Billionaire tax, transgender rights, voter access among key midterm ballot measures

A ballot measure is a proposed law or constitutional change placed directly before voters. Instead of lawmakers alone deciding, voters cast ballots for or against the proposal. If it passes under that state's rules, it can change state policy or constitutional language. This matters because ballot measures can shape elections, taxes, healthcare, education, and personal rights for years.

The article gives Nevada as an example. Nevada voters approved a voter-access measure with 73% of the vote in 2024. However, the state constitution requires approval in two consecutive elections before the measure passes. Voters therefore use the ballot not only to express support, but also to complete a required legal process.

Across the states, voters are considering measures on identification, citizenship, reproductive freedom, gender issues, and taxation. The result depends on each state's voting rules and constitutional requirements. Successful measures can create new obligations, protect rights, repeal existing policies, or direct government revenue.

Voters in 13 states are considering measures that would change voter access or voting rights. The proposals do not all move in the same direction. Some would add identification or citizenship requirements, while others would make registration easier or restore rights after incarceration. Together, they show how states are debating who may vote and how voting happens.

California, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona would impose voter-identification laws. Alaska, Arizona, South Dakota, Kansas, Arkansas, and West Virginia would state that only U.S. citizens can vote in elections administered by the state. Massachusetts is considering same-day registration, while Virginia would restore voting rights to some people after release from prison.

The measures could create different voting rules across states. Federal law already makes noncitizens ineligible to vote, and the article notes few proven cases of noncitizen voting in previous elections. If adopted, these proposals could affect registration, ballot access, eligibility checks, and rights after incarceration.

Voter-access measures could change both eligibility and the practical process of voting. Voter-ID proposals would require voters to meet an identification rule. Citizenship measures would state that only U.S. citizens may vote in elections administered by the state. The article notes that federal law already bars noncitizens from voting, although few proven cases have occurred.

Massachusetts offers the opposite approach. Its proposal would create same-day voter registration on Election Day, allowing eligible people to register when they vote rather than completing registration earlier. Virginia's measure would restore voting rights to some incarcerated citizens after they are released from prison. These proposals would expand access for some voters.

The effects would vary by state and by measure. Identification and citizenship rules could add eligibility checks, while same-day registration could remove an advance-registration deadline. Restoring rights after release could allow more formerly incarcerated citizens to participate. Together, the measures could produce noticeably different voting systems across states.

Reproductive-rights measures are appearing because the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. That decision eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion and left abortion laws and regulations to individual states. Once state governments had greater control, voters could be asked to protect, define, or repeal reproductive-rights provisions through ballot measures.

The article identifies four states with reproductive measures. Virginia, Idaho, and Nevada would enshrine laws giving people the right to make their own reproductive decisions and keep those decisions private. Missouri voters would decide whether to repeal a 2024 initiative that placed a constitutional right to reproductive freedom in the state's constitution.

These votes could produce different legal protections from state to state. Some measures would add rights and privacy protections, while Missouri's proposal would remove an existing constitutional provision if approved. The results will help determine how reproductive decisions are governed after Roe's constitutional framework was overturned.

The proposed restrictions would regulate participation in school or other sports and access to certain gender-related healthcare. Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, and Washington would prohibit participants from playing on teams different from their sex assigned at birth. The measures would especially affect transgender students and other athletes whose gender identity differs from their assigned sex.

Washington's proposal goes further by requiring students on female sports teams to provide healthcare documentation verifying their sex. Colorado and Missouri are considering measures that would prohibit minors from receiving gender-transition surgeries or healthcare professionals from providing those surgeries. Those rules would directly affect minors seeking the procedures and the professionals who provide them.

If approved, the measures could change team eligibility, documentation requirements, and medical decisions involving minors. Schools, athletes, families, and healthcare professionals would face the new rules in those states. Because the proposals are state measures, their effects would not automatically apply nationwide, leaving different policies across the country.

The proposals use different approaches to taxing wealth and income. California's Proposition 40 would impose a 5% tax on the wealth of taxpayers and trusts with assets valued above $1 billion. Colorado would replace its uniform tax rate with a progressive system, meaning the percentage rises as income rises. Washington's measure would repeal its 9.9% tax on people earning more than $1 million annually.

California's billionaire tax would apply to wealth above the stated asset threshold and direct the revenue to state healthcare, food assistance, and public education. Colorado's proposal would tax people earning less than $25,000 at 3.7%, with rates increasing to 8.4% for anyone earning more than $1 million. Washington's vote concerns whether its existing high-earner tax remains.

These measures could shift who pays and how much states collect. California would target very large assets, while Colorado would link rates to income. Washington voters would decide whether to remove a tax already aimed at million-dollar earners. The outcomes could influence funding and future tax debates.

The United States allows states to govern many areas through their own laws and constitutions. That includes election procedures, tax systems, reproductive rules, and regulations affecting sports or healthcare. State voters can therefore consider different ballot measures, and the same national election can produce different policies in different states.

The article illustrates this variation. Colorado may replace its uniform tax rate with progressive rates, while Washington voters may repeal a high-earner tax. Massachusetts may adopt same-day registration, while Virginia may restore voting rights after prison release. After Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion laws and regulations were left to individual states, producing another area of state-by-state decision-making.

This structure means a measure's effects usually stop at the state's legal boundaries. States can adopt different rules, though federal law still sets limits in some areas. For example, the article states that federal law makes noncitizens ineligible to vote. Ballot outcomes can therefore widen policy differences across the country.