Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
State Ballot Measure Monthly: May 2025
By Ballot Measures Project staff
This edition of the State Ballot Measure Monthly provides certifications of state ballot measures and notable ballot measure news from April 9 to May 6.
2025 and 2026 ballot measures
Overview: Nationally, nine statewide ballot measures were certified for the ballot in five states in 2025, 39 statewide ballot measures were certified for the ballot in 24 states in 2026.
Signatures submitted: Initiatives pending signature verification.
Initiatives certified to the legislature: Initiatives pending before state legislatures:
- Alaska Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (2026)
- Maine Extreme Risk Protection Orders to Restrict Firearms and Weapons Access Initiative (2025)
- Maine Require Voter Photo ID and Change Absentee Ballot and Dropbox Rules Initiative (2025)
- Nevada Exempt School Teachers from Public Employee Strike Ban Initiative (2026)
Comparison to earlier years
From 2011 to 2023, the average number of statewide ballot measures in an odd-numbered year was between 33 and 34.
2025 certifications
- See also: Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count for 2025
Three ballot measures were certified in Texas and Washington for the 2025 ballot during this period.
April 11:
- Washington SJR 8201, Allow Investment of Long-Term Services and Supports Trust Fund Amendment: SJR 8201 would allow the Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS) Trust Fund to be invested in stocks and equities rather than being limited to fixed-income securities. An amendment to allow the LTSS fund to be invested in stocks or other methods of investment, Senate Joint Resolution 8212, was on the ballot in 2020. Voters rejected the amendment with 54.4% opposed and 45.6% in favor.
April 29:
- Texas Prohibit Taxes on Certain Securities Transactions Amendment: The amendment would prohibit the state legislature from passing laws that impose an occupation tax on certain entities transacting securities or a tax on certain securities transactions. The amendment states that it would not prohibit the imposition of a general business tax, a tax on minerals, an insurance premium tax, sales tax on tangible property or services, or a fee on the cost of document creation or processing.
May 5:
- Texas Prohibit Capital Gains Tax on Individuals, Estates, and Trusts Amendment: The amendment would prohibit the state legislature from enacting a tax on realized or unrealized capital gains of an individual, family, estate, or trust, including a tax on the sale or transfer of a capital asset.
2026 certifications
- See also: Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count for 2026
Thirteen ballot measures were certified for 2026 ballots in seven states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Vermont.
April 9:
- North Dakota 60% Vote Requirement for Constitutional Amendments Measure: The amendment would require constitutional amendments initiated by citizens or referred by the state legislature to receive a 60% vote to be adopted. Currently, 11 states require a supermajority vote or other election vote threshold for constitutional amendments. New Hampshire has the highest vote requirement for constitutional amendments at two-thirds (66.67%).
April 14:
- Arkansas Natural Resources Commission Bond Measure: The amendment would authorize the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission to issue up to $500 million in general obligation bonds to fund water-related infrastructure projects including water treatment and transportation, waste disposal, pollution abatement, drainage, irrigation, flood control, and wetlands and aquatic resources infrastructure.
- Arkansas Citizenship Requirement for Voting Amendment: The amendment would provide that only U.S. citizens may vote in state or local elections. From 2018 to 2024, voters decided on 14 ballot measures related to adding language about citizenship requirements for voting. Voters approved all 14 measures. Similar measures were also certified for the 2026 ballot in Kansas and South Dakota.
April 15:
- Arkansas Right to Keep and Bear Arms Amendment: The amendment would expand the constitutional right to keep and bear arms to include for lawful hunting and recreational use or other lawful purposes, without limitation on the possession and use of ammunition, firearm accessories, or firearm components. The amendment would state that the right to keep and bear arms is "a natural, fundamental, and individual right that shall not be infringed." Forty-five states have the right to bear arms in their constitutions. Five states—California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York—do not.
April 16:
- Arkansas Creation of Economic Development Districts Amendment: The amendment would authorize the legislature to create Economic Development Districts with the authority to issue bonds and use public funds to promote economic development and diversification, prevent unemployment or underemployment, and fund transportation, commerce, and real estate projects. Property within these districts would be exempt from state and local property taxes but would be subject to taxes, assessments, or other charges levied by the district itself.
April 21:
- Tennessee Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment: The amendment would replace the list of rights for victims of crimes in the constitution with a new list, including the right:
- to be present at all criminal proceedings;
- to be treated with fairness;
- to reasonable notice of all public criminal proceedings;
- to be heard in any proceeding involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition, and parole;
- to be free from harassment, intimidation, and abuse throughout the criminal justice system; and
- to have the safety of the victim, the victim's family, and the general public considered before any parole decision is made, among other rights.
- Tennessee Prohibit State Property Taxes Amendment: The amendment would prohibit the state legislature from enacting taxes on property. There is currently no statewide property tax, though the legislature has the power to create one. There are county and municipal property taxes in Tennessee. If the amendment is approved by voters, the legislature would not be able to create a property tax without again amending the state constitution. This would require at least two sessions of the Tennessee General Assembly, a two-thirds approval by the house and the senate, and majority voter approval.
- Tennessee Remove Right to Bail for Certain Criminal Offenses Amendment: The amendment would remove the right to bail in cases where the presumption of guilt is great and the defendant is accused of the following offenses:
- acts of terrorism;
- second-degree murder;
- aggravated rape of a child;
- grave torture; and
- any other offense for which a convicted individual could not be released prior to the expiration of at least 85% of their sentence.
April 24:
- North Dakota Single-Subject Requirement for Constitutional Amendments Measure: North Dakota voters will decide on an amendment in June 2026 to create a single-subject requirement for initiated constitutional amendments and legislatively referred constitutional amendments and prohibit the secretary of state from approving an initiative for circulation if the initiative is determined to include more than one subject. There are 26 states that provide for at least one type of statewide citizen-initiated measure. Of those 26 states, 16 have single-subject rules.
April 29:
- Alabama Add to List of Non-Bailable Offenses Amendment: The amendment would add the following offenses to the list of offenses for which bail may be denied:
- shooting or discharging a firearm, explosive, or other weapon into an occupied dwelling, building, railroad locomotive, railroad car, aircraft, automobile, truck, or watercraft; and
- solicitation, attempt, or conspiracy to commit murder.
May 1:
- Missouri Require Election of Jackson County Assessor Amendment: The amendment would make the Jackson County Assessor an elected position by removing the constitutional exemption that currently allows the county to appoint the assessor. The existing exception that this amendment would delete applies to a county with a population of more than 600,000 but less than 700,000. Jackson County is the only county in Missouri with a population of over 600,000.
- Vermont Proposal 3, Right to Collective Bargaining Amendment: Proposal 3 would amend the Vermont Constitution's Declaration of Rights to provide that employees have a state constitutional right to organize and join a labor organization for collective bargaining with their employer. This constitutional right to collective bargaining would include "negotiating wages, hours, and working conditions and to protect their economic welfare and safety in the workplace." Proposal 3 would prohibit laws that interfere with, negate, or diminish this constitutional right, including those that ban agreements requiring union membership as a condition of employment (right-to-work laws).
May 2:
- Florida Exempt Tangible Personal Property Used for Agriculture or Agritourism from Property Taxes Amendment: The amendment would exempt tangible personal property, such as farm equipment or tools, from property taxes if the property is typically present on agricultural land, used for farming or agritourism activities, and owned by the landowner or leaseholder of the land. Amendments to the Florida Constitution require a 60% supermajority vote to pass.
Headlines
How Wisconsin’s partial veto power has evolved through 95 years of ballot measures
The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld Gov. Tony Evers’ (D) use of a partial veto in the state’s biennial budget on April 18, 2025. His partial veto extended a two-year school funding increase into a 402-year provision. At the center of the case were constitutional provisions that had been added or amended through three ballot measures between 1930 and 2008:
Question 1 of 1930: Established the governor's partial veto for appropriation bills Question 1 of 1990: Prohibited the governor from using the partial veto to create new words from individual letters Question 1 of 2008: Prohibited the governor from using the partial veto to create a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences
In the Wisconsin State Legislature, Republicans have proposed two constitutional amendments related to the partial veto. One could appear on the ballot in 2026, and the other in 2027.
Ballotpedia maintains a full inventory of Wisconsin's 258 ballot measures, including the three amendments related to the governor’s partial veto power. As part of Ballotpedia’s Historical Ballot Measure Factbook project, this resource offers detailed, nonpartisan information on how ballot measures have shaped state constitutions, addressed major policy debates, and influenced the balance of power in state governance.
1930: Origin of Wisconsin’s Partial Veto
In 1930, voters in Wisconsin approved Question 1, granting the governor the power to issue partial vetoes on appropriation bills. Question 1 inserted the following language into Section 10 of Article V: “Appropriation bills may be approved in whole or in part by the governor, and the part approved shall become law, and the part objected to shall be returned in the same manner as provided for other bills.”
State Sen. Thomas Duncan (Socialist) sponsored the proposal, arguing that the governor needed partial veto power because the legislature had "completely overhauled the budget system of the state" in the previous session. He said, "[Currently,] the governor can block bad budget legislation only by vetoing the entire bill. The item veto is absolutely indispensable to the successful operation of the Wisconsin budget plan, in which all appropriations are made in a single bill."[1]
Phillip La Follette (R), who was campaigning for governor, opposed Question 1. He said, "Passage of the amendment would be another step in the concentration of power in the executive office. ... The arguments in favor of this tendency are all based upon the argument in favor of dictatorship as opposed to self-government." La Follette won the gubernatorial election with 64.8%, and Question 1 was also approved, with 62.2% support.[2]
1990: Can’t Remove Individual Letters to Form New Words
The first amendment to the partial veto provision of the Constitution was not adopted until 1990. Titled Question 1, the vote was 60.5% to 39.5%. The ballot measure prohibited the governor from using the partial veto to form new words by removing individual letters from words in appropriation bills.
Before proposing Question 1, the Democratic-controlled Wisconsin Senate filed a lawsuit against Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) over his use of the partial veto. In its June 1988 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that “any claimed excesses on the part of the governor in the exercise of this broad partial veto authority are correctable not by this court, but by the people, either at the ballot box or by constitutional amendment.”[3]
In 1990, the Associated Press described the conflict that led to the constitutional amendment: "The constitutional amendment was backed by Democrats angered by Gov. Tommy G. Thompson’s use of hundreds of partial vetoes to rewrite legislation sent to him by the Democratic-controlled Legislature since 1987." At the time, Wisconsin had a divided government—Democrats controlled both chambers of the legislature, while Gov. Thompson was a Republican.[4]
2008: Can’t Combine Parts of Two Sentences to Form a New Sentence
In 2008, voters approved a constitutional amendment modifying the governor’s partial veto authority. The amendment prohibited the governor from creating a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences in an appropriation bill. The measure passed with 70.6% of the vote.
In the 2005 biennial budget, Gov. Jim Doyle (D) selected 20 words from a 752-word section to form a new sentence authorizing the transfer of $427 million from the transportation fund to the general fund to support public school operations. This method—constructing new sentences from fragments of multiple, sometimes unrelated, sentences—was referred to as a Frankenstein veto.
According to the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, “Largely in response to Governor Doyle’s aggressive use of the editing veto in the 2005 biennial budget, the 2005 legislature, in a bipartisan vote, adopted 2005 Senate Joint Resolution 33, which proposed amending the constitution to ban the Frankenstein veto. … The 2007 legislature adopted the proposal on second consideration almost unanimously.”[5]
Wisconsin Supreme Court on Gov. Evers’ Partial Veto for School Funding Change
In Lemieux v. Evers, decided on April 18, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld Gov. Tony Evers’ (D) partial veto extending a two-year school funding provision to 402 years. The 4-3 decision followed the court’s ideological divide, with the liberal bloc in the majority and the conservative bloc dissenting.
Petitioners argued the partial veto violated Section 10(1)(b) of Article V of the Wisconsin Constitution. This language was part of the original constitutional amendment approved in 1930: "Appropriation bills may be approved in whole or in part by the governor, and the part approved shall become law." Petitioners said the governor's action was not akin to approving the 'appropriation bills... in part.' Justice Jill Karofsky, writing the court's opinion, stated that the partial veto followed four deletion-veto principles established in prior case law. Justice Brian Hagedorn dissented, writing, "This is not a policy that was presented to the governor for approval." He also critiqued earlier decisions that formed part of the precedent cited in the court’s opinion.[6]
Under Section 10(1)(c), added in 1990 and then amended in 2008, the constitution prohibits the governor from creating a new word through deleting individual letters from words. Petitioners argued that deleting digits from the phrase '2023–24 school year, or 2024–25 school year' to create the number 2425 violated Section 10(1)(c). Karofsky wrote, "The plain meaning of ‘word’ does not include numbers written out using digits, and the plain meaning of ‘letters’ does not include digits." Hagedorn did not dispute the meaning, but stated, "Changing durations, with the effect of creating new policy that was never proposed nor passed by the legislature, doesn’t neatly fall into any of these restrictions, so it must be constitutional. This logic flouts the constitution’s text and structure, and the wisdom that underlies both."[6]
The Wisconsin Supreme Court also addressed how the partial veto relates to the state constitution's separation of powers. Karofsky, citing the ruling from 1988, wrote, "Even when that change is considerable... the governor’s constitutionally-vested, quasi-legislative role defeats any separation of powers-type argument." Hagedorn wrote, "While [Question 1 of 1930] certainly conferred significant power on the governor, nothing from the debates at the time, early cases, or language suggests this kind of veto was a grant of magical, unilateral power to make law."[6]
Future Amendments: Legislative Republicans Propose Changes
In the legislature, Republicans have introduced constitutional amendments to further change the governor’s partial veto powers. In Wisconsin, a constitutional amendment must be approved during two legislative sessions.
In 2024, legislators passed Assembly Joint Resolution 112 (AJR 112), which would prohibit the governor from using the partial veto to create or increase a tax or fee. In the state House and state Senate, Republicans supported AJR 112, and Democrats opposed the proposal. The constitutional amendment must be approved again during the 2025-2026 legislative session to appear on the ballot in 2026. As of April 20, the proposal has not been reintroduced into the legislature.
Fifteen House Republicans, along with three Senate Republicans, introduced a different constitutional amendment into the legislature on February 17, 2025. The proposal would limit the governor’s partial veto power by allowing vetoes only of entire sections of an appropriations bill, and only if those sections could stand alone as complete and workable laws. If approved by the legislature twice, the earliest possible election date for the constitutional amendment is April 6, 2027.
In an email to legislators, three of the amendment's sponsors wrote, "Unfortunately, in Wisconsin, this veto 'in part' has turned our chief executive into a super law maker. The people of Wisconsin have strongly affirmed limiting this out-of-control governor veto power each time a chance has been given to them by way of constitutional referenda. This proposed constitutional amendment would move beyond trying to plug specific loopholes and instead return the Wisconsin Constitution to the original intent by only allowing a governor to veto specific bill sections."[7]
Britt Cudaback, a spokesperson for Gov. Evers, responded, “[It] says a lot about Republicans’ priorities that they are attempting to put yet another Republican-drafted and Republican-backed constitutional amendment on the ballot while they refuse to give the people of Wisconsin that same opportunity… they should approve Gov. Evers’ plan to give the people of Wisconsin the power to pass policies by a majority vote at the ballot box.” Cudaback is referencing a citizen-initiated ballot measure process. While Wisconsin does not have a ballot initiative process, voters did decide the issue once before, 16 years before the partial veto question appeared on the ballot. In 1914, voters rejected Question 2, which would have created an initiative and referendum process in Wisconsin.[8]
See also
- 2025 ballot measures
- Ballot initiatives filed for the 2025 ballot
- Ballot Measure Scorecard, 2025
- Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count for 2025
Related articles
Footnotes
- ↑ Stevens Point Journal, "Duncan Urges Laws Allowing Partial Veto
- ↑ Kenosha News, "Phil. LaFollette Opposes Amendment for Veto of Parts of Bill," October 14, 2025
- ↑ Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, "The Wisconsin Governor’s Partial Veto," June 2019
- ↑ The Post-Crescent, "Voters pick Steinmetz, curtail veto power," April 4, 2025
- ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "The Wisconsin Governor's Partial Veto after Bartlett v. Evers," accessed May 6, 2025
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Wisconsin Supreme Court, Lemieux v. Evers, decided on April 18, 2025
- ↑ WPR, "CO-SPONSORSHIP MEMORANDUM," January 27, 2025
- ↑ Wisconsin Examiner, "Republicans target governor’s partial veto power with another constitutional amendment proposal," January 28, 2025
|