Require_State_DHS_to_Address_Threats_Measure_(2026) --- ## Arizona Proposition 318: Require All Schools and Athletic Associations to Restrict Sports Participation and Access to Private Spaces Based on Sex Measure - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/az/require-all-schools-and-athletic-associations-to-restrict-sports-participation-a/ - State: Arizona (AZ) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: legislative referral - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Sports and athletics; Civil rights; Education - Last updated: 2026-09-02 ### What it does Proposition 318 would enact a state statute requiring schools and athletic associations to restrict access to restrooms, locker rooms, showers, and similar private spaces according to the sex recorded on a student's original birth certificate, and would bar students recorded male at birth from participating on female-designated athletic teams. The Legislature referred the measure, styled by supporters as the Protect Girls Sports in Arizona Act, along party lines, with Republicans unanimously in favor and Democrats unanimously opposed. Former Arizona Treasurer Jeff DeWit serves as honorary co-chair of the campaign supporting it. ### What supporters say - Supporters of the Protect Girls Sports in Arizona Act, including honorary campaign co-chair and former state Treasurer Jeff DeWit, argue that allowing transgender girls to compete on girls' teams causes cisgender girls to lose competitive and scholarship opportunities. ### What opponents say - LGBTQ advocacy groups organizing against the measure say it addresses a problem that data does not support: the Arizona Interscholastic Association, which oversees more than 170,000 student athletes statewide, approved only 16 applications from transgender students to play on a team consistent with their gender identity between 2017 and 2022, when the state's current athletic ban took effect, with about half of those from transgender girls. ### Sources - Arizona Legislature — 2026 Ballot Measure Analyses (Prop. 318, HCR2003): https://www.azleg.gov/ballot-measures-2026-analyses/ - Ballotpedia — Arizona Proposition 318, Require All Schools and Athletic Associations to Restrict Sports Participation and Access to Private Spaces Based on Sex Measure (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_318,_Require_All_Schools_and_Athletic_Associations_to_Restrict_Sports_Participation_and_Access_to_Private_Spaces_Based_on_Sex_Measure_(2026) - KJZZ — Advocates say similar websites on Prop. 318 trans bathroom measure are designed to confuse voters: https://www.kjzz.org/elections/2026-08-11/advocates-say-similar-websites-on-prop-318-trans-bathroom-measure-are-designed-to-confuse-voters --- ## Arizona Proposition 319: Prohibit New Photo Traffic Enforcement Systems Measure - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/az/prohibit-new-photo-traffic-enforcement-systems-measure/ - State: Arizona (AZ) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: legislative referral - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Public safety; Transportation; Government structure - Last updated: 2026-09-02 ### What it does Proposition 319 would enact a state statute barring an Arizona city, town, or state agency from beginning a new photo-radar or red-light camera enforcement program unless it has a signed vendor contract in place by December 31, 2026. A community with a qualifying contract by that date could continue operating its cameras for up to ten years before needing voter approval to continue, and a community without a contract by the deadline could not adopt photo enforcement in the future. The Legislature referred the measure in 2026 as Senate Concurrent Resolution 1004. ### What supporters say - Supporters, including state Sen. Wendy Rogers (R), argue the measure returns control over photo-radar programs to voters, saying cities currently install speed and red-light cameras — some under contracts with out-of-state camera companies that split ticket revenue — without ever putting the question to the people who pay the fines. ### What opponents say (Arizona Public Health Association) - The Arizona Public Health Association says the measure closes off an evidence-based traffic-safety tool, arguing that any community without a signed camera contract by the end of 2026 could never adopt photo enforcement in the future even if local traffic conditions changed. - Public health advocates point to elevated speeding observed during a warning period for Phoenix's photo-safety program as evidence that camera enforcement measurably affects driver behavior. ### Sources - Arizona Legislature — 2026 Ballot Measure Analyses (Prop. 319, SCR1004): https://www.azleg.gov/ballot-measures-2026-analyses/ - Ballotpedia — Arizona Proposition 319, Prohibit New Photo Traffic Enforcement Systems Measure (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_319,_Prohibit_New_Photo_Traffic_Enforcement_Systems_Measure_(2026) --- ## Arizona Proposition 320: Require Certain School Districts to Spend 60% of Operational Spending on Direct Instruction Measure - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/az/require-certain-school-districts-to-spend-60-of-operational-spending-on-direct-i/ - State: Arizona (AZ) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: legislative referral - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Education; Government structure - Last updated: 2026-09-02 ### What it does Proposition 320 would enact a state statute requiring school districts with at least 7,500 students, and every district in a county with at least 500,000 residents — currently Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties — to spend at least 60% of operational funds on direct classroom instruction. A district below that threshold would have to raise its instructional-spending share by at least 0.5 percentage points each year until it complies, or risk losing certain earmarked funding after four years of noncompliance. A 2026 Arizona Auditor General report found the state's districts spend about 52.1% of operational funds on instruction on average. The Legislature referred the measure as Senate Concurrent Resolution 1032. ### What supporters say - Supporters say the measure lets voters tell school districts they want a funded classroom and a well-paid, highly qualified teacher for their children. ### What opponents say - Critics say the 'instructional spending' category the measure uses does not count some student-facing services delivered outside the classroom, such as counselors, speech pathologists, resource officers, and social workers, and argue the requirement could leave districts with fewer resources to serve students' needs overall. - Opponents note that after four years of noncompliance, a district would forgo all funding earmarked for it under the measure even if it had shown some improvement toward the 60% threshold. ### Sources - Arizona Legislature — 2026 Ballot Measure Analyses (Prop. 320, SCR1032): https://www.azleg.gov/ballot-measures-2026-analyses/ - Ballotpedia — Arizona Proposition 320, Require Certain School Districts to Spend 60% of Operational Spending on Direct Instruction Measure (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_320,_Require_Certain_School_Districts_to_Spend_60%25_of_Operational_Spending_on_Direct_Instruction_Measure_(2026) - KJZZ — Republican lawmakers want Arizona voters to force public schools to spend more on teacher pay: https://www.kjzz.org/education/2026-03-24/republican-lawmakers-want-arizona-voters-to-force-public-schools-to-spend-more-on-teacher-pay - Arizona Capitol Times — Arizona education funding debate heads to November ballot: https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2026/03/24/arizona-education-funding-debate-heads-to-november-ballot/ --- ## California Proposition 1: Authorizes Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ca/authorizes-bonds-for-housing-affordability-programs/ - State: California (CA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: bond measure - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Bonds and borrowing; Housing - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Proposition 1 would let the state borrow $11.25 billion through general obligation bonds and spend it on housing affordability programs. The Attorney General's summary allocates $5.1 billion to build and rehabilitate multifamily rental housing, $2.1 billion to acquire or preserve affordable units and provide supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness, $1.25 billion for state-funded mortgages for California veterans, $1.1 billion for homeownership and downpayment assistance, $1 billion for farmworker, tribal, and student housing, $500 million for housing infrastructure, and $200 million for local housing programs. The Legislature placed it on the ballot through Senate Bill 417. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Authorizes Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs. Legislative Statute. Official title and summary prepared by the Attorney General: • Authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for housing affordability programs, including for California veterans, and to finance housing development projects seeking federal tax credits. • Allocates funds: $5.1 billion to build and rehabilitate multifamily rental housing; $2.1 billion to acquire, rehabilitate, or preserve affordable housing units, and provide supportive housing for those experiencing homelessness; $1.25 billion for state-funded mortgages for California veterans; $1.1 billion for homeownership and downpayment assistance; $1 billion for farmworker, tribal, and student housing; $500 million for housing infrastructure; and $200 million to support local housing programs. ### Fiscal impact Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: "Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years to repay the housing bond." The LAO notes the $1.25 billion veterans housing program portion would not result in estimated state cost, because those bonds are repaid by participating veterans. ### What supporters say (California Federation of Teachers, Self-Help for the Elderly, U.S.VETS) - The ballot argument signed by Anni Chung (Self-Help for the Elderly), Jeffery Freitas (California Federation of Teachers), and John H. Ing (US Vets) says Proposition 1 would fund homes for veterans, seniors, people with disabilities, and working families without raising taxes, and points to the $1.25 billion dedicated to veterans through the existing CalVet Home Loan Program. - Supporters listed in the official argument — including Habitat for Humanity California, California Alliance for Retired Americans, Housing California, and the California Housing Consortium — say the measure would speed construction of affordable homes and help prevent homelessness. - Michael Blecker of the California Association of Veteran Service Agencies is quoted in the argument saying California has one of the largest homeless veteran populations in the nation and that the measure would provide housing for them. ### What opponents say - No argument against Proposition 1 was submitted for the Official Voter Information Guide. ### Sources - California Secretary of State — Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures - California Official Voter Information Guide — Proposition 1 (title, summary, Legislative Analyst's analysis, and arguments): https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop1.pdf - California Legislative Analyst's Office — Proposition 1 (2026): Authorizes Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=1&year=2026 --- ## California Proposition 2: Increases State's Rainy Day Fund - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ca/increases-states-rainy-day-fund/ - State: California (CA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Government structure; Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Proposition 2 would change the constitutional rules for California's Budget Stabilization Account, the reserve voters created in 2014. It would double the cap on that reserve from 10 percent to 20 percent of General Fund revenues, requiring the state to keep setting money aside until the balance reaches the higher cap. It would also require additional deposits in years when tax revenues are high, and would widen what reserve money can be used for, including education, state debts, and pension obligations. The Legislature placed it on the ballot through Assembly Constitutional Amendment 20. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Increases State's Rainy Day Fund. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Official title and summary prepared by the Attorney General: • Increases California's Rainy Day Fund, approved by voters in 2014, to provide funding for education, health care, public safety, and other essential services during economic downturns. • Doubles the budget reserve cap from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenues, requiring savings until Fund's balance equals 20% of General Fund. • Requires additional savings in years when tax revenues are high. • Increases budget reserves available for education, state debts, and pension obligations. ### Fiscal impact Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: "State budget reserves would be higher." ### What supporters say (California Professional Firefighters, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce) - The ballot argument signed by Darrell Roberts (California Professional Firefighters), Jesse Gabriel (chair of the Assembly Budget Committee), and Maria S. Salinas (Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce) says larger reserves would protect schools, health clinics, and fire protection when revenues fall. - Supporters state in the official argument that the Legislative Analyst's Office has recommended the state save significantly more than current rules require, and say Proposition 2 follows that advice. ### What opponents say (Reform California) - The ballot argument signed by Assemblymember David Tangipa, Senator Steven Choi, and Carl DeMaio of Reform California says the measure would make the state budget more volatile and that the Legislature needs spending discipline rather than a new savings tool. - Opponents argue in the official argument that state spending has gone to what they call boondoggle projects and no-bid contracts, and that easing the state appropriations limit would allow more wasteful spending. ### Sources - California Secretary of State — Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures - California Official Voter Information Guide — Proposition 2 (title, summary, Legislative Analyst's analysis, and arguments): https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop2.pdf - California Legislative Analyst's Office — Proposition 2 (2026): Increases State's Rainy Day Fund: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=2&year=2026 --- ## California Proposition 3: Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ca/provides-permanent-funding-for-schools-and-health-care-by-extending-existing-tax/ - State: California (CA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Education; Health care; Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Proposition 3 would make permanent the higher personal income tax rates on high earners that voters approved as Proposition 30 in 2012 and extended through Proposition 55 in 2016. Those rates are set to expire in 2031. At 2025 levels the rates apply to income above about $371,000 for single filers, $742,000 for joint filers, and $505,000 for heads of household, adjusted each year for inflation. The measure would direct 89 percent of the dedicated revenue to K–12 schools and 11 percent to community colleges, let local school boards decide how to spend it, and bar spending it on administrative costs. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Official title and summary prepared by the Attorney General: • Makes permanent the existing 2012 voter-approved tax rates for high-income Californians, currently set to expire in 2031. • Rates apply to income over about $371,000 for single filers, $742,000 for joint filers, and $505,000 for heads of household (2025 levels; adjusted annually for inflation). • Allocates tax revenues 89% to K–12 schools, 11% to community colleges. • Allows local school boards to decide how revenues are spent; bars use for administrative costs. • Increases General Fund revenues available for health care, budget reserves, and other programs. ### Fiscal impact Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: "Maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue by making a temporary tax increase on high-income earners permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031." ### What supporters say (California Teachers Association, California School Nurses Organization, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California) - The ballot argument signed by David Goldberg (California Teachers Association), Katie Nilsson (California School Nurses Organization), and Jodi Hicks (Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California) says the measure would keep existing revenue flowing to schools and health care without raising anyone’s taxes. - Supporters state in the official argument that funds would go directly to local schools, that spending would be independently audited each year, and that districts would have to post annual accounting online. - The argument lists the Nurse Alliance of SEIU California and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California among backers, saying the revenue has helped fund school meals, smaller class sizes, mental health counselors, and Medi-Cal. ### What opponents say (California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce) - The ballot argument signed by Robert Gutierrez (California Taxpayers Association), Robert Rivinius (Family Business Association of California), and Julian Canete (California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce) says voters were told the 2012 increases were temporary and that making them permanent breaks that promise. - Opponents state in the official argument that state spending has grown by $150 billion since the increases first passed while schools, infrastructure, and public safety have not improved, and argue Californians should not approve higher taxes until spending is under control. ### Sources - California Secretary of State — Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures - California Official Voter Information Guide — Proposition 3 (title, summary, Legislative Analyst's analysis, and arguments): https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop3.pdf - California Legislative Analyst's Office — Proposition 3 (2026): Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=3&year=2026 --- ## California Proposition 37: Creates Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ca/creates-loan-program-for-middle-income-buyers-of-qualified-new-homes/ - State: California (CA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Bonds and borrowing; Housing - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Proposition 37 would authorize up to $25 billion in bonds to fund fixed-rate mortgages covering as much as 17 percent of the purchase price of a "qualified new home" — newly built housing, or the first sale of a converted nonresidential property — priced below roughly $1 million to $1.5 million depending on the county and adjusted annually. To qualify, buyers would have to have lived in California for one year, occupy the home, earn less than twice the area median income, and pay at least 3 percent down. The measure requires the bonds be repaid from homeowners' mortgage payments rather than by the state. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Creates Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes. Initiative Statute. Official title and summary prepared by the Attorney General: • Authorizes up to $25 billion in bonds to offer eligible buyers fixed-rate mortgages for up to 17% of the purchase price of a "qualified new home" (new construction or first sale of converted nonresidential property, priced below about $1 million–$1.5 million, depending on county, adjusted annually). • Borrowers must be California residents for one year, occupy the home, earn less than twice the area's median income, and pay at least 3% down. • Requires that bonds be repaid by homeowners' mortgage payments, not the State. ### Fiscal impact Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: "No direct state or local costs." ### What supporters say (California Conference of Carpenters, California State Commanders Veterans Council) - The ballot argument signed by Danny Curtin (California Conference of Carpenters), Fiona Ma (board member, California Housing Finance Agency), and David West (California State Commanders Veterans Council) says the measure would open homeownership to teachers, nurses, veterans, and firefighters who can afford monthly payments but not a large down payment. - Supporters state in the official argument that the statewide median home price exceeds $930,000, so a traditional 20 percent down payment can require saving more than $186,000, and that the loans would be repaid in full by buyers at no cost to taxpayers. - The argument lists the California Conference of Carpenters, the California State Commanders Veterans Council, and the United Nurses Association of California among supporters. ### What opponents say - No argument against Proposition 37 was submitted for the Official Voter Information Guide. ### Sources - California Secretary of State — Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures - California Official Voter Information Guide — Proposition 37 (title, summary, Legislative Analyst's analysis, and arguments): https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop37.pdf - California Legislative Analyst's Office — Proposition 37 (2026): Creates Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=37&year=2026 --- ## California Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ca/authorizes-bonds-for-immunology-medical-research/ - State: California (CA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: bond measure - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Bonds and borrowing; Health care - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Proposition 38 would authorize $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds for research in immunology and immunotherapy — treatments that use the body's immune system to fight disease — with half of the money dedicated to cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's disease. Funds would be split evenly between a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute and grants to public or nonprofit universities and institutions. Recipients would have to sell resulting technology and drugs in California at 20 percent below the national average price, and the General Fund would receive 10 percent of licensing royalties until the bonds are repaid. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute. Official title and summary prepared by the Attorney General: • Authorizes $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research (technologies that use body's immune system to treat disease), with half dedicated to cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's disease. • Allocates funds equally between (1) a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute, and (2) research grants for public or nonprofit universities and institutions. • Requires funding recipients to sell technology and drugs derived from research in California for 20% below national average price. • Appropriates money from General Fund to repay bonds; General Fund receives 10% of licensing royalties until bonds are repaid. ### Fiscal impact Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: "Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years to repay the medical research bond. The state could recover part or all of this cost in subsequent decades if the funded research leads to discoveries that generate revenue." ### What supporters say (Alzheimer's Los Angeles, Kidney Cancer Association, The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research) - The ballot argument signed by Susan Disney Lord (Alzheimer's Los Angeles), Eugene P. Brandon (ALS Association), and Brian Shuch (Kidney Cancer Association) says immunotherapies are already treating cancers such as melanoma, lung cancer, and leukemia, and that the measure would fund research into Alzheimer's, heart disease, Parkinson's, and ALS. - Supporters state in the official argument that federal funding cuts are disrupting medical research at nonprofit institutes and universities, and that the measure would create a stable California-based funding source. - Supporters say the measure is designed to offset its own cost through a required 10 percent return of licensing revenue, a 2 percent cap on state administrative expenses, public disclosure of spending, independent financial audits, and a required 20 percent discount for California patients. The argument lists the Alzheimer's Association, the Michael J. Fox Foundation, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the Melanoma Research Alliance among supporters. ### What opponents say - The ballot argument signed by Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., says general obligation borrowing is the wrong way to finance scientific research, because bonds suit long-lived infrastructure with predictable benefits while discoveries can take decades and many lines of investigation never produce marketable treatments. - The argument states that California has already created separate ballot-driven funding programs for stem cell research and precision medicine, and that research priorities should be set through scientific review and public health planning rather than election campaigns. - The argument questions the assumption that discoveries will generate revenue to offset state costs, noting that universities rarely commercialize therapies themselves and that private companies typically fund development, testing, and regulatory approval. ### Sources - California Secretary of State — Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures - California Official Voter Information Guide — Proposition 38 (title, summary, Legislative Analyst's analysis, and arguments): https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop38.pdf - California Legislative Analyst's Office — Proposition 38 (2026): Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=38&year=2026 --- ## California Proposition 39: Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ca/prohibits-citizens-from-voting-unless-they-present-government-issued-identificat/ - State: California (CA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Civil rights; Elections and voting - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Proposition 39 would write voter identification requirements into the California Constitution. Voting by mail would require the voter to designate a government-issued identification number on their registration, and a mail ballot would be rejected if the envelope did not carry the last four digits of a number matching the one designated. Voting in person would require presenting government-issued identification. Elections officials would have to report each year the percentage of their county's voters whose citizenship status they have verified. California currently verifies most voters' identity by matching signatures. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Official title and summary prepared by the Attorney General: • Prohibits voting by mail unless voter designates a government-issued identification number for their voter registration. • Invalidates mail ballots if envelope does not include last four digits of a government-issued identification number matching the number designated in the voter's registration (e.g., if voter designates Social Security number for registration, but provides driver's license number on envelope, their ballot would not count). • Prohibits voting in person without presenting government-issued identification. • Requires elections officials to annually report percentage of each county's voters whose citizenship status they have verified. ### Fiscal impact Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: "State and local government costs of between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to implement new voting requirements. Costs depend on future decisions by the Legislature, state departments, local governments, and voters." ### What supporters say (Californians for Voter ID) - The ballot argument signed by Margit Whitlock, Tafa Jefferson, and Joe Green — the Democratic, Republican, and independent coalition chairs of Californians for Voter ID — describes the measure as a bipartisan California response to mistrust in elections rather than a national partisan fight. - Supporters state in the official argument that the measure would improve the accuracy of voter lists, require elections officials to check that only citizens are registered, and require an independent audit every two years. - Supporters state that states with voter ID laws have not seen decreases in voter participation, and argue that turnout rises when voters trust that elections are secure. ### What opponents say (ACLU California Action, California Common Cause, League of Women Voters of California) - The ballot argument signed by David Trujillo (ACLU California Action), Darius Kemp (Common Cause), and Lorrel Plimier (League of Women Voters of California) says mail ballots would be rejected over mismatched or out-of-date identification details, including misspelled names or old addresses. - Opponents state in the official argument that "free" state IDs still cost voters money for transportation, time off work, childcare, and required documents, and that seniors, students, low-income workers, voters of color, and women who changed their names at marriage would be affected most. - Opponents cite the Legislative Analyst's Office estimate that the measure could cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year, and say Texas rejected 12 times more mail ballots than California under a comparable requirement. ### Sources - California Secretary of State — Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures - California Official Voter Information Guide — Proposition 39 (title, summary, Legislative Analyst's analysis, and arguments): https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop39.pdf - California Legislative Analyst's Office — Proposition 39 (2026): Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=39&year=2026 --- ## California Proposition 4: Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ca/repeals-prohibition-against-public-funding-of-election-campaigns/ - State: California (CA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: legislative referral - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Elections and voting; Government structure - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Proposition 4 would repeal the Political Reform Act's ban on using public money for political candidates' campaigns. State and local governments could then set up public campaign financing programs for candidates who agree to spending limits and meet eligibility criteria. The measure would bar those programs from drawing on funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety, and would bar candidates from using public funds for legal defense costs, fines, or repaying personal loans to their campaigns. It would also triple the maximum fine for campaign contributions by foreign entities. The Legislature placed it on the ballot through Senate Bill 42. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns. Legislative Statute. Official title and summary prepared by the Attorney General: • Current law prohibits state and local governments from using public funds for election campaigns except in charter cities and counties. • This measure repeals that prohibition and allows state and local governments to establish public campaign financing programs for candidates who agree to specified spending limits and meet eligibility criteria. • Prohibits public funding programs from using funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. • Prohibits candidates from using public funds for legal defense costs, fines, or repayment of personal loans to campaigns. • Triples maximum fine for campaign contributions by foreign entities. ### Fiscal impact Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: "Ongoing costs to the state of a few hundred thousand dollars each year for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer questions from state and local governments about public campaign finance programs." ### What supporters say (League of Women Voters of California, California Nurses Association) - The ballot argument signed by Lorrel Plimier (League of Women Voters of California), Catherine Kennedy (California Nurses Association), and State Senator Tom Umberg says the measure would let candidates who do not rely on wealthy donors compete, citing similar systems in fourteen states and 26 localities. - Supporters state in the official argument that Proposition 4 does not itself create a public financing program but gives local governments the option to adopt one, at a cost they estimate at as little as $1 per resident per year. - The argument lists taxpayer safeguards: strict eligibility criteria and spending limits, a bar on programs favoring incumbents or discriminating by party, and restrictions on how public funds may be used. ### What opponents say (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, Family Business Association of California) - The ballot argument signed by Dan Schnur and Colleen McAndrews, both former members of the Fair Political Practices Commission, and Julian Canete (California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce) says the measure sets no actual eligibility criteria and leaves them to be written later by the same politicians who would receive the funds. - Opponents state in the official argument that candidates could take public funding and still raise money from special interests, so the measure would not remove special interest money from politics. - The argument names the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Family Business Association of California, and United Latinos Action among organizations opposing the measure. ### Sources - California Secretary of State — Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures - California Official Voter Information Guide — Proposition 4 (title, summary, Legislative Analyst's analysis, and arguments): https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop4.pdf - California Legislative Analyst's Office — Proposition 4 (2026): Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=4&year=2026 --- ## California Proposition 40: Imposes One-Time Tax on Certain Taxpayers - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ca/imposes-one-time-tax-on-certain-taxpayers/ - State: California (CA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Health care; Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Proposition 40 would impose a one-time state tax of up to 5 percent on the covered assets of taxpayers holding more than $1 billion. Covered assets would include businesses, securities, art, collectibles, and intellectual property, but would exclude real property and some pensions and retirement accounts. The tax would apply to people who were California residents on January 1, 2026 and would be due in 2027, with an option to pay over five years. Ninety percent of the revenue would go to health care and 10 percent to food assistance or education programs, and the money could not replace existing funding for those purposes. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Imposes One-Time Tax on Certain Taxpayers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Official title and summary prepared by the Attorney General: • Imposes one-time tax of up to 5% on certain taxpayers with covered assets valued over $1 billion; covered assets include businesses, securities, art, collectibles, and intellectual property, but exclude real property and some pensions and retirement accounts. • Allocates 90% of these tax revenues for health care, 10% for food assistance or education-related programs; prohibits using revenues to replace existing funding for these purposes. • Exempts such tax revenues from constitutional requirements for school funding, budget reserves, and state spending limit. ### Fiscal impact Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: "Temporary state revenue increase from a new wealth tax on billionaires. These wealth tax revenues probably would add up to tens of billions of dollars spread over several years. Possible ongoing decrease of less than $1 billion per year in state income tax revenue collected from billionaires." ### What supporters say (SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest) - The ballot argument signed by Suzanne Jimenez (SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West), Victoria Barron (Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest), and Denise Robb (Los Angeles College Faculty Guild) says the one-time tax would fall only on Californians worth more than $1 billion, a group the argument says together holds $2 trillion in wealth. - Supporters state in the official argument that the revenue would keep hospitals open and health care affordable for working families, and that without it working people would pay more for health care. - The argument quotes U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders supporting a "yes" vote on Proposition 40. ### What opponents say (California Medical Association, California Primary Care Association, California School Boards Association, California Chamber of Commerce) - The ballot argument signed by René Bravo (California Medical Association), Francisco Silva (California Primary Care Association), and Debra Schade (California School Boards Association) says the measure would let the Legislature amend it without voter approval, which they argue opens the door to extending the tax to ordinary savings, home equity, and retirement funds. - Opponents state in the official argument that the measure would be the first in California history to tax retirement accounts, and call that a precedent likely to be expanded. - The argument names the California Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers Association, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, and California Council for Affordable Housing among opponents, and says state spending is up 79 percent since 2019 without better results. ### Sources - California Secretary of State — Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures - California Official Voter Information Guide — Proposition 40 (title, summary, Legislative Analyst's analysis, and arguments): https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop40.pdf - California Legislative Analyst's Office — Proposition 40 (2026): Imposes One-Time Tax on Certain Taxpayers: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=40&year=2026 --- ## California Proposition 41: Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit; Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ca/prohibits-new-state-taxes-that-exclude-revenues-from-state-spending-limit-requir/ - State: California (CA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Government structure; Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Proposition 41 would bar any new state tax whose revenues are excluded from the state appropriations limit voters approved in 1979. For statewide special taxes — taxes dedicated to a specific purpose — it would require the California State Auditor to review each program that would receive the money before the election, once supporters gather 25 percent of the signatures needed, and to publish a summary in the Voter Information Guide. It would also require recurring audits, every four years, of programs funded by special taxes enacted after January 1, 2026. If a conflicting measure on the same ballot receives fewer votes, that measure would be void. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Official title and summary prepared by the Attorney General: • Prohibits any new state taxes that exclude their revenues from the state spending limit approved by voters in 1979. • For statewide special taxes, requires (1) a pre-election audit of programs that would receive funding from a voter-proposed special tax, and (2) recurring audits of programs funded by special taxes enacted after January 1, 2026. • States that other voter-approved measures appearing on the same ballot are void if they conflict with this measure and this measure receives more affirmative votes. ### Fiscal impact Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: "Unknown net fiscal effect. Increased costs for the California State Auditor to implement new one-time and ongoing audit requirements of programs funded by special taxes. These costs would be mostly paid from the new revenues collected from the special taxes. Possible savings associated with implementing recommendations from the audits." ### What supporters say (California Society of Certified Public Accountants, California Taxpayers Association) - The ballot argument signed by Denise LeDuc Froemming (California Society of Certified Public Accountants), former State Auditor Tom Hayes, and Robert Gutierrez (California Taxpayers Association) says voters should have independent information about how a program is managed before being asked to approve a tax to fund it. - Supporters state in the official argument that the State Auditor's findings would be posted publicly and printed in the Voter Information Guide, so voters would not have to rely on information from campaigns or politicians. - Supporters state that the state budget is a record $352 billion and that spending is up 79 percent since 2019, and argue recurring audits would make funded programs more efficient. ### What opponents say (SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West) - The ballot argument signed by Suzanne Jimenez (SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West) says Proposition 41 is not really about audits but is a billionaire-funded measure designed to cancel out Proposition 40, the billionaire tax on the same ballot. - Opponents state in the official argument that the measure would cost the state time and money, and urge a "no" vote from anyone who supports the Proposition 40 wealth tax. - The argument names Google co-founder Sergey Brin as a funder of measures it describes as attempts to cancel the billionaire tax, and cites U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders criticizing that spending. ### Sources - California Secretary of State — Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures - California Official Voter Information Guide — Proposition 41 (title, summary, Legislative Analyst's analysis, and arguments): https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop41.pdf - California Legislative Analyst's Office — Proposition 41 (2026): Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit; Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=41&year=2026 --- ## California Proposition 42: Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ca/prohibits-new-state-personal-property-taxes-and-certain-retroactive-state-taxes/ - State: California (CA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Proposition 42 would prohibit new state taxes on the ownership of personal property, including business interests, intellectual property, and financial assets such as the holdings in retirement and investment accounts. California currently taxes some personal property, such as vehicles and business equipment, but does not tax the ownership of financial assets. The measure would also prohibit new state taxes that apply retroactively based on conduct, activities, or status occurring before the tax took effect. It would apply to new taxes enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026, and would void a conflicting measure on the same ballot that receives fewer votes. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Official title and summary prepared by the Attorney General: • Prohibits new state taxes on personal property, including business interests, intellectual property, and financial assets (including assets in retirement and investment accounts). • Prohibits new state taxes that apply retroactively based on the taxpayer's conduct, activities, or a status that occurred before the new tax's effective date. • Applies to new taxes that are enacted or take effect on or after January 1, 2026. • States that other voter-approved measures appearing on the same ballot are void if they conflict with this measure and this measure receives more affirmative votes. ### Fiscal impact Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: "Possibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future." The LAO states the measure restricts the state's future options for raising taxes, which could reduce future tax revenues by an amount and on a timeline that are unclear. ### What supporters say (California Small Business Association, AMVETS, Department of California) - The ballot argument signed by Michael Hedges (California Small Business Association), Shelley Huff (AMVETS, Department of California), and Jennifer Yoder (California Senior Alliance) says the measure would protect 401(k)s, pensions, IRAs, and personal savings from new taxes. - Chris Hannan of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California is quoted in the argument saying new taxes on retirement should not stand between people and the security they have planned for. - Supporters state in the official argument that roughly 80 percent of Californians report having some form of retirement fund or savings, and describe the measure as barring what they call double taxation of money already taxed as income. ### What opponents say (SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West) - The ballot argument signed by Suzanne Jimenez (SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West) says Proposition 42 is a billionaire-funded measure written to cancel out Proposition 40, the billionaire tax on the same ballot, rather than to protect ordinary retirement savings. - Opponents state in the official argument that Proposition 40 would tax only billionaires’ wealth and that claims about ordinary retirement accounts being at risk are fear-mongering, and urge a "no" vote from anyone who supports the wealth tax. ### Sources - California Secretary of State — Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures - California Official Voter Information Guide — Proposition 42 (title, summary, Legislative Analyst's analysis, and arguments): https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop42.pdf - California Legislative Analyst's Office — Proposition 42 (2026): Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=42&year=2026 --- ## California Proposition 43: Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ca/limits-voters-ability-to-raise-revenues-for-local-government-services/ - State: California (CA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Government structure; Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Proposition 43 would raise the share of votes needed to approve local special taxes that voters themselves place on the ballot by signature gathering, from a simple majority to two-thirds. Special taxes are taxes dedicated to a specific purpose. Local governments already need two-thirds voter approval for special taxes they place on the ballot, but recent court decisions allowed voter-proposed special taxes to pass with a majority. The change would apply to voter-proposed local ballot measures approved after January 1, 2027. The Legislature placed it on the ballot through Assembly Constitutional Amendment 22. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Official title and summary prepared by the Attorney General: • Currently, local governments must obtain two-thirds voter approval to impose, extend, or increase special taxes (taxes dedicated to a specific purpose) that they place on the ballot. However, this two-thirds vote requirement does not currently apply to special taxes put on ballot by voter signature gathering. • This measure would limit voters' ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising the percentage of votes needed to approve such ballot measures from a majority (over 50%) to two-thirds. • Applies to voter-proposed ballot measures approved after January 1, 2027. ### Fiscal impact Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: "Possibility that local government tax revenues will not go up as much in the future due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes." The LAO states the actual revenue impact is unknown and would depend on future decisions by local governments and voters. ### What supporters say (California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce) - The ballot argument signed by Robert Gutierrez (California Taxpayers Association), Robert Rivinius (Family Business Association of California), and Julian Canete (California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce) says recent court decisions created a loophole that let special taxes pass with fewer votes, and that the measure would restore the longstanding two-thirds requirement. - Supporters state in the official argument that some cities charge real estate transfer taxes as high as 6 percent, which on a $900,000 median-priced home would cost a seller $54,000, and say the measure would protect homeowners, renters, and small businesses. - Supporters state that local governments have imposed about 2,000 new or higher taxes over the past decade and argue the measure would require that revenue be spent on the purposes voters approved. ### What opponents say (California Professional Firefighters, California School Employees Association) - The ballot argument signed by Darrell Roberts (California Professional Firefighters), Chris Harkins (Nurse Alliance of SEIU California), and Adam Weinberger (California School Employees Association) says the measure would let 33.4 percent of voters block what nearly 67 percent support, making a "no" vote count twice as much as a "yes." - Opponents state in the official argument that the change would make it harder for communities to fund road repairs, schools, wildfire preparation, 911 response, and local hospitals and clinics, especially as federal health funding is cut. ### Sources - California Secretary of State — Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures - California Official Voter Information Guide — Proposition 43 (title, summary, Legislative Analyst's analysis, and arguments): https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop43.pdf - California Legislative Analyst's Office — Proposition 43 (2026): Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=43&year=2026 --- ## California Proposition 44: Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Program Services - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ca/requires-community-health-clinics-spend-90-of-revenue-on-program-services/ - State: California (CA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Health care - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Proposition 44 would require nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers — community clinics serving medically underserved areas — to spend at least 90 percent of their revenue on "program services" that advance their charitable purpose, including patient services, and would impose monetary penalties on those that spend less. The Department of Public Health could waive the requirement in exceptional circumstances, and penalties could be refunded if a center becomes compliant within five years. The Attorney General could publish guidance defining qualifying expenditures. Filing false reports or artificially inflating the spending ratio could bring criminal charges. Affected clinics currently report spending about 80 percent on average. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Program Services. Initiative Statute. Official title and summary prepared by the Attorney General: • Imposes penalties on nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics providing primary care to medically underserved areas and populations) that spend less than 90% of revenue on "program services" advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services. Department of Public Health may waive spending requirements in exceptional circumstances. • Authorizes Attorney General to publish guidance defining qualifying expenditures. • Monetary penalties may be refunded if centers become compliant within five years. • Authorizes criminal charges for false reports or artificially increasing spending ratio. ### Fiscal impact Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: "Increased state costs in the low tens of millions of dollars per year to enforce the new requirements on certain private nonprofit health care clinics, covered by fees charged to the affected clinics." ### What supporters say - The ballot argument signed by initiative proponent Shawna Brown and community clinic worker Brisa J. Barrera says some clinic executives divert millions to inflated salaries and other non-essentials, and that the measure would direct at least 90 percent of revenue to patient care. - Supporters state in the official argument that expected federal health care cuts make every dollar matter more, and that the requirement would help retain frontline health care workers by keeping money in the health care system. ### What opponents say (California Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, California, California School Nurses Organization) - The ballot argument signed by Eric Ball (American Academy of Pediatrics, California), Katie Nilsson (California School Nurses Organization), and René Bravo (California Medical Association) says community clinics serve one in four Medi-Cal patients and are the only source of care within hundreds of miles in some rural areas, and that the measure would increase wait times and could eliminate care. - Opponents state in the official argument that community clinics are already heavily regulated by federal and state governments, with strict funding rules and regular mandatory public audits, making the measure unnecessary. - The argument names Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, the California Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Emergency Physicians of California, and the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter among opponents. ### Sources - California Secretary of State — Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures - California Official Voter Information Guide — Proposition 44 (title, summary, Legislative Analyst's analysis, and arguments): https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop44.pdf - California Legislative Analyst's Office — Proposition 44 (2026): Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Program Services: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=44&year=2026 --- ## California Proposition 45: Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ca/modifies-environmental-review-for-certain-projects/ - State: California (CA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Energy and environment; Housing - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Proposition 45 would amend the California Environmental Quality Act to speed environmental review for named categories of projects, including most housing, transportation, water, health, wildfire mitigation, educational facility, internet access, and clean energy projects. For those projects it would set deadlines for agencies to finish environmental review and act, allow an expedited review that limits an agency's current duty to consider a range of feasible alternatives, and set deadlines for filing and resolving lawsuits challenging project approvals. It would also limit the evidence courts may consider and the relief courts can order in those lawsuits. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects. Initiative Statute. Official title and summary prepared by the Attorney General: • Amends California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review for specified project categories (including most housing, transportation, water, health, wildfire mitigation, educational facility, internet access, and clean energy projects). For these types of projects, this measure: • Sets deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental review and take required actions. • Allows expedited review of environmental impacts, limiting public agencies' current obligation to consider a range of feasible project alternatives to reduce environmental impacts. • Establishes deadlines for filing and resolving lawsuits challenging project approvals; limits evidence courts may consider and relief courts can order. ### Fiscal impact Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: "Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars annually—potentially exceeding $100 million annually—to implement new project review and court challenge procedures for eligible projects. Fees paid by project applicants and people filing lawsuits would partly cover these costs. In the longer term, uncertain, but potentially more significant positive or negative fiscal effects for state and local governments. The overall effect depends, in part, on how the new procedures change the number of eligible projects that get built and whether those projects have different environmental impacts." ### What supporters say (California Children's Hospital Association, California Water Association) - The ballot argument signed by Ann-Louise Kuhns (California Children's Hospital Association), Jennifer Capitolo (California Water Association), and Jenna Abbott (California Council on Affordable Housing) says permitting delays add more than $75,000 to the cost of a new home and that faster review would lower rents and mortgages. - Supporters state in the official argument that delays in building clean energy and electric grid infrastructure raise electricity costs, and that the measure would reduce those costs. - Supporters state that lengthy delays cause cost overruns on public projects such as roads, schools, hospitals, water systems, and wildfire prevention, costing taxpayers billions. ### What opponents say (Coalition for Clean Air, Clean Water Action, California Environmental Voters) - The ballot argument signed by Joe Lyou (Coalition for Clean Air), Jennifer Clary (Clean Water Action), and Matt Abularach-Macias (California Environmental Voters) says the measure would cut public comment that often exposes contamination of air and water and damage to the coast, rivers, and wildlife, so decisions would be made with less information and less public input. - Opponents cite the Legislative Analyst's Office warning that Proposition 45 could approve projects resulting in “unintended negative environmental impacts,” and say taxpayers would bear cleanup costs. - Opponents state in the official argument that the measure contains no requirement to lower costs, and name Physicians for Social Responsibility—Los Angeles among organizations opposing it. ### Sources - California Secretary of State — Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures - California Official Voter Information Guide — Proposition 45 (title, summary, Legislative Analyst's analysis, and arguments): https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop45.pdf - California Legislative Analyst's Office — Proposition 45 (2026): Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=45&year=2026 --- ## California Proposition 5: Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ca/changes-recall-election-process-for-statewide-officers/ - State: California (CA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Elections and voting; Government structure - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Proposition 5 would remove the replacement question from recall elections for state officers. Voters currently answer two questions at once: whether to remove the officer, and who should replace them. Under the measure, voters would decide only whether to remove the officer. If a Governor were recalled, the Lieutenant Governor would become Governor for the rest of the term or until a successor is elected. Other recalled offices would stay vacant until filled by a later special election or by appointment under existing law. A recalled officer could run in a special election for the same office. The Legislature placed it on the ballot through Senate Constitutional Amendment 1. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Official title and summary prepared by the Attorney General: • Under current law, voters decide at the same election whether (1) to recall a state officer, and (2) who will replace that officer if recalled. • Under this measure: if the Governor is recalled, the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor for the remainder of the term or until a successor is elected; for all other recalled officers, the office will remain vacant until filled by a subsequent special election or appointment as specified in existing law; and a recalled officer may be a candidate in a special election to fill the office. ### Fiscal impact Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: "Net fiscal effect unknown. Possible state and local government savings or costs of millions of dollars to administer recall elections. These costs or savings would be rare, and depend on the office recalled and how often recalls occur." ### What supporters say (League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause) - The ballot argument signed by Lorrel Plimier (League of Women Voters of California), Darius L. Kemp (California Common Cause), and Dan Schnur (former chair of the Fair Political Practices Commission) says removing the second question would prevent a replacement candidate from taking office without majority support. - Supporters state in the official argument that most states with recalls already fill vacancies by succession or a separate election rather than a same-day replacement contest. ### What opponents say - The ballot argument signed by Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones and Assemblymember Joe Patterson says the measure takes away half of the recall right by letting voters remove an official without choosing the successor. - Opponents state in the official argument that a separate replacement election would be paid for by taxpayers and could let the recalled officeholder run again to regain the seat. ### Sources - California Secretary of State — Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures - California Official Voter Information Guide — Proposition 5 (title, summary, Legislative Analyst's analysis, and arguments): https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop5.pdf - California Legislative Analyst's Office — Proposition 5 (2026): Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=5&year=2026 --- ## Colorado Law Enforcement Reporting Requirements to Federal Authorities (Initiative #95) - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/co/law-enforcement-reporting-requirements-to-federal-authorities-initiative-95/ - State: Colorado (CO) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Criminal justice; Immigration; Public safety - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This initiated constitutional amendment would require Colorado peace officers, correctional officers, and district attorney offices to notify the U.S. Department of Homeland Security within 72 hours when they charge someone whose lawful presence in the United States cannot be confirmed after a reasonable attempt to determine it. The requirement would apply when the person is charged with a crime of violence under state law or has a prior felony conviction. Colorado law currently limits when state and local agencies share information with federal immigration authorities. Passage requires 55 percent approval. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution requiring law enforcement to notify the department of homeland security when a person is charged with either a violent crime or any crime if the person has a prior felony conviction if law enforcement cannot determine that the person is lawfully present in the United States? ### Fiscal impact Legislative Council Staff's initial fiscal impact statement (August 11, 2025) projects no change in state revenue, TABOR refunds, or state FTE, and state cash-fund expenditures of $0 in FY 2025-26 and $60,000 in FY 2026-27. It also identifies impacts on local governments and statutory public entities that would need to change notification practices. Legislative Council Staff notes it may revise this estimate for the ballot information booklet (Blue Book). ### What supporters say (Advance Colorado Institute) - Kristi Burton Brown, executive vice president of Advance Colorado, says the measure narrows in on "violent criminals and repeat felons" and that it is "pretty common sense that no one wants them free on our streets." - The Advance Colorado Institute, which filed the initiative, is listed by Ballotpedia as its organizational supporter. ### What opponents say (League of Women Voters of Colorado, Rocky Mountain Equality, Vote Common Sense) - The League of Women Voters of Colorado opposes the initiative, arguing that lawful residents or citizens could be reported in error, possibly through racial profiling, and that a person charged with a crime is entitled to a presumption of innocence. - Rocky Mountain Equality says the measure "would overturn existing Colorado state law and force law enforcement to notify ICE about a person's immigration status" for anyone merely charged rather than convicted. - Vote Common Sense registered as the committee opposing the measure, according to Ballotpedia's campaign finance tracking. ### Sources - Colorado Secretary of State — Proposed Initiative #95 Qualifies for General Election Ballot (January 23, 2026): https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/newsRoom/pressReleases/2026/PR20260123Initiative95.html - Colorado Secretary of State — Ballot Title Setting Board results for Proposed Initiative #95: https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/results/2025-2026/95Results.html - Colorado Legislative Council Staff — Initiative 95 Fiscal Impact Statement: https://leg.colorado.gov/initiatives/law-enforcement-reporting-requirements-to-federal-authorities-95 - Ballotpedia — Colorado Notification of U.S. Department of Homeland Security for Certain Criminal Charges and Immigration Status Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Notification_of_U.S._Department_of_Homeland_Security_for_Certain_Criminal_Charges_and_Immigration_Status_Initiative_(2026) --- ## Colorado Male and Female Participation in School Sports (Initiative #109) - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/co/male-and-female-participation-in-school-sports-initiative-109/ - State: Colorado (CO) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Civil rights; Education; Sports and athletics - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This initiated statute would require every K-12 and collegiate athletic team or sport sponsored by a school, higher education institution, or athletic association in Colorado to be designated male, female, or coeducational, based on the participant's sex as determined by certain aspects of the biological reproductive system. Teams designated female could not be open to male participants. A female could join a male-designated team only where no female team is offered. Schools could not face investigations or adverse action for maintaining separate female teams, and the commissioner of education would enforce the rules for K-12 districts. It would take effect January 1, 2027. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating new law restricting participation in all K-12 and collegiate school sports based on the participant's sex as determined by certain aspects of their biological reproductive system, and, in connection therewith, requiring a school, institution of higher education, or athletic association to designate each school or intramural athletic team or sport as male, female, or coeducational; only allowing participants to compete on the team or sport of their designated sex or to compete on a coeducational team; creating an exception to allow a female to participate on a male-designated team or sport if there is no female team available; prohibiting a government entity, licensing or accrediting organization, or athletic association from entertaining a complaint, opening an investigation, or taking other adverse action against a school for maintaining separate teams or sports for females; and providing the commissioner of education with the authority to enforce the proposed initiative for K-12 school districts? ### Fiscal impact Legislative Council Staff's initial fiscal impact statement (September 2, 2025) projects no change in state revenue, state expenditures, transferred funds, TABOR refunds, or state FTE in FY 2026-27 or FY 2027-28. It identifies minimal state workload and impacts on school districts, which would need to adopt and enforce team-designation policies. Legislative Council Staff notes it may revise this estimate for the ballot information booklet (Blue Book). ### What supporters say (Protect Kids Colorado, Colorado Catholic Conference, Focus on the Family) - Protect Kids Colorado, the campaign behind the initiative, says the measure "ensures girls' sports are protected, requiring sports leagues and teams be specifically designated male, female, or co-ed." - Colleen Enos of Christian Home Educators of Colorado argues that allowing males to compete against females "when they are physically advantaged in muscle mass, bone density, and muscle capacity makes a mockery out of Title IX protections for girls." - The Colorado Catholic Conference says policies allowing biological men to participate in women's sports "promote the unfair treatment of women" and raise concerns about shared facilities. ### What opponents say (Families Not Politics, One Colorado, Rocky Mountain Equality, Inside Out Youth Services, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains) - Rocky Mountain Equality says the initiative "would prohibit transgender youth of any age from playing sports with their peers" and singles out a small group of students. - Nadine Bridges, executive director of One Colorado, calls the measure "vague, poorly written" and says it leaves unanswered who decides which students get questioned or inspected. - Families Not Politics is leading the opposition campaign against this initiative and Initiative #110. ### Sources - Colorado Secretary of State — Proposed Initiative #109 Qualifies for General Election Ballot (March 16, 2026): https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/newsRoom/pressReleases/2026/PR20260316Ballot109.html - Colorado Secretary of State — Ballot Title Setting Board results for Proposed Initiative #109: https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/results/2025-2026/109Results.html - Colorado Legislative Council Staff — Initiative 109 Fiscal Impact Statement: https://leg.colorado.gov/initiatives/male-and-female-participation-in-school-sports-109 - Ballotpedia — Colorado Sex Requirement for School and College Sports Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Sex_Requirement_for_School_and_College_Sports_Initiative_(2026) --- ## Colorado Penalties for Fentanyl Crimes (Initiative #85) - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/co/penalties-for-fentanyl-crimes-initiative-85/ - State: Colorado (CO) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Criminal justice; Marijuana and drug policy; Public safety - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This initiated statute would raise criminal penalties in Colorado for fentanyl, carfentanil, and benzimidazole opiates. Distributing, manufacturing, dispensing, or selling these synthetic opiates would become a level 1 drug felony, the most serious drug felony class. The measure would also raise penalties for possession, create mandated treatment for certain drug felony violations based on the amount possessed, and narrow or remove sentencing exemptions for offenses involving these drugs and for drug-related deaths. Legislative Council Staff estimates the changes would increase prison populations and state costs over time. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning criminal penalties for fentanyl and certain synthetic opioids, and, in connection therewith, increasing the felony classifications of drug-related crimes for distribution, manufacturing, dispensing, sale, or possession of fentanyl and certain synthetic opioids; creating mandated treatment for certain drug felony violations based on possession amount; and changing sentencing provisions to narrow or eliminate exemptions for crimes related to fentanyl and certain synthetic opioids and drug-related deaths? ### Fiscal impact Legislative Council Staff's initial fiscal impact statement (August 11, 2025) estimates state expenditures of $856,770 in FY 2026-27 and about $4.92 million in FY 2027-28 from the General Fund, with state staffing rising from 6.0 FTE to 11.7 FTE. It projects cash-fund revenue of $19,516 in FY 2026-27 and $71,142 in FY 2027-28, increasing TABOR refund obligations by the same amounts, plus local government impacts. Legislative Council Staff notes it may revise this estimate for the Blue Book. ### What supporters say (Advance Colorado Institute) - Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado, which filed the initiative, says Colorado's current laws "are far too lenient on fentanyl dealers" and that the measure would hold dealers accountable while directing people with addiction into mandated treatment. - George Brauchler (R), district attorney for Colorado's 23rd Judicial District, supports a "low to no tolerance policy when it comes to drug dealers who peddle fentanyl into our communities." - State Sen. Byron Pelton (R-1) describes fentanyl as a public health crisis and says the measure would give affected families justice the Legislature has not delivered. ### What opponents say (Coloradans for Real Safety Solutions, Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, League of Women Voters of Colorado) - The League of Women Voters of Colorado argues that longer imprisonment "does not solve their drug addiction issues or lessen the societal costs of drug addiction," citing research finding no relationship between drug imprisonment rates and drug problems. - The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition says the measure would apply an 8-to-32-year sentence "even for minor, first-time cases," giving judges no discretion. - State Rep. Javier Mabrey (D-01) calls the initiative "an extension of failed policies of the past" and argues increased penalties will not deter crime. - Coloradans for Real Safety Solutions is leading the campaign against this measure and Initiative #95. ### Sources - Colorado Secretary of State — Proposed Initiative #85 Qualifies for General Election Ballot (December 15, 2025): https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/newsRoom/pressReleases/2025/PR20251215Initiative85.html - Colorado Secretary of State — Ballot Title Setting Board results for Proposed Initiative #85: https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/results/2025-2026/85Results.html - Colorado Legislative Council Staff — Initiative 85 Fiscal Impact Statement: https://leg.colorado.gov/initiatives/penalties-for-fentanyl-crimes-85 - Ballotpedia — Colorado Penalties for Fentanyl Sale and Possession Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Penalties_for_Fentanyl_Sale_and_Possession_Initiative_(2026) --- ## Colorado Penalties for Human Trafficking of a Minor (Initiative #108) - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/co/penalties-for-human-trafficking-of-a-minor-initiative-108/ - State: Colorado (CO) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Criminal justice; Public safety - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This initiated statute would change Colorado law on human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude. It would raise the offense from a class 2 felony to a class 1 felony, which carries life in prison without the possibility of parole or release. It would also expand the offense to cover knowingly trading anything of monetary value to buy or sell sexual activity with a minor. Under current law, courts sentence within the presumptive range for a class 2 felony. The change would take effect January 1, 2027. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes modifying existing law concerning human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude, and, in connection therewith, creating new law expanding human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude to include knowingly trading anything of monetary value to buy or sell sexual activity with a minor and increasing the penalty to be life in prison without parole or release? ### Fiscal impact Legislative Council Staff's initial fiscal impact statement (September 2, 2025) projects no change in state revenue, TABOR refunds, or state FTE. State General Fund expenditures are estimated at $0 in FY 2026-27, about $50,000 in FY 2041-42, and about $100,000 in FY 2042-43, reflecting longer prison stays that begin decades after the effective date. Local government impacts are also identified. Legislative Council Staff notes it may revise this estimate for the ballot information booklet (Blue Book). ### What supporters say (Protect Kids Colorado, Colorado Catholic Conference, Focus on the Family) - Protect Kids Colorado, the campaign that gathered signatures for the measure, says the average age at which a child is first bought and sold into sex trafficking is 14, and that a penalty of life without parole means "certain punishment, without a chance to ever brutalize another child." - The Colorado Catholic Conference and Focus on the Family are listed by Ballotpedia as organizational supporters of the measure. ### What opponents say (Families Not Politics) - Families Not Politics, a campaign opposing the Protect Kids Colorado measures, describes the initiative as "a Trojan horse using the language of child protection to advance a broader political agenda rather than reflect the best practices for supporting survivors." - Ballotpedia reports it has not located an organized campaign committee registered in opposition to this measure. ### Sources - Colorado Secretary of State — Proposed Initiative #108 Qualifies for General Election Ballot (March 5, 2026): https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/newsRoom/pressReleases/2026/PR20260305Initiative108.html - Colorado Secretary of State — Ballot Title Setting Board results for Proposed Initiative #108: https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/results/2025-2026/108Results.html - Colorado Legislative Council Staff — Initiative 108 Fiscal Impact Statement: https://leg.colorado.gov/initiatives/penalties-for-human-trafficking-of-a-minor-108 - Ballotpedia — Colorado Require Life in Prison for Human Trafficking of Minors Measure (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Require_Life_in_Prison_for_Human_Trafficking_of_Minors_Measure_(2026) --- ## Colorado Prohibit Certain Surgeries on Minors (Initiative #110) - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/co/prohibit-certain-surgeries-on-minors-initiative-110/ - State: Colorado (CO) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Civil rights; Health care - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This initiated statute would bar any health-care professional or other person in Colorado from knowingly performing, prescribing, administering, or providing surgery to a person under 18 for the purpose of altering the minor's biological sex characteristics. Legislative Council Staff describes an exception for minors with a medically verifiable disorder of sex development. The measure would also prohibit state or federal funds, Medicaid reimbursement, or insurance coverage from being used to pay for surgeries of this type. It would not change the law for adults. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes modifying existing law by prohibiting surgery on a minor for the purpose of altering the minor's biological sex characteristics, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting any health-care professional or other person from knowingly performing, prescribing, administering, or providing any surgery to a minor for the purpose of altering the minor's biological sex characteristics and prohibiting the use of state or federal funds, Medicaid reimbursement, or insurance coverage to pay for this type of surgery? ### Fiscal impact Legislative Council Staff's initial fiscal impact statement (September 9, 2025) projects no change in state revenue, state expenditures, TABOR refunds, or state FTE in FY 2026-27 or FY 2027-28, identifying only minimal state expenditures and minimal state revenue. The statement notes that revenue could rise slightly if additional complaints against regulated medical professionals lead to administrative actions or fines. Legislative Council Staff notes it may revise this estimate for the ballot information booklet (Blue Book). ### What supporters say (Protect Kids Colorado, Colorado Catholic Conference, Focus on the Family) - Focus on the Family says children "should be safeguarded from making irreversible decisions about their reproductive future." - Protect Kids Colorado, the campaign that qualified the measure, says the surgeries are irreversible and that Colorado already sets age limits on voting, drinking, and signing contracts. - The Colorado Catholic Conference argues that permanent medical interventions on minors conflict with what it describes as the natural order of the human person. ### What opponents say (Families Not Politics, One Colorado, Rocky Mountain Equality, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Interfaith Alliance of Colorado) - Rocky Mountain Equality says the initiative "would limit access to gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth, even after extensive evaluation and with parental support." - Nadine Bridges, executive director of One Colorado, says the proposals "push the government into personal health care decisions that should stay with families and medical providers." - Families Not Politics is leading the opposition campaign against this initiative and Initiative #109. ### Sources - Colorado Secretary of State — Proposed Initiative #110 Qualifies for General Election Ballot (March 17, 2026): https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/newsRoom/pressReleases/2026/PR20260317Initiative110.html - Colorado Secretary of State — Ballot Title Setting Board results for Proposed Initiative #110: https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/results/2025-2026/110Results.html - Colorado Legislative Council Staff — Initiative 110 Fiscal Impact Statement: https://leg.colorado.gov/initiatives/prohibit-certain-surgeries-on-minors-110 - Ballotpedia — Colorado Prohibit Surgeries for Treatment in Response to Minors' Perception of Sex or Gender Measure (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Prohibit_Surgeries_for_Treatment_in_Response_to_Minors%27_Perception_of_Sex_or_Gender_Measure_(2026) --- ## Colorado Proposition NN: Proposition NN — State Public K-12 Education Funding and TABOR Cap - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/co/proposition-nn-state-public-k-12-education-funding-and-tabor-cap/ - State: Colorado (CO) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: legislative referral - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Education; Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Proposition NN was referred to voters by the Legislature in Senate Bill 26-135. It would let the state keep and spend revenue above the limit set by the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, in an amount equal to state K-12 education funding, instead of refunding that money to taxpayers. State K-12 funding would rise by up to 2 percent per year for 10 years, and districts could use the added money only for teacher pay, teacher retention, smaller class sizes, and career and technical courses. Remaining retained revenue would go to a new children's account. An annual independent audit would report how the money is spent. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Shall state investment in K-12 public education increase two percent each year for the next ten years, with investments used to increase teacher pay, improve teacher retention, lower class sizes, and increase access to career and technical courses, without raising taxes but instead funded by raising the annual limit on state fiscal year spending only by the amount spent on public K-12 education as a voter-approved revenue change, and requiring an annual publicly released, independent audit to show how the new investments are spent? ### Fiscal impact The Legislative Council Staff fiscal note for Senate Bill 26-135 (March 10, 2026) shows conditional impacts if voters approve the measure: no change in FY 2026-27, and in FY 2027-28 state expenditures of up to $1.03 billion — $211.9 million General Fund plus up to $817.0 million from a new Excess Revenues Account — and a reduction in TABOR refunds of $817.0 million, made up of $211.9 million in property tax refunds, $319.8 million in income tax rate reductions, and $285.3 million in six-tier sales tax refunds. No change in state FTE is projected. ### What supporters say (Yes for Colorado Kids, Colorado Education Association) - State Sen. Jeff Bridges (D-26), the lead sponsor, says the measure "guarantees that K-12 is the primary beneficiary" and has "the potential to be one of the most transformative measures for K-12 funding." - Ken Vick, president of the Colorado Education Association, says it gives voters the chance to decide whether Colorado should invest revenue it already collects in public education "without raising taxes or asking Coloradans to pay a dollar more." - State Rep. Eliza Hamrick (D-61) points to research linking fair teacher pay to student performance and higher graduation rates. ### What opponents say (Your Family's Future Alliance, Independence Institute) - Your Family's Future Alliance, the group organizing against the measure, calls it "a deceptive power grab that erodes voter-approved fiscal restraints, steals direct refunds from families, and prioritizes government spending over household affordability." - Nash Herman, a policy analyst at the Independence Institute, notes that Proposition NN directs education funding only for the first ten years while making a permanent increase to the TABOR limit. - State Rep. Rebecca Keltie (R-16) describes it as a "multi-billion dollar spending spree built on assumptions." ### Sources - Colorado General Assembly — SB26-135 State Public K-12 Education Funding: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-135 - Colorado Legislative Council Staff — SB 26-135 Fiscal Note (March 10, 2026): https://leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/113088/download - Ballotpedia — Colorado Proposition NN, TABOR Revenue Cap Increase for K-12 Education Measure (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_NN,_TABOR_Revenue_Cap_Increase_for_K-12_Education_Measure_(2026) - Chalkbeat Colorado — Colorado school funding advocates launch campaign in support of Proposition NN: https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2026/07/17/advocates-launch-prop-nn-school-funding-yes-campaign/ --- ## Colorado Right to Natural Gas (Initiative #177) - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/co/right-to-natural-gas-initiative-177/ - State: Colorado (CO) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Civil rights; Energy and environment - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This initiated constitutional amendment would create a right in the Colorado Constitution for consumers to purchase natural gas for cooking or heating in homes or businesses, and for distributors and utilities to sell natural gas for those purposes. Legislative Council Staff notes that local governments with building codes that restrict or prohibit natural gas in new residential and commercial construction would need to bring those codes into line with the new provision. Because it adds language to the state constitution, it requires 55 percent approval to pass. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution creating new law granting the right for consumers to purchase natural gas for cooking or heating in homes or businesses and for distributors and utilities to sell natural gas to consumers? ### Fiscal impact Legislative Council Staff's initial fiscal impact statement (March 9, 2026) projects no change in state revenue, state expenditures, transferred funds, TABOR refunds, or state FTE in FY 2025-26 or FY 2026-27. It notes the measure may increase state agency workload and legal services related to building-code technical assistance and the state's greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan, and would increase costs for local governments that must conform their building codes and permitting processes. Legislative Council Staff notes it may revise this estimate for the Blue Book. ### What supporters say (Advance Colorado) - Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado, which filed the initiative, says natural gas is "a clean, reliable and affordable form of energy that more than 70% of Colorado homes use today" and that the right to use it should be protected. - Ballotpedia reports it has not identified a registered campaign committee supporting the measure as of its most recent review. ### What opponents say - State Rep. Julie McCluskie (D-13) says the initiative is "overly broad, lacks clarity and could upend years of work to craft durable policy" on air quality, transit, and cleaner energy. - State Rep. Jennifer Bacon (D-7) says the measure is poorly drafted and that its lack of definitions creates ambiguity that could affect safety. - Gov. Jared Polis (D) questions granting a constitutional right to an explosive material without an accompanying regulatory framework. ### Sources - Colorado Secretary of State — Proposed Initiative #177 Qualifies for General Election Ballot (August 6, 2026): https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/newsRoom/pressReleases/2026/PR20260806Prop177.html - Colorado Secretary of State — Ballot Title Setting Board results for Proposed Initiative #177: https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/results/2025-2026/177Results.html - Colorado Legislative Council Staff — Initiative 177 Fiscal Impact Statement: https://leg.colorado.gov/initiatives/right-to-natural-gas-177 - Ballotpedia — Colorado Right to Purchase and Sell Natural Gas for Cooking or Heating in Homes and Businesses Amendment (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Right_to_Purchase_and_Sell_Natural_Gas_for_Cooking_or_Heating_in_Homes_and_Businesses_Amendment_(2026) --- ## Colorado State Revenue Supporting Road Transportation (Initiative #175) - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/co/state-revenue-supporting-road-transportation-initiative-175/ - State: Colorado (CO) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Taxes and revenue; Transportation - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This initiated constitutional amendment would require the state and local governments to spend transportation-related revenue only on road transportation, beginning January 1, 2027. Covered revenue includes state sales, use, and excise taxes and fees on motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuel, plus two-thirds of state sales and use taxes on vehicle parts, equipment, materials, and accessories. Road transportation would cover building and repairing roads and bridges, driver-safety improvements, related design and engineering costs, and Colorado State Patrol costs. Funding for other transportation services and programs would decrease. Passage requires 55 percent approval. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution changing existing law on transportation funding, and, in connection therewith, increasing the amount of state revenue dedicated to road transportation; requiring state revenue collected from various transportation-related sources to only be used on "road transportation" defined to include building and fixing roads and bridges, improving driver safety, covering related planning and engineering costs, and funding for the Colorado State Patrol; and decreasing funding for other transportation-related services and programs provided by the state and local governments? ### Fiscal impact Legislative Council Staff's initial fiscal impact statement (December 22, 2025) projects no change in state revenue, transferred funds, TABOR refunds, or state FTE, and state expenditures of up to $1.02 billion in FY 2026-27 and up to $2.09 billion in FY 2027-28 redirected to road transportation. Local governments are also affected. Legislative Council Staff notes it may revise this estimate for the ballot information booklet (Blue Book). ### What supporters say (Restore Our Roads Colorado, Colorado Contractors Association, Associated General Contractors Colorado) - Tony Milo, president of the Colorado Contractors Association, says Coloradans are "tired of dodging potholes" and that voters would be able to direct "money generated from roads to fix our roads — without raising taxes." - Restore Our Roads Colorado, the campaign that qualified the measure, and business and construction groups including Associated General Contractors Colorado, Club 20, and the Colorado Contractors Association support it. ### What opponents say (Keep Kids First Colorado, The Bell Policy Center, Colorado Education Association, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1001) - Keep Kids First Colorado argues the measure "takes existing sales tax revenue without adding new dollars to the General Fund," and says balancing the state budget without major reductions to Medicaid, K-12 education, and higher education would be impossible if it passes. - A coalition of opponents listed by Ballotpedia includes the Colorado Education Association, Colorado Hospital Association, Bicycle Colorado, Conservation Colorado, MADD Colorado, and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1001, which say the measure would cut transit, safety, and health programs. ### Sources - Colorado Secretary of State — Proposed Initiative #175 Qualifies for General Election Ballot (June 23, 2026): https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/newsRoom/pressReleases/2026/PR20260623Prop175.html - Colorado Secretary of State — Ballot Title Setting Board results for Proposed Initiative #175: https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/results/2025-2026/175Results.html - Colorado Legislative Council Staff — Initiative 175 Fiscal Impact Statement: https://leg.colorado.gov/initiatives/state-revenue-supporting-road-transportation-175 - Ballotpedia — Colorado Require Vehicle-Related and Fuel Tax Revenue to Be Used for Road Transportation Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Require_Vehicle-Related_and_Fuel_Tax_Revenue_to_Be_Used_for_Road_Transportation_Initiative_(2026) --- ## Florida Amendment 1: Changes to the Budget Stabilization Fund Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/fl/changes-to-the-budget-stabilization-fund-amendment/ - State: Florida (FL) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: legislative referral - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Government structure; Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Amendment 1 would change the constitutional rules for Florida's budget stabilization fund, the reserve the state draws on for emergencies and revenue shortfalls. It would raise the fund's maximum balance from 10 percent to 25 percent of the prior year's net general revenue collections, and would require the Legislature to move the lesser of $750 million or the amount needed to reach that cap into the fund each year. The Legislature could suspend that transfer, or withdraw money from the fund, only under conditions the amendment sets out, several of which require a two-thirds vote. Florida constitutional amendments take 60 percent voter approval to pass. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, ARTICLE III, SECTION 19. BUDGET STABILIZATION FUND.—Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to increase the amount of funds that may be retained in the budget stabilization fund from 10% to 25% of general revenue collections, require the legislature to transfer the lesser of $750 million or the amount required to reach 25% of the general revenue collections each year unless certain conditions are met, and allow the legislature to withdraw funds for critical state needs. ### Fiscal impact The Florida House of Representatives' final bill analysis of HJR 5019 states that the fiscal impact on the state is indeterminate but likely insignificant. Florida's Financial Impact Estimating Conference prepares statements for citizen initiatives; because this measure is a legislative referral, no such statement was issued. ### What supporters say - Ballotpedia reports that it has not located a campaign registered in support of the amendment. The Legislature referred it to voters on June 16, 2025, when the House passed HJR 5019 by 100-1 and the Senate passed it by 29-4. ### What opponents say - Ballotpedia reports that it has not located a campaign registered in opposition to the amendment. Four state senators voted against referring it to the ballot. ### Sources - Florida Division of Elections — Initiatives/Amendments/Revisions Database: Budget Stabilization Fund (Ballot Number 1, 2026): https://constitutionalinitiatives.dos.fl.gov/Home/InitDetail?account=10&seqnum=108 - Florida Division of Elections — Constitutional Amendments/Initiatives: https://dos.fl.gov/elections/laws-rules/constitutional-amendmentsinitiatives/ - Florida House of Representatives — Final Bill Analysis, CS/HJR 5019 (2025): https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/5019/Analyses/h5019z1.BUC.PDF - Ballotpedia — Florida Changes to Budget Stabilization Fund Amendment (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Changes_to_Budget_Stabilization_Fund_Amendment_(2026) --- ## Florida Amendment 2: Exemption of Tangible Personal Property on Agricultural Land from Taxation Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/fl/exemption-of-tangible-personal-property-on-agricultural-land-from-taxation-amend/ - State: Florida (FL) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: legislative referral - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Amendment 2 would exempt certain farm equipment and other tangible personal property from local property taxes. The exemption would apply to property that is habitually located or typically present on land classified as agricultural, that is used to produce agricultural products or for agritourism activities, and that is owned by the landowner or the leaseholder of that land. The Legislature could define and limit the exemption in state law. If voters approve it, the exemption would first apply to tax years beginning January 1, 2027. Florida constitutional amendments take 60 percent voter approval to pass. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, ARTICLE VII, SECTION 3, ARTICLE XII. EXEMPTION OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY ON AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM TAXATION.—Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to exempt tangible personal property habitually located or typically present on land classified as agricultural, used in the production of agricultural products or for agritourism activities, and owned by the landowner or leaseholder of the agricultural land from ad valorem taxation. If approved this amendment would first apply for tax years beginning January 1, 2027. ### Fiscal impact The Florida House of Representatives' final bill analysis of CS/HJR 1215 reports that the state Revenue Estimating Conference estimates the amendment, if approved by voters, would have a negative recurring impact on local government revenues of $31.0 million beginning in Fiscal Year 2027-28, and no impact if it fails. Florida's Financial Impact Estimating Conference prepares statements for citizen initiatives; because this measure is a legislative referral, no such statement was issued. ### What supporters say - Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson (R) says the amendment would end what he describes as multiple taxation of agricultural production, and told reporters that “food security is a national security issue” and that the change would strengthen the state's food supply chain and support farmers. ### What opponents say - State Rep. Anna Eskamani (D) says the measure carries roughly a $30 million fiscal impact for local governments with no guardrails against windfalls, and would mostly benefit a small number of large agribusinesses holding multiple tangible personal property accounts rather than smaller farmers and business owners. ### Sources - Florida Division of Elections — Initiatives/Amendments/Revisions Database: Exemption of Tangible Personal Property on Agricultural Land from Taxation (Ballot Number 2, 2026): https://constitutionalinitiatives.dos.fl.gov/Home/InitDetail?account=10&seqnum=109 - Florida Division of Elections — Constitutional Amendments/Initiatives: https://dos.fl.gov/elections/laws-rules/constitutional-amendmentsinitiatives/ - Florida House of Representatives — Final Bill Analysis, CS/HJR 1215 (2025): https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/1215/Analyses/h1215z.WMC.PDF - Ballotpedia — Florida Exempt Tangible Personal Property Used for Agriculture or Agritourism from Property Taxes Amendment (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Exempt_Tangible_Personal_Property_Used_for_Agriculture_or_Agritourism_from_Property_Taxes_Amendment_(2026) --- ## Florida Amendment 3: Increased Homestead Exemption and Lower Cap on Increases in Non-Homestead Property Assessments Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/fl/increased-homestead-exemption-and-lower-cap-on-increases-in-non-homestead-proper/ - State: Florida (FL) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: legislative referral - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Government structure; Housing; Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Amendment 3 would raise Florida's homestead exemption for all property taxes other than school district levies to the first $150,000 of assessed value in 2027 and the first $250,000 in 2028, adjusted for inflation after that. People who are not Florida residents on December 31, 2026 would receive the existing exemption first and the larger one beginning in their fifth year. The annual cap on assessment increases for non-homestead property, such as rentals and commercial buildings, would fall from 10 percent to 5 percent. Counties and municipalities could spend property tax revenue only on purposes the amendment lists. Florida constitutional amendments take 60 percent voter approval to pass. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) INCREASED HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION; LOWER CAP ON INCREASES IN NON-HOMESTEAD PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS.—This amendment increases the homestead exemption, for all non-school taxes, to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, and adjusts for inflation thereafter. It requires the Legislature to prescribe a uniform procedure for counties and municipalities, for their respective levies, to increase the homestead exemption up to full assessed value, and allows special districts, subject to referendum approval, to do the same. Persons who are not Florida residents on December 31, 2026, will receive the existing homestead exemption upon qualifying for a homestead exemption, with the increased homestead exemption beginning with the fifth year of exemption, to the extent permitted by the U.S. Constitution. This amendment reduces the annual cap on assessment increases for non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%. This amendment requires counties and municipalities to use property taxes solely for public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, natural resources, bond debt service, retirement benefits for employees, and operations and administration. Other expenditures may be approved by county officers or county or municipal governing bodies unless prohibited by general law, notwithstanding Article VII, Section 9(a) of the Florida Constitution, which allows counties and municipalities to levy property taxes for their respective purposes. This amendment takes effect January 1, 2027. ### Fiscal impact The Florida House of Representatives' final bill analysis of CS/HJR 1F reports that the state Revenue Estimating Conference estimated cash impacts on local non-school property tax revenues of -$4.95 billion in Fiscal Year 2027-28, with the $150,000 exemption in place, and -$8.78 billion in Fiscal Year 2028-29, with the $250,000 exemption in place. The recurring impact in all years is estimated at -$11.86 billion. The analysis describes the fiscal impact on the state itself as indeterminate but likely insignificant. Florida's Financial Impact Estimating Conference prepares statements for citizen initiatives; because this measure is a legislative referral, no such statement was issued. ### What supporters say - Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who called the June 2026 special session that referred the amendment, says property tax revenue collected by local governments has nearly doubled in seven years and is projected to reach $83 billion by 2032, and that Florida homeowners need relief. - State Sen. Bryan Avila (R-39) says the amendment provides relief for Florida families while protecting businesses from large assessment increases and safeguarding local funding for education, law enforcement and infrastructure. - Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia (R) says the complaints come from governments that would have to cut back, and that the state is siding with taxpayers rather than treating them as “an endless ATM.” - Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) says counties can absorb the reduction by cutting waste rather than critical services such as fire, police or schools. ### What opponents say (Vote No on 3, Floridians for Shared Prosperity, Inc., Florida Policy Institute, Audubon Florida) - Sadaf Knight, CEO of the Florida Policy Institute, says the measure is a cost shift rather than a cost saving, and would force local governments either to cut services families rely on or to raise other taxes and fees. - Bryan Desolge, chairperson of the committee campaigning against Amendment 3 and a former county commissioner, says bills for public safety, roads, bridges, stormwater protection and hurricane response do not go away, and that the change would shift those costs onto renters, homebuyers and small businesses. - Audubon Florida says the amendment does not define terms such as “natural resource projects,” and that local conservation land acquisition, land management and habitat restoration programs might not qualify for property tax funding as a result. - Mayor Donna Deegan (D-Jacksonville) says the reduction would lead to deteriorating roads, closures of libraries, pools and parks, slower public safety response times, and worsening housing affordability. - Plaintiffs in Save Our Voters from Misleading Ballot Language v. Byrd argued the Legislature's original ballot statement was biased, misleading and inaccurate. On August 3, 2026, Leon County Circuit Judge David Frank ruled the title and summary “clearly and conclusively defective” and ordered Attorney General James Uthmeier to submit corrected language; the Division of Elections now publishes the rewritten title and summary above. ### Sources - Florida Division of Elections — Initiatives/Amendments/Revisions Database: Increased Homestead Exemption; Lower Cap on Increases in Non-Homestead Property Assessments (Ballot Number 3, 2026): https://constitutionalinitiatives.dos.fl.gov/Home/InitDetail?account=10&seqnum=110 - Florida Division of Elections — Attorney General letter with rewritten title and summary for Amendment 3: https://initiativepetitions.dos.fl.gov/InitiativeForms/FulltextPDF/10-110_AG.pdf - Florida Division of Elections — Constitutional Amendments/Initiatives: https://dos.fl.gov/elections/laws-rules/constitutional-amendmentsinitiatives/ - Florida House of Representatives — Final Bill Analysis, CS/HJR 1F (2026 special session): https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2026F/1F/Analyses/h0001z.SAC.PDF - Ballotpedia — Florida Amendment 3, Homestead Tax Exemptions, Property Assessments, and Spending Restrictions Amendment (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_3,_Homestead_Tax_Exemptions,_Property_Assessments,_and_Spending_Restrictions_Amendment_(2026) - WCTV — Voters to see new, modified ballot language for Amendment 3 ahead of general election: https://www.wctv.tv/2026/08/14/voters-see-new-modified-ballot-language-amendment-3-ahead-general-election/ - Florida Policy Institute — Amendment 3: Property Tax Ballot Language Summary and Local Fiscal Impacts: https://www.floridapolicy.org/posts/florida-property-tax-amendment-ballot-language-summary - Audubon Florida — Property tax amendment on November ballot poses immediate and lasting threat to Florida's conservation lands: https://www.audubon.org/florida/news/property-tax-amendment-november-ballot-poses-immediate-and-lasting-threat-floridas --- ## Massachusetts Legislative Stipend Calculation and Payment Rules Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ma/legislative-stipend-calculation-and-payment-rules-initiative/ - State: Massachusetts (MA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: did not qualify - Topics: Government structure - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This initiative would have written into state law the limits on stipends Massachusetts legislators receive on top of their base salary, which is about $82,000. The Senate president and House speaker could have received up to 75 percent of base salary; party floor leaders and Ways and Means chairs up to 50 percent; certain assistant leaders, vice chairs and committee chairs up to 33 percent; and members of eligible committees up to 20 percent. It also limited how many stipends one legislator could draw. In April 2026 the Supreme Judicial Court advised that the proposal addressed internal legislative rules rather than a law, and the attorney general then barred it from the ballot. ### What supporters say (Act on Mass, Coalition to Reform Our Legislature) - Massachusetts Stipend Reform, the campaign behind the petition, said 149 of the state’s 200 legislators receive leadership stipends, that spending on them has quadrupled since 2015 to $5.4 million, and that leaders can grant or withdraw them at will. - Former State Rep. Jonathan Hecht (D) argued that legislators are financially dependent on leadership and that dependency discourages independent action. - State Auditor Diana DiZoglio (D), Act on Mass, Partners in Democracy and the Coalition to Reform Our Legislature supported the measure. ### What opponents say - A spokesperson for Senate President Karen Spilka (D) said it is inaccurate to describe the Senate’s stipend system as stifling debate, and that committee chairs do exceptional work. - Evan Horowitz of the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University questioned whether the rules would accomplish much, saying compliance could be gamed by steering the required number of bills to each stipend recipient. - The Massachusetts Senate challenged the petition before the Supreme Judicial Court, which issued an advisory opinion in April 2026 that the proposal concerned the internal rules of the Legislature and so was not a proper subject for an initiative petition. ### Sources - Massachusetts Elections Division, Secretary of the Commonwealth — Elections and Voting: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm - Massachusetts Attorney General — Ballot Initiatives Submitted for the 2026 Biennial Statewide Election: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ballot-initiatives-submitted-for-the-2026-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-laws-and-2028-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-constitutional-amendments - Ballotpedia — Massachusetts Legislative Stipend Calculation and Payment Rules Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Legislative_Stipend_Calculation_and_Payment_Rules_Initiative_(2026) - Boston Herald — SJC weighs in on legislative stipends, access to Legislature’s public records ballot questions: https://www.bostonherald.com/2026/04/27/sjc-weighs-in-on-legislative-stipends-access-to-legislatures-public-records-ballot-questions/ - Ballotpedia — Massachusetts 2026 ballot measures: https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_2026_ballot_measures --- ## Massachusetts Question 1: Question 1: Public Records Requirements for the Legislature and the Governor’s Office Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ma/question-1-public-records-requirements-for-the-legislature-and-the-governors-off/ - State: Massachusetts (MA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Civil rights; Government structure - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Question 1 would apply the Massachusetts public records law to records held by the state Legislature and the governor's office, which are exempt from that law today. Papers, correspondence, financial records and similar documents held by those offices would become subject to public records requests. The measure sets out two exceptions: records related to the development of policy positions by legislators or the governor, and communications between a legislator's office and constituents about a constituent's access to government services. Massachusetts is the only state where the legislature, the governor's office and the judiciary are all exempt from the public records law. ### What supporters say (Coalition for Healthy Democracy, Progressive Massachusetts, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts) - The Coalition for Healthy Democracy, which is running the campaign for Question 1, says Massachusetts is the only state that exempts the legislature, the governor and the judiciary from its public records law, and that the ballot question is the way to close that gap after repeated bills failed on Beacon Hill. - State Auditor Diana DiZoglio (D), who contributed $150,000 from her campaign account to the effort, says documents she has sought for an audit of the Legislature are public records at every other entity that follows the public records law, and that voters should be able to obtain them directly. - The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, Act on Mass, Progressive Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance have each said they support the measure. ### What opponents say - Senate President Karen Spilka (D) says the petition as written may not exclude confidential constituent information in every circumstance, and that much of a legislative office’s work involves personal matters such as immigration status or domestic abuse. - The Massachusetts Senate challenged the petition before the Supreme Judicial Court; in April 2026 the court declined to rule on it, saying it would wait to see whether voters approve the law. ### Sources - Massachusetts Elections Division, Secretary of the Commonwealth — Elections and Voting: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm - Massachusetts Elections Division — Ballot Question Numbers Assigned for November Ballot: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/news/left-story.htm - Massachusetts Attorney General — Ballot Initiatives Submitted for the 2026 Biennial Statewide Election: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ballot-initiatives-submitted-for-the-2026-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-laws-and-2028-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-constitutional-amendments - Massachusetts Attorney General — Petition 25-14: Initiative Petition for a Law to Improve Access to Public Records (full text): https://www.mass.gov/doc/25-14-initiative-petition-for-a-law-to-improve-access-to-public-records/download - Ballotpedia — Massachusetts Question 1, Public Records Requirements for Legislature and Governor’s Office Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_1,_Public_Records_Requirements_for_Legislature_and_Governor%E2%80%99s_Office_Initiative_(2026) - WBUR — Mass. is set to see 9 ballot questions this fall. One in particular could upend how Beacon Hill works: https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/08/03/massachusetts-ballot-question-1-public-records - Boston Herald — SJC weighs in on legislative stipends, access to Legislature’s public records ballot questions: https://www.bostonherald.com/2026/04/27/sjc-weighs-in-on-legislative-stipends-access-to-legislatures-public-records-ballot-questions/ --- ## Massachusetts Question 2: Question 2: Collective Bargaining for Committee for Public Counsel Services Employees Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ma/question-2-collective-bargaining-for-committee-for-public-counsel-services-emplo/ - State: Massachusetts (MA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Criminal justice; Labor and wages - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Question 2 would add employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the state agency that employs Massachusetts public defenders, to the list of public employees allowed to bargain collectively under state labor law. A 2015 attempt to organize the agency’s staff was rejected on the ground that those employees were not named in the law establishing public-sector bargaining rights. The measure would also require the agency to ask the governor for the funding needed for a collective bargaining agreement within 30 days after entering into one. ### What supporters say (SEIU Local 888, American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts, Progressive Massachusetts) - SEIU Local 888 President Tom McKeever says roughly 180 other state agencies already have the right to bargain collectively while the Committee for Public Counsel Services does not, and that its staff want the same rights as other state employees. - The American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts says a 2015 organizing petition was denied only because these employees were not explicitly listed in the state’s collective bargaining law, and that a yes vote would add them to that list. - The National Association of Government Employees and Progressive Massachusetts have said they support the measure. ### What opponents say - Ballotpedia reports that it has not located an organized campaign or published arguments opposing Question 2 as of August 2026. ### Sources - Massachusetts Elections Division, Secretary of the Commonwealth — Elections and Voting: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm - Massachusetts Elections Division — Ballot Question Numbers Assigned for November Ballot: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/news/left-story.htm - Massachusetts Attorney General — Ballot Initiatives Submitted for the 2026 Biennial Statewide Election: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ballot-initiatives-submitted-for-the-2026-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-laws-and-2028-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-constitutional-amendments - Massachusetts Attorney General — Petition 25-22: Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Labor Relations Policies for Committee for Public Counsel Services Employees (full text): https://www.mass.gov/doc/25-22-initiative-petition-for-a-law-relative-to-labor-relations-policies-for-committee-for-public-counsel-services-employees/download - Ballotpedia — Massachusetts Question 2, Permit Collective Bargaining for Committee for Public Counsel Services Employees Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_2,_Permit_Collective_Bargaining_for_Committee_for_Public_Counsel_Services_Employees_Initiative_(2026) - Boston.com — These 9 statewide ballot questions will be up for a vote in November: https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2026/07/21/there-9-ballot-questions-will-be-up-for-a-vote-in-november/ --- ## Massachusetts Question 3: Question 3: All-Party (Top-Two) State Primary Elections Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ma/question-3-all-party-top-two-state-primary-elections-initiative/ - State: Massachusetts (MA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Elections and voting; Government structure - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Question 3 would end party primaries for state and county offices in Massachusetts and replace them with a single primary in which every candidate appears on one ballot regardless of party. All registered voters could take part, and the two candidates with the most votes would advance to the general election. Candidates for governor and lieutenant governor would run as a pair. Ballots would show each candidate’s party or political designation, and could note a party endorsement if the candidate and the party both request it. The presidential primary would not change. The law would take effect January 1, 2028. ### What supporters say (Coalition for Healthy Democracy) - The Coalition for Healthy Democracy, which is running the campaign and is convened by Danielle Allen, says primaries in Massachusetts are often uncontested and that an all-party primary would increase competition and turnout. - Former Governor Deval Patrick (D), former state treasurer Steven Grossman (D), State Auditor Diana DiZoglio (D), U.S. Reps. Jake Auchincloss (D) and Seth Moulton (D), and former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey have endorsed the measure, as have Partners in Democracy, the Election Reformers Network and Veterans for All Voters. - The Lowell Sun editorial board wrote that the current primary process excludes voters and can favor candidates who appeal mainly to activists. ### What opponents say (Voter Rights MA, American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts, Progressive Massachusetts) - Voter Rights MA, the committee opposing Question 3, says the measure is funded by a small number of wealthy donors and points to California, where it argues voters felt pressure to abandon their preferred candidate to avoid a party being shut out of the general election. - Massachusetts Republican Party Chair Amy Carnevale says the existing party primary system is what lets voters choose between two competing political philosophies in November; the state party has formally voted to oppose the measure, as has the Democratic Party of Massachusetts. - The American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts argues that in top-two states the two finalists are consistently the best-funded candidates, which it says increases the role of money and weakens grassroots campaigns. - Two Democratic State Committee members, Martina Jackson and Ann Roosevelt, sued to keep the question off the ballot, arguing a two-candidate general election narrows the range of ideas voters can consider; the Supreme Judicial Court rejected the challenge in June 2026. ### Sources - Massachusetts Elections Division, Secretary of the Commonwealth — Elections and Voting: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm - Massachusetts Elections Division — Ballot Question Numbers Assigned for November Ballot: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/news/left-story.htm - Massachusetts Attorney General — Ballot Initiatives Submitted for the 2026 Biennial Statewide Election: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ballot-initiatives-submitted-for-the-2026-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-laws-and-2028-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-constitutional-amendments - Massachusetts Attorney General — Petition 25-12: Initiative Petition for a Law to Implement All-Party State Primaries (full text): https://www.mass.gov/doc/25-12-initiative-petition-for-a-law-to-implement-all-party-state-primaries-version-b/download - Ballotpedia — Massachusetts Question 3, Top-Two Primary Elections Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_3,_Top-Two_Primary_Elections_Initiative_(2026) - WBUR — Court OKs ballot question that would eliminate party primaries in Mass.: https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/06/22/all-party-primary-mass-sjc-november-ballot - WBUR — Mass. Democrats and unions launch campaign against all-party primary ballot question: https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/08/07/all-party-primary-question-3-democrats-campaign - GBH News — High court clears ballot question that would eliminate party-based primaries: https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2026-06-22/high-court-clears-ballot-question-that-would-eliminate-party-based-primaries --- ## Massachusetts Question 4: Question 4: Election Day (Same-Day) Voter Registration Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ma/question-4-election-day-same-day-voter-registration-initiative/ - State: Massachusetts (MA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Elections and voting - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Question 4 would let eligible Massachusetts residents register to vote and cast a ballot on Election Day at their polling place. A person would show proof of residency, such as a driver’s license, utility bill, bank statement, lease or student fee statement, and sign a sworn statement that they are a citizen, are at least 18, and are not otherwise barred from voting. Someone without proof of residency could cast a provisional ballot and return with documentation within a set number of days. State law now closes registration 10 days before an election. Election Day registrants would remain registered for later elections. ### What supporters say (YES on Election Day Voter Registration, Progressive Massachusetts, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts) - Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin (D), who filed the petition after the Legislature declined to act over several sessions, says Election Day registration would reduce work for local election officials by cutting the number of provisional ballots that have to be checked after the polls close. - The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, Progressive Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts have said they support the measure. ### What opponents say - Chester Tam (R), a candidate for state representative in the 9th Bristol District, says he is voting no because last-minute registration raises the risk of errors and makes verification harder, and that a fixed deadline gives officials time to keep voter rolls accurate. - Ballotpedia reports that some local election officials have raised concerns about the additional work Election Day registration would create at the polls, and that no committee had registered in opposition as of May 2026. ### Sources - Massachusetts Elections Division, Secretary of the Commonwealth — Elections and Voting: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm - Massachusetts Elections Division — Ballot Question Numbers Assigned for November Ballot: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/news/left-story.htm - Massachusetts Attorney General — Ballot Initiatives Submitted for the 2026 Biennial Statewide Election: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ballot-initiatives-submitted-for-the-2026-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-laws-and-2028-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-constitutional-amendments - Massachusetts Attorney General — Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Election Day Registration (full text): https://www.mass.gov/doc/initiative-petition-for-a-law-relative-to-election-day-registration/download - Ballotpedia — Massachusetts Question 4, Permit Same-Day Voter Registration Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_4,_Permit_Same-Day_Voter_Registration_Initiative_(2026) - Boston.com — These 9 statewide ballot questions will be up for a vote in November: https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2026/07/21/there-9-ballot-questions-will-be-up-for-a-vote-in-november/ --- ## Massachusetts Question 5: Question 5: Limiting State Tax Collection Growth and Returning Surpluses to Taxpayers Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ma/question-5-limiting-state-tax-collection-growth-and-returning-surpluses-to-taxpa/ - State: Massachusetts (MA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Government structure; Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Question 5 would change how Massachusetts calculates the annual cap on state tax collections set by Chapter 62F, the 1986 voter-approved law that requires collections above the cap to be refunded to taxpayers. The cap is now the prior year’s cap increased by the three-year average growth in Massachusetts wages and salaries. Under the measure, the cap would instead start from the tax revenue actually collected in the prior year and grow by that same wage measure. The measure would also count revenue from the 4 percent surtax on income above $1 million, approved by voters in 2022, toward the capped total. ### What supporters say (Massachusetts Opportunity Alliance, Massachusetts High Technology Council, Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance) - Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, says exclusions in the current law, particularly the carve-out for surtax revenue, mean the cap has been triggered only twice in 40 years, and that the measure restores the taxpayer protection voters approved in 1986. - The Massachusetts Opportunity Alliance says that under the revised formula, taxpayers would have received refunds 24 times in the past four decades, amounting to nearly $19 billion. - Jim Stergios, executive director of the Pioneer Institute, argues that controlling state spending and returning money to residents is needed to keep people and businesses in Massachusetts. ### What opponents say (Protect Massachusetts’ Future, Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts) - Protect Massachusetts’ Future, the committee opposing the measure, says it and a companion income tax cut would strip billions of dollars from schools, hospitals and research and force layoffs of teachers, police officers and firefighters. - Phineas Baxandall of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center argues that basing the cap on actual collections creates a ratcheting effect, so any year of slow revenue growth permanently lowers the base for later years. - The American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts says the measure would undercut the 2022 surtax by forcing surtax revenue to be refunded during periods of high inflation and unemployment. - The Massachusetts Teachers Association, several SEIU locals, the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts and Senate President Karen Spilka (D) oppose the measure. ### Sources - Massachusetts Elections Division, Secretary of the Commonwealth — Elections and Voting: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm - Massachusetts Elections Division — Ballot Question Numbers Assigned for November Ballot: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/news/left-story.htm - Massachusetts Attorney General — Ballot Initiatives Submitted for the 2026 Biennial Statewide Election: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ballot-initiatives-submitted-for-the-2026-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-laws-and-2028-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-constitutional-amendments - Massachusetts Attorney General — Petition 25-17: Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Limiting State Tax Collection Growth and Returning Surpluses to Taxpayers (full text): https://www.mass.gov/doc/25-17-initiative-petition-for-a-law-relative-to-limiting-state-tax-collection-growth-and-returning-surpluses-to-taxpayers/download - Ballotpedia — Massachusetts Question 5, Change State Tax Revenue Limit Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_5,_Change_State_Tax_Revenue_Limit_Initiative_(2026) - WBUR — Two proposed 2026 ballot questions could upend state revenue plans: https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/10/20/2026-ballot-questions-state-revenue-budget-cuts --- ## Massachusetts Question 6: Question 6: Protect Water and Nature — Nature for All Fund Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ma/question-6-protect-water-and-nature-nature-for-all-fund-initiative/ - State: Massachusetts (MA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Energy and environment; Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Question 6 would create a Nature for All Fund in the state treasury for natural resource conservation, administered by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs with a 15-member oversight commission. Half of the state sales and use tax revenue collected on sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf would be deposited in the fund, rising to all of that revenue after July 1, 2028. The measure would not create a new tax; it would redirect money that now goes to the General Fund. Government agencies, public charities and tribal governments could receive money from the fund for land, water and habitat protection. ### What supporters say (Nature for Massachusetts, Mass Audubon) - Mass Audubon says that setting aside part of the revenue already collected from the sales tax on sporting goods would dedicate more than $100 million a year to conservation without any increase in taxes. - Nature for Massachusetts, the campaign committee behind the measure, says conserving forests, wildlife habitat and natural areas reduces runoff into lakes, rivers and streams and helps protect drinking water quality. - Katie Theoharides, CEO of The Trustees, says the state has a limited window to protect its remaining large tracts of open space before they are developed. - The Nature Conservancy, the Conservation Law Foundation, the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, the Trust for Public Land and REI are among the coalition backing the measure. ### What opponents say - Ballotpedia reports that it has not located an organized campaign or published arguments opposing Question 6 as of August 2026. - Ballotpedia notes that lawmakers declined to enact the proposal and that the Legislature could choose not to appropriate money from the new fund even if voters approve it. ### Sources - Massachusetts Elections Division, Secretary of the Commonwealth — Elections and Voting: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm - Massachusetts Elections Division — Ballot Question Numbers Assigned for November Ballot: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/news/left-story.htm - Massachusetts Attorney General — Ballot Initiatives Submitted for the 2026 Biennial Statewide Election: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ballot-initiatives-submitted-for-the-2026-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-laws-and-2028-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-constitutional-amendments - Massachusetts Attorney General — Petition 25-15: Initiative Petition for a Law to Protect Water & Nature (full text): https://www.mass.gov/doc/25-15-initiative-petition-for-a-law-to-protect-water-nature-version-a/download - Ballotpedia — Massachusetts Question 6, Establish the Nature for All Fund Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_6,_Establish_the_Nature_for_All_Fund_Initiative_(2026) - Mass Audubon — Bringing Nature to the Ballot: https://www.massaudubon.org/take-action/advocate/nature-for-ma - WCVB — Massachusetts 2026 certified ballot questions: https://www.wcvb.com/article/massachusetts-2026-certified-ballot-questions/69919153 --- ## Massachusetts Question 7: Question 7: Allow Single-Family Homes on Small Lots in Areas with Adequate Infrastructure Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ma/question-7-allow-single-family-homes-on-small-lots-in-areas-with-adequate-infras/ - State: Massachusetts (MA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Housing - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Question 7 would require Massachusetts cities and towns to allow single-family homes on residentially zoned lots of at least 5,000 square feet that have at least 50 feet of frontage on a street or public way and access to public water and sewer service. Municipalities could not require a special permit or discretionary approval for such homes in residential districts. The state Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities could issue guidelines on matters such as setbacks, building size and height, and short-term rentals. Many Massachusetts residential districts currently set minimum lot sizes between half an acre and two acres. ### What supporters say (Legalize Starter Homes, Abundant Housing Massachusetts) - Legalize Starter Homes, the campaign behind the measure, says it was drafted from existing state law and from research finding that large minimum lot sizes make Massachusetts homes scarcer and more expensive. - Andrew Mikula, senior housing fellow at the Pioneer Institute, says allowing homes on smaller lots facilitates construction of smaller, lower-cost houses and more of them, which he ties to outmigration of young people. - Abundant Housing Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Association of REALTORS, the Home Builders & Remodelers Association of Massachusetts, the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, Progressive Massachusetts and U.S. Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D) support the measure. ### What opponents say (Massachusetts Municipal Association) - Adam Chapdelaine, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, says zoning decisions are inherently local and that a one-size-fits-all state rule strips local residents and officials of their role. - The Massachusetts Municipal Association says the petition requires access to public water and sewer but not available capacity, and that many municipal systems are already at or near capacity; it also notes the measure does not require the new homes to be affordable. ### Sources - Massachusetts Elections Division, Secretary of the Commonwealth — Elections and Voting: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm - Massachusetts Elections Division — Ballot Question Numbers Assigned for November Ballot: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/news/left-story.htm - Massachusetts Attorney General — Ballot Initiatives Submitted for the 2026 Biennial Statewide Election: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ballot-initiatives-submitted-for-the-2026-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-laws-and-2028-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-constitutional-amendments - Massachusetts Attorney General — Initiative Petition for a Law to Allow Single-Family Homes on Small Lots in Areas with Adequate Infrastructure (full text): https://www.mass.gov/doc/initiative-petition-for-a-law-to-allow-single-family-homes-on-small-lots-in-areas-with-adequate-infrastructure/download - Ballotpedia — Massachusetts Question 7, Limit on Required Lot Size for Single-Family Homes Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_7,_Limit_on_Required_Lot_Size_for_Single-Family_Homes_Initiative_(2026) - Massachusetts Municipal Association — MMA testifies at hearing on starter home ballot initiative: https://www.mma.org/mma-testifies-at-hearing-on-starter-home-ballot-initiative/ --- ## Massachusetts Question 8: Question 8: Regulating Marijuana — Eliminate Recreational Sales Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ma/question-8-regulating-marijuana-eliminate-recreational-sales-initiative/ - State: Massachusetts (MA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Criminal justice; Marijuana and drug policy; Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Question 8 would repeal the Massachusetts laws that license and tax recreational marijuana sales, ending the regulated adult-use market, the state marijuana tax and the local option tax, and would also repeal the law permitting home cultivation. The medical marijuana program would continue, and the Cannabis Control Commission would regulate medical use only. Adults 21 and older could still possess up to one ounce without penalty; possession of one to two ounces would carry a $100 civil fine. People under 21 found with less than two ounces would pay a fine and attend a drug awareness program. Voters legalized recreational sales in 2016. ### What supporters say (Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, Smart Approaches to Marijuana) - The Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, which is running the campaign for Question 8, says the Cannabis Control Commission has been marked by mismanagement and regulatory noncompliance, and that a state audit found contaminated products reaching consumers. - The Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts cites a 2025 study reporting increases in cannabis use and cannabis-related disorders among adolescents after commercial sales began, particularly among teenagers with psychiatric vulnerabilities. - Wendy Wakeman, a spokesperson for the coalition, says the illicit market has not disappeared as legalization supporters predicted. - Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a national group opposed to commercial legalization, supports the measure. ### What opponents say (Stop the Repeal, Marijuana Policy Project, Progressive Massachusetts) - Stop the Repeal, the campaign opposing Question 8, says a no vote protects state and local revenue that funds schools, housing, transportation and health care, along with roughly 20,000 jobs and existing consumer safety rules. - Caroline Pineau, a dispensary owner, says the initiative would eliminate more than 14,000 Massachusetts jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in state and local tax revenue, and would replace a regulated industry with an unregulated street market. - The Marijuana Policy Project says legal cannabis is tested and labeled, that cannabis arrests are down nearly 90 percent, and that youth cannabis use has fallen 25 percent since legalization. - Fitchburg Mayor Samantha Squailia says repeal would be costly for communities that rely on cannabis revenue; Progressive Massachusetts and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts also oppose the measure. ### Sources - Massachusetts Elections Division, Secretary of the Commonwealth — Elections and Voting: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm - Massachusetts Elections Division — Ballot Question Numbers Assigned for November Ballot: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/news/left-story.htm - Massachusetts Attorney General — Ballot Initiatives Submitted for the 2026 Biennial Statewide Election: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ballot-initiatives-submitted-for-the-2026-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-laws-and-2028-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-constitutional-amendments - Massachusetts Attorney General — Petition 25-10: Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Regulating Marijuana (full text): https://www.mass.gov/doc/25-10-initiative-petition-for-a-law-relative-to-regulating-marijuana-version-b/download - Ballotpedia — Massachusetts Question 8, Eliminate Recreational Marijuana Sales and Allow Limited Possession Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_8,_Eliminate_Recreational_Marijuana_Sales_and_Allow_Limited_Possession_Initiative_(2026) - Marijuana Moment — Massachusetts initiative to roll back marijuana legalization officially qualifies for November ballot: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/massachusetts-initiative-to-roll-back-marijuana-legalization-officially-qualifies-for-november-ballot/ - Marijuana Moment — Massachusetts Supreme Court rejects challenge to marijuana legalization rollback ballot initiative: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/massachusetts-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-marijuana-legalization-rollback-ballot-initiative/ - GBH News — Massachusetts supporters of cannabis law gather to stop the repeal: https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2026-06-25/massachusetts-supporters-of-cannabis-law-gather-to-stop-the-repeal --- ## Massachusetts Question 9: Question 9: Referendum on an Act Modernizing Firearm Laws (Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024) - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ma/question-9-referendum-on-an-act-modernizing-firearm-laws-chapter-135-of-the-acts/ - State: Massachusetts (MA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: referendum - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Civil rights; Criminal justice; Public safety - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Question 9 is a veto referendum on Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024, An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws, which the Legislature passed and Governor Maura Healey signed in July 2024. A yes vote would keep the law in place; a no vote would repeal it. The law replaced the state’s assault weapon ban with a broader ban on assault-style firearms, required a safety certificate to obtain a firearm license, required serial numbers and an electronic registration system, restricted carrying firearms in schools, government buildings and polling places, and expanded who may ask a court for an extreme risk protection order. ### What supporters say (Yes for a Safe MA) - The Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports a yes vote, says the law gives the state more tools to address what it calls a public health crisis, and that it is committed to protecting the law from repeal. - Governor Maura Healey (D), who signed the bill, has said she opposes suspending or repealing it. - The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, Progressive Massachusetts and the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts support upholding the law. ### What opponents say (The Civil Rights Coalition) - The Civil Rights Coalition, chaired by Cape Gun Works co-owner Toby Leary, is campaigning for a no vote and says gun rights are civil rights and that allowing the right to keep and bear arms to be eroded puts other enumerated rights at risk. - Opponents gathered more than 90,000 signatures in 2024 to force the referendum; the coalition has also objected that Governor Healey’s emergency preamble let the law take effect immediately instead of being suspended pending the vote. - The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action has characterized the law as radical gun control. ### Sources - Massachusetts Elections Division, Secretary of the Commonwealth — Elections and Voting: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm - Massachusetts Elections Division — Ballot Question Numbers Assigned for November Ballot: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/news/left-story.htm - Massachusetts General Court — Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024, An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2024/Chapter135 - Ballotpedia — Massachusetts Question 9, Firearm Regulations Referendum (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_9,_Firearm_Regulations_Referendum_(2026) - Associated Press — Massachusetts gun law repeal effort: https://apnews.com/article/massachusetts-gun-law-repeal-fdd852d2582b7eb5b752c7091a658850 - Boston.com — These 9 statewide ballot questions will be up for a vote in November: https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2026/07/21/there-9-ballot-questions-will-be-up-for-a-vote-in-november/ --- ## Massachusetts Reduce the State Personal Income Tax Rate to 4% Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ma/reduce-the-state-personal-income-tax-rate-to-4-initiative/ - State: Massachusetts (MA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: did not qualify - Topics: Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This initiative would have lowered the Massachusetts personal income tax rate in stages, from 5 percent to 4.67 percent for tax year 2027, 4.33 percent for 2028, and 4 percent for 2029 and later years. The reduction would have applied both to income from interest and dividends and to other personal income such as wages and salaries. On June 18, 2026, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the attorney general’s ballot summary was misleading because it did not disclose that the measure would also cut the tax on long-term capital gains, and barred the question from the November 3, 2026 ballot. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) This proposed law would, over a period of three years, lower the tax rates on (1) personal taxable income consisting of interest and dividends, and (2) personal taxable income other than interest, dividends or capital gain income, such as wages and salaries. Both tax rates were 5.00% for tax year 2024. The proposed law would set both tax rates at 4.67% for tax year 2027, 4.33% for tax year 2028, and 4.00% beginning in tax year 2029. The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. ### What supporters say (Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, Massachusetts High Technology Council) - Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, the committee that led the campaign, described the cut as a response to the state’s affordability and competitiveness problems. - Jim Stergios, executive director of the Pioneer Institute, argued that a one-percentage-point income tax cut phased in over three years did not cause a sharp revenue drop when Massachusetts last cut the rate, and would not now. - The Massachusetts High Technology Council, the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership, the National Federation of Independent Business and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts backed the measure. ### What opponents say (Protect Massachusetts’ Future, Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center) - A group of union members sued in January 2026, arguing the attorney general’s summary failed to tell voters the measure would also reduce the tax on long-term capital gains; the Supreme Judicial Court agreed and kept the question off the ballot. - Protect Massachusetts’ Future and the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center argued that the income tax cut, together with the revenue-cap question, would remove close to 12 percent of state revenue and force cuts to education, health care and local services. - Legislative leaders said deep cuts to services would be required if the measure passed, and in June 2026 the Legislature scaled back separate business tax changes to limit the budget impact if it did. ### Sources - Massachusetts Elections Division, Secretary of the Commonwealth — Elections and Voting: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm - Massachusetts Attorney General — Ballot Initiatives Submitted for the 2026 Biennial Statewide Election: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ballot-initiatives-submitted-for-the-2026-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-laws-and-2028-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-constitutional-amendments - Ballotpedia — Massachusetts Decrease State Income Tax Rate to 4% Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Decrease_State_Income_Tax_Rate_to_4%25_Initiative_(2026) - Ballotpedia — Massachusetts 2026 ballot measures: https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_2026_ballot_measures - WBUR — Two proposed 2026 ballot questions could upend state revenue plans: https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/10/20/2026-ballot-questions-state-revenue-budget-cuts --- ## Massachusetts Statewide Rent Increase Limit (Rent Control) Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/ma/statewide-rent-increase-limit-rent-control-initiative/ - State: Massachusetts (MA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: did not qualify - Topics: Housing - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This initiative would have capped annual rent increases for residential units across Massachusetts at the change in the Consumer Price Index or 5 percent, whichever was lower, using the rent in effect on January 31, 2026 as the base. The cap would have applied whether or not the tenant changed. Owner-occupied buildings with fewer than five units, units first occupied within the previous 10 years, short-term lodging, housing whose rent is already regulated by a public authority, and facilities operated solely for educational, religious or nonprofit purposes would have been exempt. On June 23, 2026 the Supreme Judicial Court barred the question from the ballot. ### What supporters say (Homes for All Massachusetts, Keep Massachusetts Home) - Homes for All Massachusetts and Keep Massachusetts Home, the coalitions that led the campaign, argued that a statewide cap would stabilize communities and protect tenants from steep rent increases. - Noemi Ramos, executive director of the New England Community Project, said organizers had held tens of thousands of conversations with voters to counter what she described as real estate industry messaging. - Boston Mayor Michelle Wu said she considered the measure imperfect but would support it, citing housing affordability; the Massachusetts Teachers Association and several SEIU locals also backed it. ### What opponents say (Housing for Massachusetts, Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation) - Governor Maura Healey (D) opposed the measure, saying studies indicate rent control effectively halts housing production. - Housing for Massachusetts, the opposition campaign, called it the most extreme rent control proposal in the country; a group of 12 mayors, including Worcester Mayor Joseph Petty, opposed it on the grounds it would slow housing production and reduce municipal tax bases. - The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation said passage would worsen the housing shortage and degrade existing housing stock. - The Supreme Judicial Court disallowed the question on June 23, 2026, holding that its exemption for facilities operated solely for religious purposes would require the government to decide whether a facility is religious, which the court found incompatible with the Massachusetts Constitution. ### Sources - Massachusetts Elections Division, Secretary of the Commonwealth — Elections and Voting: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm - Massachusetts Attorney General — Ballot Initiatives Submitted for the 2026 Biennial Statewide Election: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ballot-initiatives-submitted-for-the-2026-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-laws-and-2028-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-constitutional-amendments - Ballotpedia — Massachusetts Rent Control Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2026) - Ballotpedia — Massachusetts 2026 ballot measures: https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_2026_ballot_measures - Boston.com — These 9 statewide ballot questions will be up for a vote in November: https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2026/07/21/there-9-ballot-questions-will-be-up-for-a-vote-in-november/ --- ## Michigan Additional Tax on Income Over $1 Million to Fund Public Schools Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/mi/additional-tax-on-income-over-1-million-to-fund-public-schools-amendment/ - State: Michigan (MI) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: Withdrawn - Topics: Taxes and revenue; Education - Last updated: 2026-09-02 ### What it does This proposed constitutional amendment, campaigned as "Invest in MI Kids," would have added a surtax of up to 5 percent on annual taxable income above $1 million for joint filers or $500,000 for single filers, on top of Michigan's existing flat income tax, with the proceeds directed to public school districts. The coalition behind it, including the Detroit-based group 482 Forward, estimated it would raise about $1.7 billion a year. Organizers collected just under 250,000 signatures, short of the 446,198 required, and suspended the campaign in March 2026, saying they did not see a path to gathering the rest in time for the 2026 ballot. ### What supporters say (482 Forward) - Molly Sweeney, director of 482 Forward, a Detroit organization involved in the coalition, said Michigan schools have been consistently underfunded and forced to do more with less every year, and that the coalition decided to pursue a citizen-led ballot initiative to raise new revenue for schools. ### What opponents say - The Michigan Chamber, which commissioned a Tax Foundation study on the proposal, said the surtax would have affected small and medium-sized businesses structured as pass-through entities, such as sole proprietorships and LLCs, resulting in fewer jobs, lower wages, and reduced competitiveness. - Political strategist John Sellek of Harbor Strategic Affairs said he was skeptical the measure would resonate with voters, citing past unsuccessful graduated-income-tax proposals and voters' rejection of roughly half of the school bond requests on recent ballots. ### Sources - MI Chamber — Constitutional tax amendment campaign suspends effort: https://www.michamber.com/news/748263/ - Bridge Michigan — Tax the rich to pay for schools? Michigan voters may get chance in 2026: https://bridgemi.com/talent-education/tax-rich-pay-schools-michigan-voters-may-get-chance-2026/ - Ballotpedia — Michigan 2026 ballot measures: https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_2026_ballot_measures --- ## Michigan Citizenship Verification and Voter Identification Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/mi/citizenship-verification-and-voter-identification-amendment/ - State: Michigan (MI) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: did not qualify - Topics: Elections and voting; Civil rights - Last updated: 2026-09-02 ### What it does This proposed constitutional amendment would have required new voters to prove U.S. citizenship when registering, and required existing voters to prove citizenship if the state could not independently verify it, creating two categories of voter rolls as several other states already do. It would have removed the option to sign an affidavit in place of photo ID and created a state-funded program to help voters obtain qualifying identification. Sponsors submitted more than 700,000 signatures, well over the 446,198 required, but the Board of State Canvassers deadlocked 2-2 on August 24, 2026 on whether enough were valid, leaving the amendment off the November ballot pending an appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. ### What supporters say (Americans for Citizen Voting, Liberty Initiative Fund) - Americans for Citizen Voting, an effort of the Virginia-based Liberty Initiative Fund, says the amendment would strengthen confidence in Michigan elections; Liberty Initiative Fund president Paul Jacob called the board's deadlock a "travesty" based on partisan politics rather than the will of Michigan voters and said the group would appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court and, if needed, the U.S. Supreme Court. - Former Michigan Secretary of State and state Sen. Ruth Johnson (R), a supporter, pointed to the volume of signatures gathered as evidence of the amendment's popularity. ### What opponents say (Promote the Vote Action) - Promote the Vote Action, a voting-rights group that challenged signatures in the sample review, says Michigan voters have repeatedly supported modernizing elections and removing barriers to the ballot box rather than adding new ones; spokesperson Micheal Davis Jr. made that argument during the certification proceedings. - Democratic Board of State Canvassers member Mary Ellen Gurewitz called the petition drive "sloppy" and said it put the board in a difficult position when reviewing which signatures were valid. ### Sources - Michigan Secretary of State — Board of State Canvassers: https://www.michigan.gov/sos/elections/bsc - Votebeat Michigan — Proof-of-citizenship amendment fails to make November ballot, for now: https://www.votebeat.org/michigan/2026/08/25/proof-of-citizenship-americans-for-citizen-voting-amendment-deadlock/ - ClickOnDetroit (WDIV) — Group behind blocked citizen voting initiative seeks intervention from Michigan Supreme Court: https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2026/08/28/group-behind-blocked-citizen-voting-initiative-seeking-intervention-from-michigan-supreme-court/ - Ballotpedia — Michigan 2026 ballot measures: https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_2026_ballot_measures --- ## Michigan Proposal 1: Constitutional Convention Question - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/mi/constitutional-convention-question/ - State: Michigan (MI) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: referendum - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Government structure - Last updated: 2026-09-02 ### What it does Article XII of the Michigan Constitution automatically puts this question on the ballot every 16 years, regardless of whether any lawmaker or campaign asks for it. It asks voters whether to convene a convention of elected delegates in 2027 to draft a general revision of the state constitution. A "yes" vote does not rewrite the constitution itself; it authorizes electing delegates who would draft a revised document, which would then return to voters in a separate election for approval or rejection. Michigan voters have rejected this same question at every prior automatic referral: 1978, 1994, and 2010. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) A PROPOSAL TO CONVENE A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DRAFTING A GENERAL REVISION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION Shall a convention of elected delegates be convened in 2027 to draft a general revision of the State Constitution for presentation to the state's voters for their approval or rejection? ### What supporters say - State Rep. Matt Hall (R), Michigan House Speaker, says the constitution has accumulated provisions through many separate amendments over the years, some of which had unintended consequences the public is frustrated about, and that a convention could produce a simpler document. - State Sen. Aric Nesbitt (R) says there are a lot of things about state government that should be discussed and that the constitution could be simpler than it currently is. ### What opponents say (Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests) - Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests, a coalition including the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Michigan AFL-CIO, Michigan Education Association, Business Leaders for Michigan, the League of Women Voters of Michigan, and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, opposes the question. - Lisa Wozniak, CEO and president of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, says voters have rejected a constitutional convention by wide margins every time it has come to a vote, and that opening the entire constitution would let political insiders and well-funded interests take power away from Michigan voters. - Ron Bieber, president of the Michigan AFL-CIO, says reopening the entire constitution risks letting the process be hijacked in ways that would make it harder for everyday Michiganders to be heard. - Wendy Block, senior vice president of business advocacy at the Michigan Chamber, says most constitutional issues can be addressed without reopening the entire document, and that a convention carries no guarantee of a better outcome given the potential for outside and special-interest influence. ### Sources - Michigan Secretary of State — Board of State Canvassers: https://www.michigan.gov/sos/elections/bsc - Michigan Secretary of State — Elections: https://www.michigan.gov/sos/elections - Ballotpedia — Michigan Constitutional Convention Question (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Constitutional_Convention_Question_(2026) - Votebeat Michigan — Michigan will vote on whether to hold a constitutional convention in the 2026 election: https://www.votebeat.org/michigan/2026/07/09/constitutional-convention-concon-proposal-1-explained/ - Bridge Michigan — Time to rewrite the Michigan Constitution? Voters will decide 2026 ballot proposal: https://bridgemi.com/michigan-government/time-rewrite-michigan-constitution-voters-will-decide-2026-ballot-proposal/ --- ## Michigan Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/mi/ranked-choice-voting-amendment/ - State: Michigan (MI) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: Withdrawn - Topics: Elections and voting - Last updated: 2026-09-02 ### What it does This proposed constitutional amendment would have required ranked-choice voting in most Michigan congressional, state, and local elections, letting voters rank candidates in order of preference instead of choosing only one. Sponsor Rank MI Vote launched signature collection in July 2025 with a six-month window to gather the roughly 446,198 valid signatures needed, but paused the drive in January 2026 after falling more than 200,000 signatures short. The organization says it is regrouping rather than ending its campaign permanently and may pursue the amendment again for a future election. ### What supporters say (Rank MI Vote) - Rank MI Vote, the sponsoring organization founded in 2019, says ranked-choice voting would let Michiganders vote their hopes rather than their fears, and describes its movement as strong and far from finished despite pausing the 2026 signature drive. ### Sources - Rank MI Vote — Statement on 2026 Petition: https://rankmivote.org/statement-on-2026-petition/ - Ballotpedia — Michigan Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Ranked-Choice_Voting_Amendment_(2026) - Ballotpedia — Michigan 2026 ballot measures: https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_2026_ballot_measures --- ## Michigan Utility and Government Contractor Campaign Finance Regulations Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/mi/utility-and-government-contractor-campaign-finance-regulations-initiative/ - State: Michigan (MI) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Elections and voting; Government structure - Last updated: 2026-09-02 ### What it does This initiated statute would bar regulated electric and gas utilities, government contractors receiving more than $250,000 a year from the state, and people or organizations with substantial ties to those utilities or contractors from making campaign contributions to candidates or officeholders. It would also expand Michigan's campaign finance disclosure rules to cover more political advertising, including online ads, that identifies a candidate or ballot proposal without directly telling people how to vote. The Legislature had 40 days to enact the measure itself; the state House passed it but the state Senate did not act, sending it to voters. ### What supporters say (Michiganders for Money Out of Politics) - Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, the sponsoring committee, says the measure would reduce the influence that regulated utilities and large state contractors have over candidates and officeholders who oversee them. Co-chair Christy McGillivray called the signature certification "proof that a people-powered movement can stand up to some of the most powerful special interests in Michigan." - State Rep. Ann Bollin (R-Brighton Township), who urged the Legislature to act on the citizen petition, said large industries have too much influence over state politics and that no one should have a louder voice simply because they have deeper pockets. ### What opponents say (Protect MI Free Speech) - Protect MI Free Speech, an opposition committee whose contributors include the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, and the parent company of Consumers Energy, challenged the sufficiency of the petition's signatures before the Board of State Canvassers and has said it may pursue further legal action; attorney Gary Gordon argued the petitions contained numerous signature errors. - Opponents represented by Protect MI Free Speech argue the measure would restrict the free speech of employees at regulated utilities and government contractors. ### Sources - Michigan Secretary of State — Board of State Canvassers: https://www.michigan.gov/sos/elections/bsc - Michigan Secretary of State — Elections: https://www.michigan.gov/sos/elections - Bridge Michigan — 'Money out of politics' proposal cleared for Michigan ballot: https://bridgemi.com/michigan-government/money-out-of-politics-proposal-cleared-for-michigan-ballot/ - Spectrum News 1 Michigan — Michigan Money Out of Politics proposal headed to November ballot after House vote: https://spectrumlocalnews.com/mi/michigan/news/2026/08/26/money-out-of-politics-proposal - Ballotpedia — Michigan 2026 ballot measures: https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_2026_ballot_measures --- ## Nevada Ballot Question Funding Mechanism Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/nv/ballot-question-funding-mechanism-amendment/ - State: Nevada (NV) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: did not qualify - Topics: Elections and voting; Government structure; Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This proposed constitutional amendment would have changed the Nevada Constitution's unfunded-mandate provision, which a 2022 Nevada Supreme Court ruling reads as requiring sponsors of any constitutional ballot question with a financial impact to name a tax or tax increase in the measure itself. The sponsor filed it in direct response to the lawsuit that ended an earlier redistricting petition. Organizers did not submit enough valid signatures by the June 24, 2026 deadline, so the measure will not appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot. ### What supporters say (Vote Nevada PAC) - Vote Nevada PAC and filer Sondra Cosgrove say the amendment would restore what they describe as the original meaning of the constitutional section on unfunded mandates, removing the requirement that ballot sponsors propose specific taxes to fund their measures. - Vote Nevada PAC says the current interpretation has been used to defeat citizen initiatives on procedural grounds rather than on their merits. ### What opponents say - No major organized opposition to this petition was reported by The Nevada Independent. ### Sources - Nevada Secretary of State — 2026 Petitions & General Election Ballot Questions: https://www.nvsos.gov/elections/2026-petitions - The Nevada Independent — Tracking 2026 Nevada ballot measures: What's up for a vote and what fell short: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/tracking-2026-nevada-ballot-measures-whats-up-for-a-vote-and-what-fell-short - Las Vegas Sun — Nevada will have its fewest ballot measures since 2012 after citizen initiatives fail to qualify: https://lasvegassun.com/news/2026/jun/28/nevada-will-have-its-fewest-ballot-measures-since/ --- ## Nevada Exempt School Teachers from the Public Employee Strike Prohibition Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/nv/exempt-school-teachers-from-the-public-employee-strike-prohibition-initiative/ - State: Nevada (NV) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: Withdrawn - Topics: Education; Labor and wages - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This initiated statute would have exempted public school teachers from Nevada's prohibition on strikes by government employees. The Clark County Education Association filed the petition and gathered enough signatures to send it to the 2025 Legislature, which put it on a path to the 2026 ballot if lawmakers did not act. After the Legislature passed Senate Bill 161, clarifying that protests and pickets do not count as strikes, the sponsor withdrew the petition in June 2025, so it will not appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot. ### What supporters say (Clark County Education Association) - The Clark County Education Association filed the initiative to give teachers the same ability to withhold labor that most private-sector workers have, and said it would let voters decide after the Legislature declined to act. ### What opponents say - Gov. Joe Lombardo has publicly stated that Nevada teachers should not be allowed to strike. ### Sources - Ballotpedia News — Nevada voters to decide on 2026 ballot initiative allowing public school teacher strikes: https://news.ballotpedia.org/2025/05/27/nevada-voters-to-decide-on-2026-ballot-initiative-allowing-public-school-teacher-strikes/ - KTNV — Gov. Lombardo signs bill clarifying teacher strike rules: https://www.ktnv.com/news/gov-lombardo-signs-bill-that-allows-teachers-to-go-on-strike-a-move-he-previously-opposed - Nevada Secretary of State — 2026 Petitions & General Election Ballot Questions: https://www.nvsos.gov/elections/2026-petitions --- ## Nevada Freedom to Try Experimental Treatments Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/nv/freedom-to-try-experimental-treatments-amendment/ - State: Nevada (NV) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: did not qualify - Topics: Civil rights; Health care - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This proposed constitutional amendment would have established a right for Nevadans with life-altering diseases or conditions to access experimental treatments reviewed by an independent institutional review board, without state regulatory barriers beyond existing federal and state requirements. It would have granted liability protection to participating physicians, manufacturers, and facilities except in cases of fraud, intentional misconduct, or gross negligence, and would not have required insurers or providers to cover such treatments. Supporters did not submit enough valid signatures by the June 24, 2026 deadline, so the measure will not appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot. ### What supporters say (Freedom to Try Medical Innovations for Nevada PAC) - Filer Dan Montano, of the PAC Freedom to Try Medical Innovations for Nevada, says Nevada's existing right-to-try law reaches too few patients, citing federal data showing fewer than two dozen investigational drugs were made available under that law from 2018 to 2022. - Montano says the amendment would position Nevada as a hub for biotechnology and medical innovation. ### What opponents say - No major organized opposition campaign was reported before the signature deadline; the filer himself said he did not expect significant organized opposition in 2026. ### Sources - Nevada Secretary of State — 2026 Petitions & General Election Ballot Questions: https://www.nvsos.gov/elections/2026-petitions - The Nevada Independent — Tracking 2026 Nevada ballot measures: What's up for a vote and what fell short: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/tracking-2026-nevada-ballot-measures-whats-up-for-a-vote-and-what-fell-short --- ## Nevada Independent Redistricting Commission Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/nv/independent-redistricting-commission-amendment/ - State: Nevada (NV) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: Withdrawn - Topics: Government structure; Redistricting - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This proposed constitutional amendment would have moved responsibility for drawing Nevada's legislative and congressional districts from the Legislature to a seven-member independent commission. Four legislative leaders would each have named one commissioner, and those four would have chosen three more who are unaffiliated with either major party. The amendment set mapping criteria including compactness, equal population, and protection for racial and language minorities. After a lawsuit argued the petition created an unfunded mandate, the sponsoring committee withdrew it on September 30, 2025, so it will not appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot. ### What supporters say (Vote Nevada PAC) - Filer Sondra Cosgrove and Vote Nevada PAC say an independent commission would remove partisan self-interest from map drawing, and have advanced similar proposals in 2020, 2022, and 2024. - Cosgrove argues the commission would create no meaningful new cost because it would take over redistricting work already funded through the Legislature's existing budget. ### What opponents say - Lawyers from the Elias Law Group and Bravo Schrager, acting for Nevada voter Juan Medina, argued in court that the petition created an unfunded mandate because it would require state spending without identifying a funding source; a Carson City judge had accepted that theory against a nearly identical 2024 petition. ### Sources - Nevada Secretary of State — 2026 Petitions & General Election Ballot Questions: https://www.nvsos.gov/elections/2026-petitions - The Nevada Independent — Tracking 2026 Nevada ballot measures: What's up for a vote and what fell short: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/tracking-2026-nevada-ballot-measures-whats-up-for-a-vote-and-what-fell-short --- ## Nevada Open Primaries for Publicly Funded Elections Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/nv/open-primaries-for-publicly-funded-elections-amendment/ - State: Nevada (NV) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: did not qualify - Topics: Elections and voting; Government structure - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This proposed constitutional amendment would have added to Nevada's Voters' Bill of Rights a right for every registered voter to take part in any publicly funded election, regardless of party registration. Nevada's partisan primaries are currently closed to voters who are not registered Democrats or Republicans; nonpartisan voters were the state's largest registration bloc, at about 39 percent in July 2026. The petition stated the right without specifying how it would be implemented. Organizers did not submit enough valid signatures by the June 24, 2026 deadline, so it will not appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot. ### What supporters say (Vote Nevada PAC) - Filer Sondra Cosgrove, executive director of Vote Nevada PAC, argues that shutting nonpartisan voters out of taxpayer-funded primaries is unfair given the size of that voting bloc. - Supporters describe the measure as narrower than 2024's Question 3, which paired open primaries with ranked-choice voting and was rejected by voters. ### What opponents say (Nevada Republican Party) - Washoe County Republican Party Chairman Bruce Parks, testifying against a related 2025 bill, argued that such proposals attempt to override the defeat of Question 3 and that nonpartisan voters already have a remedy in changing their registration. - Opponents in the Nevada Republican Party say political parties should choose their own nominees. ### Sources - Nevada Secretary of State — 2026 Petitions & General Election Ballot Questions: https://www.nvsos.gov/elections/2026-petitions - Ballotpedia — Nevada Open Primaries for Publicly Funded Elections Amendment (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Open_Primaries_for_Publicly_Funded_Elections_Amendment_(2026) - The Nevada Independent — Tracking 2026 Nevada ballot measures: What's up for a vote and what fell short: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/tracking-2026-nevada-ballot-measures-whats-up-for-a-vote-and-what-fell-short --- ## Nevada Protect Girls' Sports Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/nv/protect-girls-sports-amendment/ - State: Nevada (NV) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: did not qualify - Topics: Civil rights; Education; Sports and athletics - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This proposed constitutional amendment would have required publicly funded athletic programs in Nevada to designate every sport as male, female, or coeducational based on the sex recorded on a birth certificate. Athletes recorded male at birth would have been barred from female-designated sports, and athletes recorded female at birth could have joined male-designated sports only where no comparable female option existed. It would have created an exception to Nevada's 2022 Equal Rights Amendment. The Nevada Supreme Court allowed the petition to proceed on June 19, 2026, but sponsors announced the next day that litigation delays had made the deadline unreachable. It did not qualify: the required signatures were not submitted by June 24, 2026. ### What supporters say (Protect Girls' Sports PAC) - Protect Girls' Sports PAC, whose leaders include filer James Cavilia and Assemblywoman Heidi Kasama (R-Las Vegas), says sex-based categories are needed to preserve competitive fairness and scholarship opportunities in female sports. - Supporters say placing the rule in the Nevada Constitution would make it durable, rather than leaving it to athletic associations whose policies can change. ### What opponents say (Silver State Equality, National Organization for Women — Nevada) - Sue Burtch, head of the Nevada chapter of the National Organization for Women, sued over the petition, arguing its description failed to disclose that it carves an exception into Nevada's 2022 Equal Rights Amendment; a Carson City judge agreed on that point and wrote corrected language into his February 2026 ruling. - Silver State Equality, Nevada's LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, opposed the measure and argues it would write an exclusion into a voter-approved equal rights provision. ### Sources - Nevada Secretary of State — 2026 Petitions & General Election Ballot Questions: https://www.nvsos.gov/elections/2026-petitions - The Nevada Independent — Tracking 2026 Nevada ballot measures: What's up for a vote and what fell short: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/tracking-2026-nevada-ballot-measures-whats-up-for-a-vote-and-what-fell-short - Las Vegas Sun — Nevada will have its fewest ballot measures since 2012 after citizen initiatives fail to qualify: https://lasvegassun.com/news/2026/jun/28/nevada-will-have-its-fewest-ballot-measures-since/ - KOLO 8 News Now — Lombardo-backed Protect Girls' Sports initiative will not appear on November ballot: https://www.kolotv.com/2026/06/20/lombardo-backed-protect-girls-sports-initiative-will-not-appear-november-ballot/ - Las Vegas Review-Journal — Nevada transgender sports ballot question dropped; Lombardo wants Legislature to take up issue: https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/transgender-sports-ballot-question-dropped-lombardo-wants-legislature-to-take-up-issue-3840763/ --- ## Nevada Question 6: Right to Abortion Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/nv/right-to-abortion-initiative/ - State: Nevada (NV) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Abortion and reproductive rights; Civil rights; Health care - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Question 6 would add a right to abortion to the Nevada Constitution, protecting the procedure until fetal viability — generally estimated at about 24 weeks — and after viability when a health practitioner determines it is needed to protect the patient's life or health. Before viability, the state could limit the right only for a compelling interest tied to the patient's health. Nevada statute already permits abortion through 24 weeks. Voters approved this amendment in 2024 with 64.4 percent; Nevada requires approval in two even-numbered election years, so it returns to the ballot on November 3, 2026. ### What supporters say (Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, Planned Parenthood Advocates Mar Monte) - Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, the PAC backing the amendment, says constitutional protection is needed because the existing 24-week standard rests on statute, which a future vote could change. - Planned Parenthood Advocates Mar Monte and Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) describe the amendment as a response to national restrictions on abortion access following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. - Supporters point to the 64.4 percent approval in 2024 as evidence of the measure's standing with Nevada voters. ### What opponents say (Protect Our Girls PAC, Students for Life Action Ballot PAC, Americans United for Life) - Protect Our Girls, a PAC opposing the amendment, argues the measure goes further than the standard that applied under Roe v. Wade. - Students for Life Action Ballot PAC, Americans United for Life, and Priests for Life oppose the amendment. - Opponents note that abortion is already legal in Nevada under a voter-approved statute, and argue that constitutional language is harder to adjust if unintended consequences emerge. ### Sources - Nevada Secretary of State — 2026 Petitions & General Election Ballot Questions: https://www.nvsos.gov/elections/2026-petitions - Nevada Secretary of State — Elections Division: https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/elections - Ballotpedia — Nevada Question 6, Right to Abortion Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Question_6,_Right_to_Abortion_Initiative_(2026) - The Nevada Independent — Tracking 2026 Nevada ballot measures: What's up for a vote and what fell short: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/tracking-2026-nevada-ballot-measures-whats-up-for-a-vote-and-what-fell-short --- ## Nevada Question 7: Require Voter Identification Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/nv/require-voter-identification-initiative/ - State: Nevada (NV) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Civil rights; Elections and voting - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Question 7 would write a voter identification requirement into the Nevada Constitution. Voters in person would show a government-issued photo ID — such as a driver's license, passport, military or tribal card, Nevada public college student ID, or concealed-firearm permit — current or expired no more than four years, with no expiration limit for voters aged 70 and older. Mail voters would provide the last four digits of their driver's license or Social Security number. Nevada currently verifies identity largely by signature matching. Voters approved the amendment in 2024 with 73.2 percent, and a second approval is required. ### What supporters say (Repair the Vote PAC, Nevada Voter ID Coalition) - Repair the Vote, the PAC led by former Clark County Republican Party chair David Gibbs that originally qualified the measure, describes it as an election security step intended to strengthen public confidence in the voting process. - The Nevada Voter ID Coalition, an offshoot of the Better Nevada PAC, also backs the measure. - Supporters point to the 73.2 percent approval in 2024 as evidence of broad support across party lines. ### What opponents say (Nevada Voter Freedom Alliance, Silver State Voices) - The Nevada Voter Freedom Alliance, formed by Battle Born Progress, opposes the measure, and in 2024 sample-ballot arguments opponents cited data that nearly 21 percent of voting-age Americans lack a valid driver's license showing their current name and address. - Silver State Voices, a nonpartisan civic engagement coalition, opposes the measure and points to rural and tribal voters who would need to travel long distances to a DMV office to obtain qualifying identification. - Opponents argue the requirement is difficult to adjust once placed in the Constitution. ### Sources - Nevada Secretary of State — 2026 Petitions & General Election Ballot Questions: https://www.nvsos.gov/elections/2026-petitions - Nevada Secretary of State — Elections Division: https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/elections - Ballotpedia — Nevada Question 7, Require Voter Identification Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Question_7,_Require_Voter_Identification_Initiative_(2026) - The Nevada Independent — Tracking 2026 Nevada ballot measures: What's up for a vote and what fell short: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/tracking-2026-nevada-ballot-measures-whats-up-for-a-vote-and-what-fell-short --- ## Nevada State Lottery Amendment (Assembly Joint Resolution 5) - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/nv/state-lottery-amendment-assembly-joint-resolution-5/ - State: Nevada (NV) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: legislative referral - Status: did not qualify - Topics: Gambling and gaming; Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Assembly Joint Resolution 5 would have asked Nevada voters to remove the state constitutional ban on a lottery, which has been in place since statehood. A constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature must pass in two consecutive regular sessions before it reaches the ballot. AJR5 passed the Assembly and the Senate in 2023 but was not brought to a vote before an April 2025 deadline, so it did not complete the second passage and will not appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot. ### What supporters say - Sponsors in the 2023 Legislature said a state lottery would create a new revenue stream for Nevada and end an exception that sends players to neighboring states. ### What opponents say - Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager (D-Las Vegas) said the resolution was not advanced in 2025 because of economic uncertainty, implementation costs, and a small amount of projected revenue. ### Sources - Las Vegas Review-Journal — Statewide lottery effort dies in Nevada Legislature: https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/statewide-lottery-effort-dies-in-nevada-legislature-3351233/ - Nevada Secretary of State — 2026 Petitions & General Election Ballot Questions: https://www.nvsos.gov/elections/2026-petitions --- ## Nevada Voters' Bill of Rights — Redistricting Equal Treatment Amendment - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/nv/voters-bill-of-rights-redistricting-equal-treatment-amendment/ - State: Nevada (NV) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: constitutional amendment - Status: did not qualify - Topics: Elections and voting; Redistricting - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does This proposed constitutional amendment would have added a right to equal treatment in all aspects of representative government regardless of party affiliation, explicitly naming redistricting and apportionment. Unlike the sponsor's earlier proposal, it would not have created a redistricting commission or set out detailed mapping criteria; it stated a general constitutional principle and otherwise left the Legislature's process in place. Organizers did not submit enough valid signatures by the June 24, 2026 deadline, so the measure will not appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot. ### What supporters say (Vote Nevada PAC) - Filer Sondra Cosgrove and Vote Nevada PAC say districts should be drawn without regard to political party, and have pursued redistricting changes in Nevada since 2020. - Supporters say a general equal-treatment principle avoids the spending question that ended earlier commission petitions. ### What opponents say - No major organized opposition to this petition was reported by The Nevada Independent. ### Sources - Nevada Secretary of State — 2026 Petitions & General Election Ballot Questions: https://www.nvsos.gov/elections/2026-petitions - The Nevada Independent — Tracking 2026 Nevada ballot measures: What's up for a vote and what fell short: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/tracking-2026-nevada-ballot-measures-whats-up-for-a-vote-and-what-fell-short - Las Vegas Sun — Nevada will have its fewest ballot measures since 2012 after citizen initiatives fail to qualify: https://lasvegassun.com/news/2026/jun/28/nevada-will-have-its-fewest-ballot-measures-since/ --- ## Washington Initiative 645: Repeal of State Income Tax on High Earners and Prohibition on Individual Income Taxes Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/wa/repeal-of-state-income-tax-on-high-earners-and-prohibition-on-individual-income/ - State: Washington (WA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Taxes and revenue - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Initiative 645 would repeal Washington's new 9.9 percent tax on individual income above $1,000,000 a year before it takes effect on January 1, 2028, and would prohibit the state and any city, county, or local jurisdiction from taxing individual income going forward. The tax it targets, enacted by the Legislature in 2026, is intended to fund school meals, childcare, and other programs. The state's Office of Financial Management estimates repeal would cut state revenue by about $11.4 billion from 2027 through 2031, reducing funding largely for K-12 education, higher education, and health and human services. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Initiative Measure No. IP26-645 concerns state and local taxes. This measure would repeal a 9.9% tax on annual individual income over $1,000,000; prohibit taxes measured by individual income and taxes on individual income or the receipt of individual income; and define "income." This measure would decrease funding for public K-12 education, higher education (including universities and community colleges), and human services (primarily healthcare). Should this measure be enacted into law? ### Fiscal impact The Washington Office of Financial Management's fiscal impact statement estimates the initiative would reduce state revenue by $11,432,414,000 across state fiscal years 2027-2031, drawn from the state general fund, the federal general fund, and the fair start for kids account, with the first collections lost starting in state fiscal year 2029. It also projects a net state agency savings of about $150.5 million over the same five years from ending implementation of the repealed tax. ### What supporters say (Let's Go Washington) - Brian Heywood, founder of Let's Go Washington, which filed and funded the initiative, says the new tax "is going to hit the economy" and that repeal is meant to stop the state from expanding taxation to other income levels: "It's not about rich guys. This is about unlocking the gate so they can tax everybody." ### What opponents say (No on 645) - Gov. Bob Ferguson, who joined the "No on 645" campaign, says the choice is "between the future and the past" and that he would veto any future legislation lowering the tax's $1 million threshold, since the revenue is committed by law to specific programs. - The "No on 645" campaign, backed by the Washington Education Association, SEIU-affiliated unions, and the Washington Federation of State Employees, argues repeal would open an estimated $13 billion hole in the state budget, with roughly half of that tied to school funding, and would roll back expanded school meals, childcare and early-learning funding, and the Working Families Tax Credit. ### Sources - Washington Office of Financial Management — Fiscal Impact Statement for Initiative 645: https://www.sos.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/FIS%20-%20Initiative%20645%20-%20FINAL.pdf - Washington Attorney General — Public Investment Impact Disclosure and Ballot Title for Initiative IP26-645: https://www.sos.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/IP26-645_PIID.pdf - Washington Secretary of State — Proposed Ballot Measure Information: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voters/proposed-ballot-measure-information - KOMO News — Washington millionaires tax repeal, I-645, will appear on November ballot: https://komonews.com/news/local/washington-millionaires-tax-repeal-initiative-certified-for-november-ballot-lets-go-washington-bob-ferguson-no-on-645-campaigns - KOMO News — Ferguson, organized labor launch No on I-645 campaign: https://komonews.com/news/local/ferguson-organized-labor-launch-no-on-i-645-campaign-millionaires-tax-funding-commitments-initiative-lets-go-washington-small-businesses-high-income-households - The Spokesman-Review — Court rebuffs attempt to ax ballot statement on WA income tax measure's budget effects: https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/aug/21/court-rebuffs-attempt-to-ax-ballot-statement-on-wa/ - Ballotpedia News — Washington voters to decide on an initiative to repeal legislation establishing an income tax for households earning over $1 million and ban income taxes in general: https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/07/18/washington-voters-to-decide-on-an-initiative-to-repeal-legislation-establishing-an-income-tax-for-households-earning-over-1-million-and-ban-income-taxes-in-general/ --- ## Washington Initiative Measure No. IL26-001: Parental Right to Review Education Materials, Receive Notifications, and Opt Out of Sexual-Health Education Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/wa/parental-right-to-review-education-materials-receive-notifications-and-opt-out-o/ - State: Washington (WA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Civil rights; Education - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Initiative IL26-001 would re-enact the original 2024 parental-rights initiative, Initiative 2081, undoing changes the Legislature made to it in 2025 through House Bill 1296. It would restore parents' rights to prior notice before a school offers certain medical services, and it would repeal provisions HB 1296 added, including a guarantee that students not be discriminated against based on a protected class and a right to file bullying complaints. It would also revert several notice and records-access rules to their original, less restrictive versions. The Legislature took no action on the initiative before its 2026 session ended, sending it to voters automatically. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Initiative Measure No. IL26-001 concerns parental rights relating to their children in public school. This measure would repeal amendments to a statute listing certain rights of parents and guardians of public-school children and re-enact the law as it was originally enacted by Initiative to the Legislature 2081. Should this measure be enacted into law? ### What supporters say (Let's Go Washington) - Let's Go Washington, the initiative's sponsor, says "hundreds of thousands of voters sent I-2081 to the legislature with a clear message that they don't want schools to keep secrets from parents, but politicians in Olympia didn't get the message," and that the measure "strengthens communication between parents and schools by re-enacting I-2081." Chairman Brian Heywood says, "I think parents need to know what's going on with kids, regardless of trans or LGBTQ issues. I don't like the schools keeping secrets." ### What opponents say (No Hate in WA State) - No Hate in WA State, the campaign leading opposition, says the measure "restricts student access to help for challenges like depression and anxiety, which are at record highs," and that it "repeals the Safety Act, a landmark bill to ensure access to education and a safe learning environment for all students." - U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) says the initiative "forces our schools to out LGBTQIA+ kids to the very families that might throw them out." - Sami Alloy, executive director of Pro-Choice Washington, says the initiative's language around parental access to private medical records means "kids could potentially be cut off from accessing this essential health care." ### Sources - Washington Secretary of State — Secretary Hobbs Notifies Legislature of IL26-001 Certification: https://www.sos.wa.gov/about-office/news/2026/secretary-hobbs-notifies-legislature-il26-001-certification - Washington Secretary of State — Proposed Ballot Measure Information: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voters/proposed-ballot-measure-information - Ballotpedia — Washington Parental Right to Review Education Materials, Receive Notifications, and Opt Out of Sexual-Health Education Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Parental_Right_to_Review_Education_Materials,_Receive_Notifications,_and_Opt_Out_of_Sexual-Health_Education_Initiative_(2026) --- ## Washington Initiative Measure No. IL26-638: Sex Verification Requirements for Female School Sports Initiative - URL: https://ballotquestions.vote/measures/wa/sex-verification-requirements-for-female-school-sports-initiative/ - State: Washington (WA) - Election: 2026 general election (2026-11-03) - Measure type: citizen initiative - Status: On the ballot - Topics: Civil rights; Education; Sports and athletics - Last updated: 2026-08-14 ### What it does Initiative IL26-638 would require Washington school districts and organizations that oversee interscholastic sports to bar students they define as biologically male from competing in athletic activities designated for female students only. A student seeking to take part in a female-designated sport would have to submit a statement from their healthcare provider verifying their biological sex, based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or naturally produced testosterone levels. The requirement would apply to individual and team competitions alike. Current state regulation prohibits schools from discriminating based on gender identity or expression in athletics; the initiative would change that policy statewide. ### Official ballot language (verbatim) Statement of Subject: Initiative Measure No. IL26-638 concerns participation in athletics at K-12 schools. Concise Description: This measure would prohibit students it defines as "biologically male" from competing in certain school athletic activities intended for female students only. It would require verification of biological sex by students' healthcare providers. Should this measure be enacted into law? ### What supporters say (Let's Go Washington) - Ahnaleigh Wilson and Frances Staudt, speaking for sponsor Let's Go Washington, say "biological men are competing in girls' sports in Washington State, and it's destroying fairness in girls' sports," and that the measure is meant to protect the roughly 110,000 girls who play middle- and high-school sports in the state. - State Sen. Judith Warnick (R) and the Republican Party of Washington back the initiative. ### What opponents say (No Hate in WA State) - No Hate in WA State, the campaign leading opposition, says "only a handful of transgender girls play afterschool sports in Washington," that the measure "will rollback Washington's successful sports policy in place since 2007 and institute a statewide blanket ban," and that it "will subject many girls to invasive, medically unnecessary and harmful genital exams to verify their sex." - U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) says the initiative "literally forces these invasive, disgusting exams on every girl who wants to play a sport, just so that they can target a handful of trans kids." ### Sources - Washington Attorney General — Ballot Title and Ballot Measure Summary for Initiative No. IL26-638: https://apps.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/ballottitleletter_3276.pdf - Washington Secretary of State — Secretary Hobbs Notifies Legislature of IL26-638 Certification: https://www.sos.wa.gov/about-office/news/2026/secretary-hobbs-notifies-legislature-il26-638-certification - Washington Secretary of State — Proposed Ballot Measure Information: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voters/proposed-ballot-measure-information - Ballotpedia — Washington Sex Verification Requirements for Female School Sports Initiative (2026): https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Sex_Verification_Requirements_for_Female_School_Sports_Initiative_(2026) ---