Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Ballotpedia's Top 10 Ballot Measures to Watch, 2025
October 16, 2025
Voters in five states will decide on 24 statewide ballot measures at the general election on November 4.
Overall, 30 statewide ballot measures are certified for the ballot in nine states in 2025. To see a list of statewide ballot measures on the ballot in 2025, visit our ballot measure hub page here. Earlier in 2025, voters in three states—Louisiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin—decided on six ballot measures. Two were approved, and four were defeated.
We’ve compiled a list of 10 ballot measure elections to watch on November 4, 2025. Some are single measures, while others include grouped measures that address related topics within the same state. Click on the following links to read more about each ballot measure.
- California Proposition 50: Use of Legislative Congressional Redistricting Map Amendment
- Maine Question 1: Require Voter Photo ID and Change Absentee Ballot and Drop Box Rules Initiative
- Maine Question 2: Extreme Risk Protection Orders to Restrict Firearms and Weapons Access Initiative
- Colorado Propositions LL and MM: Funding for Healthy School Meals for All Program Measures
- Texas Proposition 3: Denial of Bail for Certain Violent or Sexual Offenses Amendment
- Texas Proposition 15: Parental Rights Amendment
- Texas Proposition 16: Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment
- Texas Propositions 2, 6, and 8: Prohibit Certain Taxes Amendments
- New York City Question 6: Move City Elections to Even-Numbered Years Charter Amendment
- New York City Questions 2, 3, and 4: Expedited Housing and Land Use Review Charter Amendments
For our top 10 candidate elections to watch on November 4, see Ballotpedia's Top 10 Elections to Watch, 2025. See more of our 2025 election analysis by visiting our Election Analysis Hub.
Measures
California Proposition 50
Proposition 50 would allow the state to use a new, legislature-drawn congressional district map. The proposed map would replace the existing maps, which the 14-member Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC) adopted on December 27, 2021, for elections from 2022 through 2030. Proposition 50 would provide that the CRC will redraw congressional districts in 2031.[1]
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said the ballot measure is intended to counter a mid-cycle redistricting proposal in Texas: "They’re not screwing around. We cannot afford to screw around either. We have got to fight fire with fire."[2] According to The Texas Tribune, the plan "[positioned] the GOP to net up to five additional seats in Texas."[3] Proposition 50 would make five Republican-held congressional districts more Democratic, based on presidential election results from 2024.
Unlike Texas, where the legislature can enact a new congressional redistricting plan, the California Constitution gives that power to the CRC. Voters approved a ballot initiative in 2010 that transferred congressional redistricting from the legislature to the commission. Therefore, the legislature needed to pass a constitutional amendment, requiring voter approval as Proposition 50, to adopt a new map.
Proposition 50 will rank as at least the seventh most expensive ballot measure in the state's history. As of October 13, about $139.9 million had been raised for and against Proposition 50. Supporters received $97.7 million, while opponents received $42.2 million.
Maine Question 1
Maine Question 1 is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that would require voters to present photo ID and make changes to absentee voting and ballot drop box rules.[4]
Between 2004 and 2024, voters in nine states decided on 10 ballot measures related to voter ID, with eight (80%) being approved. Maine Question 1 is unique among these other measures because it makes changes to absentee voting and ballot drop box rules in addition to requiring voter ID. The support campaign is called Voter ID for ME, while the opposition campaign is called Save Maine Absentee Voting.
Question 1 would require voters to present photo ID for in-person voting and proof of photo ID, such as the voter's driver's license or nondriver identification card number, for absentee voting. Under Question 1, the state would need to provide nondriver photo ID cards for free.
Casting an absentee ballot would require voters to complete an identification envelope that includes their identification number, name, birth date, address, as well as the election type and date. The ballot initiative would allow a person’s absentee ballot to be challenged based on a signature that does not match the signature on the voter’s registration record. Municipalities would be prohibited from including prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes. Question 1 would repeal language allowing disabled and senior voters (65 years of age or older) to receive absentee ballots without submitting a separate request for each election, and repeal a provision that allows persons to request absentee ballots over the phone or through family members.
Question 1 would also address ballot drop boxes for returning absentee ballots. The ballot initiative would limit each local government to one ballot drop box. As of 2025, municipalities are allowed one drop box plus additional boxes with approval from the Secretary of State. A bipartisan team of election officials would be responsible for retrieving absentee ballots from drop boxes, rather than the municipal clerk or the clerk's designees. For a third person to return a voter's ballot to a drop box, the voter would be required to provide the third person's name and personal information in their absentee ballot application or a signed written request.
Maine Question 2
Maine Question 2 is also a citizen-initiated ballot measure. Question 2 would establish a process for obtaining an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), also known as a red-flag law, which would restrict someone's access to weapons "capable of producing death or serious bodily injury," including firearms.[5]
As of 2025, Maine has what is referred to as a yellow-flag law, which requires a mental health evaluation before law enforcement can request that firearms be confiscated. Gov. Janet Mills (D) signed the yellow-flag law in 2019. She said she's voting 'No' on Question 2, stating that the yellow-flag bill received near unanimous, bipartisan legislative support and that "Maine's current gun safety law is one of the most effective laws of its kind in the nation, carefully drafted to be constitutional."[6] Question 2 would not repeal the existing law but would establish a red-flag process alongside the existing yellow-flag process. Nacole Palmer, Executive Director of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, said the current law "gives families no way to take action" and that "other states have used [red-flag] laws to disarm people who threatened mass shootings, including school shootings."[7]
Question 2 would allow a person's family members, household members, or law enforcement to submit a request for an ERPO, including an affidavit that describes the alleged danger and lists known weapons in the person's possession. Most ERPOs would require a court hearing within two weeks of the filing date, after which a judge could order the surrender of dangerous weapons. The judge could issue the ERPO for up to one year. The person subject to the ERPO could petition to have the order terminated before the scheduled end date, and the petitioner could request that the court renew the order for an additional year.
Colorado Propositions LL and MM
Colorado Propositions LL and MM both relate to the state's Healthy School Meals for All Program (HSMA), which reimburses public schools for providing free breakfast and lunch to students. In 2022, voters approved Proposition FF, which created the HSMA and, to fund the program, reduced state income tax deductions for taxpayers with a federal adjusted gross income above $300,000.
The legislature’s fiscal analysts projected that the reduced income tax deductions would generate $100.7 million for the HSMA. However, the tax changes generated $112.0 million—$11.3 million more than the estimated amount. Under Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), revenue collected above the estimated amount must be refunded to taxpayers, unless voters approve another ballot measure allowing the state to keep the excess revenue. Proposition LL is that measure. Approval of Proposition LL would allow the state to keep the $11.3 million in excess revenue, as well as future revenue generated from the reduced income tax deductions, for the HSMA.
Proposition MM would further reduce the state income tax deductions for taxpayers with a federal adjusted gross income above $300,000, generating an additional $95 million. An earlier version of the measure would have directed all of this new revenue to the HSMA, but, in August, Gov. Jared Polis (D) called a special legislative session in response to H.R. 1, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.[8] One thing that H.R. 1 did was reduce federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The Colorado General Assembly, during this special legislative session, amended Proposition MM to allow for some of this new revenue to be directed to SNAP after HSMA is funded and reserves reach 35%.
Together, Propositions LL and MM would increase funding for the Healthy School Meals for All Program. However, voters could approve one measure and reject the other, leading to different funding outcomes. Rejection of both measures would limit the program to eligible low-income schools and, at other schools, eligible low-income students.
Texas Proposition 3
Texas Proposition 3 addresses denial of bail for criminal defendants accused of certain crimes. The Texas Bill of Rights provides a state constitutional right to bail with sufficient sureties, such as a bond, except in capital cases where the proof is evident. This provision has been amended five times since 1956, with each amendment expanding the circumstances under which bail could be denied. The most recent change was in 2007, when voters approved Proposition 13, with 83.9% of the vote.
Proposition 3 would require judges to deny bail for individuals accused of certain violent or sexual offenses if either of the following is shown: (1) by a preponderance of the evidence, that bail would not ensure the accused’s appearance in court; or (2) by clear and convincing evidence, that bail would not ensure the safety of the community, law enforcement, or alleged victims. Offenses covered under Proposition 3 would include murder; capital murder; aggravated assault resulting in serious bodily injury or committed with a firearm, club, knife, or explosive; aggravated kidnapping; aggravated robbery; aggravated sexual assault; indecency with a child; and human trafficking.
Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said the constitutional amendment, along with other bail-related bills, addresses "a revolving door bail system that repeatedly released dangerous criminals back onto the streets."[9] The Texas Policy Research said the amendment "creates a rigid, constitutionally enshrined mandate that risks overreach, erodes due process, and expands the scope of government authority without adequate safeguards."[10] In the Texas Senate, the proposal received unanimous support from Republicans and Democrats. In the House, Republicans supported the amendment, while Democrats were divided 46-8.
Measures to expand the circumstances under which bail can be denied are also scheduled to appear on the ballot in Alabama and Tennessee in 2026.
Texas Proposition 15
Texas Proposition 15 would provide that parents have the right "to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing" and the responsibility "to nurture and protect the parent's child." While 26 states have adopted Parents' Bill of Rights, which are laws that grant parents specific rights regarding their children's education, none have adopted state constitutional amendments addressing the broader subject of parental rights.
Proposition 15 is the first amendment to address this topic since 1996, when voters in Colorado rejected Amendment 17, with 57.7% voting 'No.' Amendment 17 would have amended the Colorado Constitution to state that parents have the right to "direct and control the upbringing, education, values, and discipline of their children." In the Texas State Legislature, legislative Republicans, along with Senate Democrats, supported Proposition 15, while House Democrats were divided 32-22.
State Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-1), who authored the constitutional amendment, said, "Who knows what judges might try to do in the future? The parents’ constitutional rights are scattered over a hundred years of case law, and these are cases many, many judges and attorneys may not be able to find. So the idea is to put all of this well-established law in one place in the constitution." State Rep. Ana-María Rodríguez Ramos (D-102), who voted against the amendment, said, "There is a movement to remove the emphasis and the focus on children’s rights and their psychological, emotional and social needs. Where can we make sure that, as we’re advocating for parental rights, we’re also ensuring that a child’s voice is being heard… ?"[11]
Texas Proposition 16
Texas Proposition 16 would amend the Texas Constitution to provide that "persons who are not citizens of the United States" cannot vote in Texas.
Since 2018, 14 states have voted on similar constitutional amendments. Voters approved each of the ballot measures, with the narrowest margin in Kentucky, at 62%-38%, and the widest margin in South Carolina, at 86%-14%. At least three more states—Arkansas, Kansas, and South Dakota—will vote on similar constitutional amendments in 2026.
While state law requires that people attest to being a citizen when registering to vote, a constitutional amendment would be more difficult to change in the future. In Texas, constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote of each legislative chamber and voter approval. In 1996, Congress passed a law prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal elections. As of 2025, no state allowed noncitizens to vote in state elections; however, certain municipalities in California, Maryland, and Vermont permitted noncitizens to vote in local elections.
Regarding Texas Proposition 16, Senate and House Republicans supported the proposal, while Senate Democrats voted 8-3 and House Democrats voted 15-14, although 33 additional Democrats abstained from the vote.
Texas Propositions 2, 6, and 8
- See also: Texas Proposition 2, Prohibit Capital Gains Tax on Individuals, Estates, and Trusts Amendment (2025)
- See also: Texas Proposition 6, Prohibit Taxes on Certain Securities Transactions Amendment (2025)
- See also: Texas Proposition 8, Prohibit Estate Taxes and New Taxes on Estate Transfers, Inheritances, and Gifts Amendment (2025)
Voters in Texas will decide on three constitutional amendments that would prohibit certain types of taxes.
- Proposition 2 would ban taxes on realized or unrealized capital gains of individuals, families, estates, and trusts, including taxes on the sale or transfer of capital assets.
- Proposition 6 would prohibit an occupation tax on registered securities market operators or any securities transaction tax.
- Proposition 8 would prohibit taxes on a decedent’s property or on the transfer of an estate, inheritance, legacy, succession, or gift.
While Texas does not currently impose these taxes—the state did have an inheritance tax until 2015—the amendments would add these prohibitions to the state constitution, which requires a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval to change.
Since 1993, Texas voters have approved three constitutional amendments that prohibited future taxes by adding prohibitions to the state constitution. The most recent, in 2023, prohibited a wealth or net worth tax. It received 67.9% of the vote.
New York City Question 6
New York City Question 6 would move the city's local elections, including the mayoral election, to coincide with federal presidential election years, beginning in 2028. An even-numbered year election held alongside federal elections is often called an on-cycle election, while elections held in odd-numbered years are known as off-cycle elections.
The ballot measure would amend the New York City Charter, the city’s governing document, to allow the shift in election years. However, the change could not take effect unless the state legislature also amends Section 8 of Article XIII of the New York Constitution, and voters approve that amendment. The constitutional provision requires municipal elections to be held in odd-numbered years. In New York, the state legislature must approve a constitutional amendment in two consecutive legislative sessions, each lasting two years, with an election held between them. The earliest state voters could decide such an amendment would be in 2027.
Grace Rauh, the executive director of Citizens Union, said, "Nearly three times as many New Yorkers vote for president than for mayor. For far too long, off-cycle elections have produced record-low turnout and an electorate that does not reflect the diversity of our city. Moving our elections to even years would significantly enhance turnout, make our elections more representative, and save us millions in election administration costs."[12] Errol Louis, a columnist for New York Magazine, said, "The main problem with 'one big election' is that national political dynamics would inevitably cause vital city issues unique to New York to get swallowed, distorted, or ignored... The last thing we need is local candidates bloviating about funding Social Security or supporting NATO instead of telling us how they plan to improve trash pickups, improve the schools, or hire more social workers to help the homeless."[13]
New York City Questions 2, 3, and 4
- See also: New York, New York, Question 2, Expedited Public Process for Affordable Housing Charter Amendment (November 2025)
- See also: New York, New York, Question 3, Expedited Land Use Review Procedure Charter Amendment (November 2025)
- See also: New York, New York, Question 4, Affordable Housing Appeals Board Charter Amendment (November 2025)
New York City, the nation’s largest and one of its most expensive rental markets, will vote on three charter amendments addressing housing and land use.[14]
- Question 2 would create two new expedited review processes for publicly financed affordable housing projects. One process would allow the five-member Board of Standards and Appeals to approve such projects. The other process would establish a faster land-use review in 12 districts identified as having the lowest rate of affordable housing production, with final approval from the City Planning Commission. The New York City Council would not be involved in these review processes.
- Question 3 would create an expedited review process, called the Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP), for land use changes for certain housing, affordable housing, and infrastructure projects. The ELURP would be an alternative to the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), which involves the City Council.
- Question 4 would create the Affordable Housing Appeals Board (AHAB), which would have the power to overturn City Council decisions that reject affordable housing projects. The AHAB would have three members: the mayor, the council's speaker, and the borough president where a project is located. Approval would be needed from two of three members to override the council.
Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) endorsed the proposals, saying, "The only solution to New York’s housing crisis is to build more housing, and we must use every tool in the toolbox to get it done. Props 2-5 will help ensure New Yorkers can live, thrive, and raise their families in the city they call home."[15] New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams (D) said that "ballot questions 2, 3, and 4 attempt to mislead voters by hiding their real impact of eliminating the public’s power over land use decisions that allow new development. This major change to remove the only democratically elected entity with voting power in the land use process undermines New Yorkers’ ability to secure more affordable housing and investments for their neighborhoods."[16]
Election coverage by office
Election coverage by state
Click your state on the map below to navigate to relevant election information.
See also: Elections by state and year.
Election resources
Footnotes
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8," August 18, 2025
- ↑ California Public Radio, "Governor Gavin Newsom says California must counter GOP efforts to redraw congressional maps," July 28, 2025
- ↑ The Texas Tribune, "Texas Senate approves GOP congressional map, sending plan to Abbott’s desk," August 22, 2025
- ↑ Maine Secretary of State, "Question 1," accessed January 24, 2025
- ↑ Maine Secretary of State, "Question 2," accessed November 11, 2024
- ↑ Portland Press Herald, "Gov. Mills: Why I’m voting ‘No’ on Maine’s ‘red flag’ question | Opinion," September 26, 2025
- ↑ Maine Secretary of State, "Maine Citizen’s Guide to the Referendum Election - Tuesday, November 4, 2025," accessed October 12, 2025
- ↑ Colorado Governor, "Governor Polis Calls Special Session to Address Budget Hole Created by Federal Bill," August 6, 2025
- ↑ Texas Governor, "Governor Abbott Signs Strongest Bail Reform Package In Texas History," June 3, 2025
- ↑ Texas Policy Research, "Texas 2025 Constitutional Amendments Explained: Ballot Guide & Vote Recommendations," June 30, 2025
- ↑ The Dallas News, "Amendment would enshrine parental rights in Texas constitution. But what does that mean?" October 13, 2025
- ↑ Citizens Union, "Citizens Union Announces Support for All 2025 Ballot Questions," accessed October 15, 2025
- ↑ New York Magazine, "Why New York Should Keep Its Elections Off-Year," August 23, 2025
- ↑ The Hill, "It costs the most to rent an apartment in these US cities: report," January 31, 2025
- ↑ RPA, "RPA Supports YES on Affordable Housing Coalition's Push to Pass Charter Revision Proposals 2 - 4," October 7, 2025
- ↑ New York City Council, "NYC Council Leadership Calls on Board of Elections to Reject Three of Mayor Adams’ Ballot Proposals for Using Language That Seeks to Deceive Voters by Concealing Their Effect, Violating State Law," September 2, 2025
