Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Ballotpedia's top 10 ballot measures to watch, 2023
| 2023 U.S. state ballot measures | |
|---|---|
2024 »
« 2022
| |
 | |
| Overview | |
| Scorecard | |
| Tuesday Count | |
| Deadlines | |
| Requirements | |
| Lawsuits | |
| Readability | |
| Voter guides | |
| Election results | |
| Campaigns | |
| Polls | |
| Media editorials | |
| Filed initiatives | |
| Finances | |
| Contributions | |
| Signature costs | |
| Ballot Measure Monthly | |
| Signature requirements | |
Have you subscribed yet?
Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew.
| |
October 12, 2023
Voters in five states will decide on 28 statewide ballot measures at the general election on November 7—the highest number of state ballot measures for an odd-numbered year since 2007. This year's ballot measures address issues like abortion, marijuana, utilities, taxes, and state constitutional rights.
Overall, 41 statewide ballot measures are certified for the ballot in eight states in 2023. To see a list of statewide ballot measures on the ballot in 2023, click here.
- Earlier in 2023, voters in three states decided on five ballot measures. Voters approved three and rejected two of these measures.
- On October 14, voters in Louisiana will decide on four constitutional amendments, including Amendment 1, which is related to private financing of election administration, and Amendment 2, which is related to state constitutional rights regarding places of worship.
- On November 18, which is the last statewide ballot measure election of 2023, voters in Louisiana will decide on an additional four constitutional amendments.
We've compiled a list of 10 ballot measures to watch on Nov. 7, 2023. Click on the following links to read more about each ballot measure. The list order is based on state, topics, or similar issues.
- Ohio Issue 1: Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative
- Ohio Issue 2: Marijuana Legalization Initiative
- Maine Question 3: Pine Tree Power Company Initiative
- Maine Question 1: Voter Approval of Borrowing Above $1 Billion by State Entities and Electric Cooperatives Initiative
- Maine Question 2: Prohibit Foreign Spending in Elections Initiative
- Maine Question 4: "Right to Repair Law" Vehicle Data Access Requirement Initiative
- Texas Proposition 1: Right to Farming, Ranching, Timber Production, Horticulture, and Wildlife Management Amendment
- Texas Proposition 3: Prohibit Taxes on Wealth or Net Worth Amendment
- Colorado Proposition HH: Property Tax Changes and Revenue Change Measure
- Local Ballot Measures: Ranked-Choice Voting
Trends
Topics
- Abortion: In 2022, following Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, there were six ballot measures addressing abortion, including three constitutional amendments to establish a state constitutional right to abortion. Voters approved each one. In 2023, there is one—Ohio Issue 1, the Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative.
- See also: History of abortion ballot measures
- Marijuana: Heading into November, marijuana is legal in 23 states and D.C. Fourteen (14) of those 23 states had legalized marijuana through the ballot measure process. Voters in Ohio will decide on Issue 2, which would legalize the recreational or personal use of marijuana in the state. About 49.07% of the U.S. population lives in a state where marijuana is legal. Approval of Ohio Issue 2 would increase that percentage to 52.56%.
- Ranked-Choice Voting: Voters in four local jurisdictions decide ranked-choice voting measures on Nov. 7. Three are to adopt RCV, and one is to repeal the electoral system. Since 1965, voters have decided on 69 local ballot measures related to RCV. Voters have approved 76.19% of the local measures to adopt RCV and 66.67% of those to repeal RCV.
Campaign finance
- See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2023
Ballotpedia identified $189.82 million in contributions to support or oppose statewide measures on ballots in 2023, which was more than the previous three odd-numbered year election cycles.
The campaigns surrounding the following five ballot measures had received the most contributions:
| Measure | Support | Opposition | Total | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio Issue 1, Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative | $53,825,871 | $36,086,325 | $89,912,196 |  |
| Ohio Issue 1, 60% Vote Requirement to Approve Constitutional Amendments Measure | $23,554,336 | $22,023,777 | $45,578,113 |  |
| Maine Question 3, Pine Tree Power Company Initiative | $1,208,361 | $39,965,654 | $41,174,015 | |
| Maine Question 1, Voter Approval of Borrowing Above $1 Billion by State Entities and Electric Cooperatives Initiative | $24,943,829 | $0 | $24,943,829 | |
| Ohio Issue 2, Marijuana Legalization Initiative | $6,739,421 | $927,900 | $7,667,321 | |
Comparison to prior years
The following graph shows the total contributions to state ballot measure committees in 2017, 2019, 2021, and 2023. Contributions in 2023 surpassed contributions during the prior three odd-numbered-year election cycles.
Measures
Ohio Issue 1
Ohio Issue 1 is a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment to establish a state constitutional right to "make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions," including decisions about abortion, contraception, and other reproductive matters. Issue 1 would allow the state to restrict abortion after fetal viability, except when “necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.”[1]
The constitutional amendment is the fourth to propose adding a constitutional right to abortion to a state constitution. In 2022, following Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, there were three constitutional amendments to establish a state constitutional right to abortion. In California, Michigan, and Vermont, voters approved these constitutional amendments.
In Ohio, the political context is different. California and Vermont had state laws that legalized abortion; the constitutional rights made prohibiting abortion in the future more difficult. Ohio is more similar to Michigan. However, Ohio voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, and the state has been a Republican trifecta since 2011. Michigan voted for Trump in 2016, and then Biden in 2020, became a divided government in 2018, and then became a Democratic trifecta in 2023.
The language that voters will see on the ballot for Issue 1 is contested between supporters and opponents. Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) wrote the ballot question, which referred to unborn child, rather than the amendment's language, which used the word fetus. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the "ballot language is factually accurate" and "not improperly argumentative."[2]
In August, voters rejected a constitutional amendment, also titled Issue 1, to increase the voter approval threshold for new constitutional amendments to 60%, among other changes to the initiative process. This ballot measure would have required a 60% vote for the abortion-related constitutional amendment. Voters rejected August's Issue 1, with 57.11% voted against the legislative proposal.
Ohio Issue 2
Ohio Issue 2 is a citizen-initiated state statute to legalize marijuana for recreational or personal use in Ohio, which would be the 24th state to legalize marijuana.[3]
Thirteen of the 24 states that legalized marijuana did so through a ballot measure.
Issue 2 would allow persons who are at least 21 years old to use and possess marijuana, including up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana; create a Division of Cannabis Control to regulate marijuana businesses; and enact a 10% tax on marijuana sales, with revenue dedicated to a cannabis social equity and jobs program.[3]
An estimated 165.12 million people, or 49.07% of the country's population, live in a state where marijuana is legal. Approval of Ohio Issue 2 would increase that number to 176.88 million people, or 52.56%.
Measures to legalize recreational marijuana have lost at a higher rate in states that have voted for Republican presidential candidates (in the past three elections) than ones that voted for Democratic presidential candidates or had mixed election results. States that voted for Republicans, like Ohio, approved 44% of the ballot measures, whereas the other states approved 85%. There have been three polls on Ohio Issue 1 since July, and each one found that, of those surveyed, 59% supported the ballot initiative.
Maine Question 3
Maine Question 3, a citizen-initiated statute, would replace investor-owned transmission and distribution utilities in Maine with a quasi-public, elected-board corporation called the Pine Tree Power Company. As of 2023, investor-owned electric utilities, including Central Maine Power (CMP) and Versant, service about 96% of the state's population. Question 3 would provide for the Pine Tree Power Company to purchase and acquire investor-owned electric utilities. The Pine Tree Power Company Board would be comprised of 13 members, seven of whom would be elected from districts, while the remaining six members would be designated as experts in relevant fields.
In 2021, state Rep. Seth Berry (D-55) filed legislation to create the Pine Tree Power Company. Gov. Janet Mills (D) vetoed the legislation on July 13, 2021. Gov. Mills also opposes Question 3, saying the proposal is "a hostile take-over that will cost billions of dollars to Maine ratepayers, and inject partisanship into the delivery of our power, and delay the progress we’ve been making."[4] State Sen. Richard Bennett (R-18), who supports Question 3, said the existing "ownership model has been a disaster, draining money from Maine while leaving us with the most outages, the longest outages, the worst customer service, and among the highest rates in the country."[5]
Supporters, organized as the Our Power PAC, have received $1.07 million through September. Opponents, including the PACs Maine Affordable Energy and Maine Energy Progress, have received $35.52 million, including $21.50 million from Avangrid, the parent firm of CMP, and $13.43 million from Enmax, the parent firm of Versant.
Avangrid is also funding the campaign behind Maine Question 1, which would create an additional step for the Pine Tree Power Company should voters approve Question 3.
Maine Question 1
Maine Question 1 was initiated in response to legislation to create the Pine Tree Power Company. Question 1 would require voter approval for certain state entities, municipal electric districts, electrification cooperatives, or consumer-owned transmission utilities to incur a total outstanding debt that exceeds $1 billion.[6] The estimated cost for Pine Tree Power Company to purchase and acquire investor-owned electric utilities ranges from $5.0 billion to $13.5 billion.[7]
While voter approval would be required for certain state entities, some would be exempt, such as the Maine Public Employees Retirement System, Finance Authority of Maine, Maine Health and Higher Education Facilities Authority, Department of Transportation, Maine Turnpike Authority, Maine Municipal Bond Bank, municipalities and counties, and certain education-related programs.[6]
The No Blank Checks PAC, which supports Question 1, said, "... [Question 3] would authorize seizing the state’s electric utilities ... creating billions of dollars in debt we would all have to pay off through our electric bills. The people pushing this proposal can’t say exactly how much it would cost, and they are asking us to write a blank check. Voters should know the price tag and get a chance to vote on that debt first."[8] Al Cleveland, the campaign manager of the Our Power PAC, which supports Question 3, said, "Question 1 is another way that the utilities are trying to scare people from the possibilities and savings of Pine Tree Power. Those numbers that CMP and Versant are telling voters it's going to cost aren't based in any independent economic analysis, are not based on any nonpartisan information."[9]
Should voters approve Question 3 and Question 1, voter approval would be required before the Pine Tree Power Company can become indebted to acquire CMP and Versant. Regardless of the actual cost of acquiring the investor-owned utilities, supporters and opponents agree the cost would exceed $1 billion.
Maine Question 2
Maine Question 2, an initiated state statute, would prohibit foreign governments, or entities with at least 5% foreign government ownership or control, from making expenditures to influence ballot measures or candidate elections in Maine. Violation of Question 2 would be considered a Class C crime, carrying a fine of $5,000 or double the amount of the contribution or expenditure involved in the violation, whichever is greater.[10]
As of 2023, federal law prohibited foreign nationals, including foreign governments, from spending funds to influence federal, state, or local candidate elections. However, federal law does not address state and local ballot measure elections. At least seven states—California, Colorado, Maryland, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington—have enacted laws that prohibit foreign nationals from making contributions to ballot measure campaigns.[11]
Question 2 also has some relation to recent ballot measure campaign finance. In 2021, voters decided Question 1, which was designed to prohibit the construction of electric transmission lines defined as high-impact in the Upper Kennebec Region, including the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC). The NECEC would have allowed electric transmission from hydroelectric facilities in Québec, Canada, to the United States. Hydro-Québec, a government-owned corporation, spent at least $22.39 million to oppose Question 1.
Maine Question 4
Maine Question 4, a citizen-initiated state statute, was designed to require motor vehicle manufacturers to standardize onboard vehicle diagnostics and make access to vehicle systems available to owners and independent repair shops for repairs. An onboard vehicle diagnostics system generates, stores, or transmits data, including data from telematics systems. Question 4 would provide that owners and independent repair shops can access this information, rather than just vehicle manufacturers and dealerships.[12]
Supporters of these types of laws have referred to them as right-to-repair laws. At least five states have enacted right-to-repair laws, according to NCSL.[13] The first state was Massachusetts, where voters approved a ballot initiative in 2012, and then an additional one in 2020 as Question 1. With Question 4, Maine is the second state to vote on a right-to-repair ballot measure.
The Maine Automotive Right to Repair Committee is leading the campaign in support of Question 4. The PAC has received contributions from the Coalition for Automotive Repair Equality, as well as Autozone, Advance Auto Parts, Genuine Parts Company, and O'Reilly Auto Parts. Automakers and Repairers for Vehicle Repair Choice is leading the campaign in opposition to Question 4, with funding from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation.
Texas Proposition 1
Texas Proposition 1 is an amendment to the Texas Bill of Rights. Proposition 1 would establish a state constitutional right to farming, ranching, timber production, horticulture, and wildlife management. The constitutional amendment would provide that this right does not preclude the state legislature from passing laws to regulate these activities to "protect the public health and safety from imminent danger," "prevent a danger to animal health or crop production," or "preserve or conserve the natural resources of this state."Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name cannot be a simple integer. Use a descriptive title
In the Texas State Legislature, Proposition 1 received unanimous support, excluding absent or non-voting members, from both Democrats and Republicans.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name cannot be a simple integer. Use a descriptive title
State Reps. DeWayne Burns (R-58), Dustin Burrows (R-83), Mary Gonzalez (D-75), Trent Ashby (R-9), and Diego Bernal (D-123), who sponsored the amendment, said, "[Proposition 1] seeks to address this issue and empower landowners in the state by constitutionally protecting their right to engage in certain generally accepted agricultural practices on their own property." James Lockridge, a farmer based outside of Dallas, testified in favor of the amendment arguing that a constitutional right would protect farming activities from local ordinances that have "been a nuisance for all of us."[14][15][16] The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance opposes Proposition 1, stating, "While it sounds good and it will help some farmers who are struggling with unfair government regulations, the amendment goes much too far and will end up hurting both farmers and communities. ... It uses broad language and sets standards that can be used to prevent not only local governments, but state agencies and even future state legislatures from taking action to rein in operations that truly harm their neighbors and communities."[17]
Voters in Missouri and North Dakota have adopted right-to-farm constitutional amendments. In 2016, Oklahoma voters rejected State Question 777, a right-to-farm amendment.
Texas Proposition 3
Texas Proposition 3 would amend the Texas Constitution to prohibit the Legislature from enacting a wealth or net worth tax in the future. As of 2023, neither Texas nor other states had instituted a wealth tax. Proposition 3 would have the practical effect of requiring a new constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval, before the Texas State Legislature could adopt a wealth or net worth tax law.[18]
In the Legislature, all Republicans, excluding absent or non-voting members, supported Proposition 3, whereas 73.97% of Democrats opposed Proposition 3.
Karr Ingham, an economist and consultant, said, "[a wealth tax] would be fraught with logistical problems, and would be damaging to us economically. Texans typically have not had an appetite for going down that road, and I don’t think they will have it now." Economist Ray Perryman also said, "A wealth tax has some economic attributes that are negative, in that it discourages investment and risk-taking that is necessary for sustained economic growth. Having said that, I think Proposition 3 is primarily political and cosmetic in nature. ... The Proposition would require voter approval for such a measure to be enacted, which I suppose makes the already dim prospects even more remote."[19] The Houston Chronicle Editorial Board endorsed a "No" vote on Proposition 3, writing, "It seems Texas' proposed amendment is mostly just an opportunity for voters to signal to the state’s wealthy elite – Musk among them – that your money is safe here and will be for generations to come. ... Yet enshrining a tax policy ban in the Constitution strikes us as shortsighted. Who’s to say what Texas’ economic outlook will be 30 years from now? It would be foolish to take it off the table entirely as new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, could further concentrate wealth in the hands of a tiny few."[20]
In 2019, voters approved Proposition 4, which prohibited the Legislature from enacting an income tax.
Colorado Proposition HH
Colorado Proposition HH is a legislative statute that requires voter approval under the Colorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights, also known as TABOR. Proposition HH would allow the state government to retain and spend revenue that would otherwise need to be refunded to residents under TABOR, decrease the tax on residential and other properties, allocate state revenue from the change to local governments to make up for decreased tax revenue, and make other changes.[21]
In the Colorado State Legislature, Proposition HH received support from legislative Democrats and one Senate Republican. The remaining Senate Republicans, along with all House Republicans, opposed Proposition HH. Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed legislation for Proposition HH, allowing the proposal to appear on the ballot.
Senate President Steve Fenberg (D-18), who supports Proposition HH, said, "[Property tax revenue] is the revenue that goes to support fire districts, to support libraries, to support schools. And that’s a core part of making sure that we do this responsibly, rather than just saying property taxes are too damn high, so let’s cut them and not think about the impact that has downstream to our local services."[22] Kim Monson, president of the Colorado Union of Taxpayers, which opposes Proposition HH, said, "Coloradans are facing a historic increase in residential property values which will result in significantly higher property taxes for homeowners and businesses. Proposition HH purports to provide property tax relief. It is really a bait and switch at the expense of Coloradans’ TABOR refunds."[23]
Local Ranked-Choice Voting
There are four local ranked-choice voting (RCV) measures on the ballot on November 7, 2023. Two more measures were decided earlier in 2023. Six is the most local RCV ballot measures for an odd-numbered year since at least 1965. Three are in Michigan, and one is in Minnesota. Since 1965, voters have decided on 63 local ballot measures related to RCV.
The three local ballot measures in Michigan are in East Lansing, Kalamazoo, and Royal Oak. Each of these would adopt RCV provided that the state passes a law providing for the electoral system.
In Minnesota, voters in Minnetonka will vote on a citizen-initiated measure to repeal RCV. In 2020, voters approved Minnetonka Question 1, which established ranked-choice voting for mayoral and council elections. The measure was approved with 55% of the vote.[24]
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
- ↑ Ohio Attorney General, "The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety," accessed February 22, 2023
- ↑ Ohio Supreme Court, "The State Ex Rel. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights et al. Vs. Ohio Ballot Board et al.," accessed September 21, 2023
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Ohio Secretary of State, "An Act to Control and Regulation Adult Use Cannabis," accessed July 29, 2021
- ↑ Maine Governor, "Please Vote No On Question 3," September 20, 2023
- ↑ WABI 5, "Proposed ‘Pine Tree Power Company’ would replace Versant and CMP with consumer-owned nonprofit," April 20, 2021
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Maine Secretary of State, "An Act To Require Voter Approval of Certain Borrowing by Government-controlled Entities and Utilities and To Provide Voters More Information Regarding that Borrowing," December 7, 2021
- ↑ Maine Public Radio, "Here's everything we know about the referendum to replace CMP and Versant with Pine Tree Power," October 5, 2023
- ↑ No Blank Checks PAC, "Homepage," accessed October 8, 2023
- ↑ WMTW, "Question 1 requires Maine voters to approve borrowing billions to launch a consumer-owned utility," September 28, 2023
- ↑ Maine Secretary of State, "An Act To Prohibit Campaign Spending by Foreign Governments and Promote an Anticorruption Amendment to the United States Constitution," October 27, 2021
- ↑ Democracy Policy, "Foreign Investor Electioneering Ban," accessed March 7, 2023
- ↑ Maine Secretary of State, "Right to Repair Initiative," accessed January 14, 2022
- ↑ NCSL, "Right to Repair 2023 Legislation," August 7, 2023
- ↑ Texas State Legislature, "HJR 126 Witness List," accessed June 2, 2023
- ↑ Texas State Legislature, "HJR 126 Statement of Purpose," accessed June 2, 2023
- ↑ Progressive Farmer, "Right to Farm Conflicts in Texas," April 3, 2023
- ↑ Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, "Texas Proposition 1: Right to Farm or Right to Harm?" August 14, 2023
- ↑ Texas State Legislature, "House Joint Resolution 132," accessed May 2, 2023
- ↑ Waco Tribune-Herald, "Experts: Texas Prop 3 would ward off unlikely specter of 'wealth tax'," October 4, 2023
- ↑ Houston Chronicle, "Billionaires like Elon Musk don’t need Prop 3 amendment to the Texas Constitution (Editorial)," September 18, 2023
- ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "Senate Bill 303," accessed May 5, 2023
- ↑ The Denver Post, "With Gov. Jared Polis’ signature, next phase of fight over property taxes takes shape," May 25, 2023
- ↑ Colorado Union of Taxpayers, "Homepage," accessed October 8, 2023
- ↑ Minnetonka City Government, "City Council Meeting Minutes: Monday, August 10, 2020," accessed October 22, 2020
