State Ballot Measures Being Voted on in 2024
Follow me on Facebook and LinkedIn!
Check out my website!
Want me as a podcast guest? Contact me on my Matchmaker FM profile!
Check out my book!
Thousands upon thousands of elected offices are being voted in 2024 — the most prestigious one, of course, being the president. Then you’ve got governors, attorneys general, state legislators, mayors, and many, many more offices.
But not every election is for people. Some of what Americans will be voting on are called ballot measures — laws, issues, and questions that voters who would be directly affected can vote on. These can either be statewide or for specific localities.
Today, we look at the statewide ballot measures being voted on in 2024. A few have already been up for a vote and a handful more or so will be decided before November 2024, when the vast majority of them are going to be voted on in the general election with the presidential race. There is still time for more ballot measures to qualify for the ballot depending on the state, but this article will focus on the ones that are already certified for the ballot as of June 3rd, 2024.
What are the Different Kinds of Ballot Measures?
There are various types of ballot measures that you may see when you go to vote, though which types are allowed in each state differs. Ballot measures can be broken down into five basic types. Most ballot measures you see fall into the first or second categories.
- 1) Citizen-initiated ballot measures are proposed by citizens. To get on the ballot, such measures require a certain number of signatures from registered voters that must be certified by the state government (or local government, if it is a local ballot measure). There are 26 states that allow for some type of citizen initiative.
- 2) Legislatively-referred ballot measures are placed on the ballot by a state legislature. Legislatively-referred amendments and state statutes require voter approval in every state except Delaware. Other types of legislative referrals are legislatively referred bond measures and advisory questions. Advisory questions are non-binding — think of them as more of a public opinion poll by the state government.
- 3) Automatic ballot referrals are set by state law to appear at certain times or under certain conditions. They do not need an impetus from citizens or state legislatures to get placed on the ballot. Typically, these referrals ask voters if they want a state constitutional convention to be held, where elected delegates propose amendments and revisions to a state constitution.
- 4) Commission-referred ballot measures are directly placed on the ballot by a commission already created by law. These only appear in Arizona and Florida. Arizona has the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers. Florida has the Constitution Revision Commission and the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission.
- 5) Convention-referred ballot measures are referred to the ballot by those aforementioned state constitutional conventions (though not all conventions are set up by automatic ballot referrals). These conventions are similar to commissions, but the conventions aren’t already existent and have to be approved to be set up.
Ballot Measures Certified for 2024
Below is a table showing the list of states voting on at least one ballot measure this year. Ballot measures are separated into those happening on November 5th (the date of the general election, when the vast majority of measures are being voted on) and those happening outside of November 5th. A myriad of various localities are also voting on local ballot measures specific to their local areas, so this table only focuses on statewide ballot measures. The list of 2024 ballot measures can be found on this Ballotpedia page.
(Note: Since legislatively-referred constitutional amendments and citizen-initiated constitutional amendments are the most common types of ballot measures you see, I made them separate columns from other measures, which are lumped together in one column. They are abbreviated as LRCAs and CICAs, respectively.)
There are 35 states voting on at least one statewide ballot measure this year. In most cases — 23 states — they are only voting on 1–3 measures, and many of those states are only voting on them on November 5th.
States with the most ballot measures (including those not on November 5th) are as follows:
- California (13)
- Colorado (9)
- New Mexico (8)
- Arizona and Florida (6)
- Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wisconsin (5)
- Missouri and North Dakota (4)
Common Topics of 2024 Ballot Measures
While they may not do exactly the same thing or be written the same way, similar measures are being voted on in multiple states. Here are the most common topics being decided on.
Citizenship Requirement for Voting
By far the most common type of ballot measure in 2024 will establish, or clarify, that only American citizens can vote in elections. While every state constitution mentions citizenship in regards to voting in elections, most of them do not explicitly state that noncitizens can’t vote. Ballot measures in seven states — Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wisconsin — are seeking to definitively state that only citizens can vote.
Removing Limits on Same-Sex Marriage
While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is protected by the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause in the Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) case, some state constitutions still have provisions that either outright ban it or allow for the government to limit it. California and Colorado measures seek to remove provisions in their state constitutions that ban same-sex marriage. A Hawaii measure is slightly different —it would remove the constitutional provision specifically stating that “the legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples” (emphasis mine) — but effectively seeks to do the same thing as California and Colorado.
Minimum Wage Increase
Policies seeking to increase the minimum wage — whether by ballot measures or state government action — have been gaining steam in recent years. This year, measures in Alaska and California are looking to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour and $18/hour, respectively. (Alaska’s measure also includes provisions for paid sick leave and prohibiting employers from retaliating against employees who refuse to attend employer-sponsored meetings regarding religious or political matters.) Both states had previous ballot measures succeed in increasing the minimum wage.
Ranked-Choice Voting: Repealing/Prohibiting or Enacting/Providing
Four states have measures relating to ranked-choice voting (RCV)— but two of them do very different things from the other two. RCV is still a seldom-used system but has gained much more publicity as of late following the success of RCV measures in Alaska and Maine.
On one side, in favor of RCV, we have Nevada and Oregon. Nevada’s measure would establish a first-of-its-kind top-five primary, along with ranked-choice voting for general elections for Congress, governor, other state executives, and the state legislature. This measure actually appeared in Nevada in 2022 and passed — although in a close election — but the state uniquely requires a ballot measure to be passed in two successive general elections before it becomes law. Oregon’s measure looks to implement RCV in both primary and general elections for federal and state executive offices.
In opposition to RCV are ballot measures in Alaska and Missouri. “Wait a minute, Paul, didn’t you just say that Alaska implemented it a few years ago?” you might be asking. And yes, Alaska did do that in 2020. But this year, a measure seeks to eliminate the top-four primary and RCV general elections, returning to partisan primaries and general elections that simply require a plurality (i.e., highest number of votes) to win. A Missouri measure looks to not even let RCV happen in the first place, and within that same measure is a citizenship requirement to vote.
Enshrining Abortion in State Constitutions
The ever-divisive issue of abortion is back on the ballot this year, this time in Florida and Maryland. The somewhat-unexpected success of a pro-abortion measure in Ohio in 2023 has given pro-choice advocates more confidence that there is momentum for other states to pass similar ballot measures. In a blue state like Maryland, that’s a lot more likely. But in an increasingly red state like Florida — where ballot measures need 60% approval to pass, not just a simple majority — it’s a much tougher hill to climb. We’ll see what both states’ electorates have to say in November.
Other Prominent Ballot Measures
There are plenty of other particularly noteworthy ballot measures being voted on across the U.S. but we can’t cover them all. Here are some of the highlights, along with some of the most common arguments for and against each (if they are easily available).
Florida: Partisan School Boards, Legalizing Recreational Marijuana, and Repealing Public Funding of Campaigns
My home state is no stranger to high numbers of ballot measures to vote on. It voted on six of them in 2020, 13 of them in 2018, and five of them in 2016. This year, Floridians will be voting on six of them.
First up is Amendment 1, which would revert school board elections back to partisan contests. As of 2023, Florida is one of 43 states with nonpartisan school board elections, and they’ve been nonpartisan since a 1998 ballot measure was approved.
- Proponents of the measure say it would make the elections more transparent as partisan politics are already involved in school board elections.
- Opponents of the measure say that it would cause further divisiveness and partisanship in school boards.
Amendment 3 is another attempt at legalizing recreational marijuana in Florida. Medical marijuana was legalized with a successful 2016 measure. Prominent lawyer John Morgan of the Morgan & Morgan law firm — a man who is regularly involved in politics and marijuana policy, in particular — is throwing his weight behind the measure.
- Proponents of the measure say that legalizing recreational marijuana would create a lot of jobs and that it is a matter of personal freedom.
- Opponents of the measure say that it would allow unrestricted use of marijuana and that it is meant to put more money in the pockets of the biggest marijuana companies.
Then there is Amendment 6. There are 14 states¹ that allow for some form of public financing for candidates for elected offices, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). In these programs, candidates can receive public funding for their campaigns if they are able to garner enough in private contributions. Amendment 6 in Florida seeks to end the state’s public campaign financing program.
- Proponents of the measure say that public funding of campaigns is a waste of money and/or the money could be used for other programs (e.g. education).
- Opponents of the measure say public campaign financing helps level the playing field by making lesser-funded campaigns more competitive and increases the diversity of candidates running.
As aforementioned, ballot measures in Florida have a steeper climb than most other states, as they need 60% approval to be passed instead of just a simple majority.
Maine: Limiting Contributions to PACs for Independent Expenditures
The ruling of the Citizens United v. FEC (2010) U.S. Supreme Court case ushered in the era of independent expenditures — super PACs that can spend unlimited amounts of money in electioneering as long as they don’t coordinate in any way with the campaigns that they are supporting. PACs are legally considered a separate concept from super PACs and are subject to spending limits, but they can coordinate with campaigns they support.
Since the amount of super PAC spending and soliciting can’t be regulated, this Maine measure instead seeks to limit contributors to the super PACs. The measure would cap individual and entity contributions to super PACs to $5,000 each.
Proponents of the measure say that it would reduce undue influence from the wealthiest and most powerful political interests and that it restores some level of democracy. But from what I can see, there isn’t an organized opposition to the measure yet. I would assume, however, that similar arguments made in the Citizens United case and the Buckley v. Valeo (1975) case would be used against this ballot measure (e.g., that the measure violates freedom of speech).
Missouri: Levying of Fees to Support Law Enforcement Personnel
In the midst of debate across the country about police treatment of citizens, a Missouri measure seeks to allow courts to levy costs and fees to provide for salaries and benefits of law enforcement personnel. The Missouri State Senate and State House passed Senate Joint Resolution 71 (SJR 71) in March 2024 to place the measure on the ballot.
- Proponents of the measure say that it would codify the critical role of the administration of justice in the state’s constitution and would ensure retirement funding for sheriffs.
- Opponents of the measure say that it would create a perverse incentive to increase arrests, prosecutions, etc. in order to fund pension contributions.
North Dakota: Congressional Age Limit (June 11th, 2024) and Single-Subject Rule/Two Successive Passages for Initiatives
Amid the calls by some citizens and political observers for an age limit on elected officials, a measure in North Dakota is trying to make that a reality for their members of Congress. Specifically, approval of the measure would implement a maximum threshold for elected or appointed Congresspeople of 81 years of age by December 31 of the year preceding the end of their term.
And the election for this measure is just around the corner — June 11th. Currently, no state has an age limit on their U.S. House Representatives or U.S. Senators. Many states, however, have mandatory age limits on their state-level judges. If the measure is approved, it will be interesting to see if other states follow suit and we see more such ballot measures in the future.
- Proponents of age limit measures in general (not just in one state) say that there are too many career politicians that are entrenched and have an unfair advantage being in Congress for so long, and that the level of physical and mental competence of older people dwindles too much to handle the job of Congress.
- Opponents of age limit measures in general say that such an age limit is ageist, that older people do not necessarily experience that much of a decrease in physical and mental competence, and that it would be an antidemocratic measure against those who still vote for these members of Congress.
Measure 2 looks to primarily do two things: 1) Establish a single-subject rule for initiatives and 2) require constitutional amendments to be passed in two straight elections before it becomes law. (It would also increase the signature requirement for constitutional amendment initiatives from 4% of the resident population to 5% instead.) A single-subject rule requires constitutional initiatives to focus on one specific subject area to be placed on the ballot; 16 states currently have such a rule.
The two-straight-elections-rule would be similar to what Nevada requires. However, while Nevada requires the measure to be passed in two straight general elections, this North Dakota measure would have measures be voted on in the state’s June primary election and then the following general election.
In the case of single-subject rules in general, at least, there are some common arguments. (It’s not readily apparent whether there are common arguments for the two-straight-elections rule, perhaps in part because it is so rare.)
- Proponents of single-subject rules say that it allows voters to express a clear intent on a single issue and that initiatives should be held to the same standard as legislation.
- Opponents of single-subject rules say that they limit a citizen’s right to place an initiative on the ballot and that judges apply single-subject rules arbitrarily.
Rhode Island: Whether to Hold a State Constitutional Convention
Rhode Island is one of 14 states that has a state constitutional convention question automatically placed on the ballot after a certain number of years. In Rhode Island’s case, that is 10 years. Yet the state’s voters haven’t approved a convention question in four decades. Given the wide scope of the question at hand, there will probably be a lot of different arguments both in support of and opposition to holding a state constitutional convention.
Wisconsin: Prohibiting Legislative Delegation of Appropriations Powers and Requiring Legislative Approval for Governor to Expend Federal Funds (both August 2024)
Wisconsin is one of the relatively few states with a legislature controlled by one party and a governor of a different party. The Republican legislature and Democratic Governor Tony Evers have butted heads a lot over his tenure, and these two ballot measures are more examples of that. Both would be one right after the other in the Wisconsin state constitution should they both be approved.
The first of these amendments would simply add the following passage:
“The legislature may not delegate its sole power to determine how moneys shall be appropriated.”
The second of these amendments would add the following passage right after the one above:
“The governor may not allocate any federal moneys the governor accepts on behalf of the state without the approval of the legislature by joint resolution or as provided by legislative rule.”
Since the measures are so intertwined, the arguments for and against them are largely the same or similar.
- Proponents of the measures say that the governor should not be the sole determinant of where federal money goes without legislative approval and that the legislature is primarily responsible for appropriations in the first place.
- Opponents of the measures say that this would bog down the process of government when money needs to be doled out for vulnerable people and that the current system of governor and legislature operating together on such issues is not working well.
How Successful Will 2024 Ballot Measures Be?
While there are plenty of prognostications for some of the most prominent elected offices in the country, it’s far more difficult to handicap what will happen with these ballot measures. Here are some reasons why.
- 1) The rules for how they are approved can be quite different across states. It isn’t always a simple majority that is necessary. As stated earlier, Florida needs 60% approval for measures. Nevada needs a simple majority but approval is required in two straight general elections.
- 2) It’s fundamentally different to campaign for people than for specific issues. To paraphrase how campaigning for ballot measures was once described to me, it’s generally more difficult to get “yes” votes than “no” votes. That’s because “yes” votes usually need to be unequivocal, or at least close to it, in support. But if you’re on the “no” side of a campaign, you only need to sow just enough doubt to get somebody to vote no. It’s often easier to make people lack confidence in something than to give them confidence in it.
- 3) While most elections are for partisan offices, where you can rely on Democrat and Republican heuristics to some extent to gauge how many people will vote (i.e., some people will vote their party no matter what), you can’t necessarily do that for ballot measures. Sure, some measures will be supported mostly by one party and opposed by another, but the partisan feelings on some measures is a lot murkier. For example, with North Dakota’s age limit measure for members of Congress, there are plenty of Republicans and Democrats that will support it as the age of Congress has been a complaint from many voters in both parties.
- 4) For a given elected office, election history is often a strong indicator of how the next election for the office will go. You usually don’t have that gauge to rely on for ballot measures, however. What if a higher number of measures are subject to much different rules this year (e.g. 55% or 60% approval, two straight elections) than in previous years? What if there were, say, more ballot measures in more Democratic states one year and then more ballot measures in more Republican states another year? It’s also going to be a much different set of issues overall.
That said, let’s look at recent even-numbered years and how ballot measures fared in them.
Based on recent history, it’s likely we see about 65–72% of ballot measures succeed this year. Also, for the past decade, we’ve seen a bit higher rates of success for measures overall in presidential election years than midterms. Failure rates in presidential years (2016, 2020) are about 28%, while they are about 30–35% for midterm years (2014, 2018, 2022).
Whether there is something to the fact that presidential years have been slightly more successful for ballot measures isn’t readily apparent. It could just be because of the sets of issues the measures are centered on in those years, or they may be in states with easier approval thresholds. Maybe the funding for measures is better in presidential years. Still, it’s an interesting fact to note.
In any case, we can expect many more ballot measures to be approved than to be defeated. Which ones those are, however, is harder to tell. As we enter the final months of the election season, we’ll get a better sense of it all as campaigns kick into high gear, contribution and spending levels become clearer, and public opinion polling ramps up.
- I counted 14 states in NCSL’s list, but NCSL actually says 13 states. I went with the 14 count here, though perhaps I am misunderstanding something about NCSL’s list.
