What We Learned From State Ballot Measures

Constitutional amendments and other changes to state law were on the ballot in 41 states last week. The results offer a fascinating — and often confounding — account of where voters stand on policy issues. State Court Report’s Erin Geiger Smith, Sarah Kessler, and Zoe Merriman have an excellent roundup of the most significant results (also cross-posted on Slate). Here are a few themes that I found most striking.

Election results tell a mixed story on abortion rights. Ten states had abortion rights measures on the ballot last week, a majority of them initiatives by voters. Abortion rights amendments have become such a big part of our politics that it may be hard to remember that prior to Dobbs, the 2022 ruling in which the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade’s abortion protections, not a single state had explicit language in its state constitution protecting abortion rights. (Several states did protect abortion rights under more general state constitutional provisions such as the right to privacy.) 

Abortion rights amendments won approval in seven states, including Missouri, where voters overturned an abortion ban, and Arizona, where abortion will now be available until viability. (You can read more about the abortion measure results here.) Voters also passed an amendment in Montana, where abortion rights have been protected up to now by a state supreme court whose membership is growing more conservative. (Last week, the conservative candidate won one of two open seats in Montana’s supreme court election, replacing a more liberal justice.) The remaining states already have strong protections on the books: Colorado, Maryland, Nevada (where the measure must win on the ballot again in 2026 in order to take effect), and New York. These developments bring the total number of state constitutions with explicit abortion rights protections up to 10 (California, Michigan, Ohio, and Vermont are the others).

But last week’s election also highlighted complexities. In 2022 and 2023, abortion rights amendments won on every ballot where they appeared, while measures limiting abortion rights universally failed. But this year, an abortion rights initiative lost in Florida, where the proposed amendment attracted 57 percent of the vote but fell short of the required 60 percent threshold (most states require only a bare majority), as well as in South Dakota, a state with a very conservative voter base. In Nebraska, voters rejected an abortion rights amendment and supported an amendment put forward by abortion opponents that purported to protect abortion rights by codifying existing restrictions — an approach that may serve as a model for abortion opponents in future elections. 

Comparisons with the presidential race results are also striking, although I won’t pretend to have a clear political diagnosis: In 5 states where Donald Trump won an electoral majority, a majority of voters also supported abortion rights amendments. And in all 10 states, abortion rights amendments outperformed Trump. 

Workers’ rights initiatives performed well in conservative states. Direct democracy offers avenues for voters to push back against state legislatures that may not be aligned with their policy preferences. That’s certainly been the story around abortion rights. But last week also saw similar dynamics at play around protections for workers in several states where voters also supported Trump. 

Voters in Nebraska, Alaska, and Missouri adopted initiatives providing for paid leave, and the latter two also increased the minimum wage. At the same time, Californians are on track to reject a proposition that would have increased that state’s minimum wage to $18. There’s been much talk over the past week about potential political realignments among working-class voters. Look for strategists on all sides to be digging into what these results might tell us about what issues the public values when it comes to workers.

Voters protected direct democracy. About half of all states provide for some form of direct democracy through initiatives and referenda, including 17 states where voters can use initiative processes to amend state constitutions. Perhaps not surprisingly, there’s been a recent trend of state legislatures seeking to make these initiatives more difficult. Last week, voters in Arizona and North Dakota rejected constitutional amendments proposed by their state legislatures that would have created more onerous signature requirements and other hurdles to passing initiatives. These moves follow an unsuccessful effort last year in Ohio to increase the threshold for approving constitutional amendments. My takeaway? Popular sovereignty is popular.

Alicia Bannon is editor in chief for State Court Report. She is also director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Suggested Citation: Alicia Bannon, What We Learned From State Ballot Measures, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ(Nov. 15, 2024), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/what-we-learned-state-ballot-measures