It's not just Congress: What else have Americans voted on in the midterms?

Americans are voting on far more than seats in Congress. Thirty-six states are electing governors, and voters in many jurisdictions will decide statewide or local ballot measures. These measures can address voting requirements, abortion rights, LGBTQI+ rights, immigration, taxes and data-centre growth.

For example, voters in Arizona, California, Colorado and Nevada will consider stricter voter identification requirements. Alaska voters will decide whether to keep ranked-choice voting. California’s Proposition 40 would create a one-time 5 per cent tax on billionaires living in the state, while Washington voters will consider removing a tax on income above $1 million.

These choices could shape state policy for years. Governors can influence how laws are carried out, while approved ballot measures can directly change rules or funding. The elections therefore affect daily government and major political issues, not only the balance in Congress or President Donald Trump’s final two years.

A ballot measure lets voters decide directly on an issue or proposed law. Instead of choosing a candidate, people vote on whether a particular policy should be accepted, rejected or changed. The article describes these measures as statewide or local questions placed on ballots.

The process is similar to a referendum because both put a policy question directly to voters. For example, voters in Arizona, California, Colorado and Nevada will consider more stringent voter identification requirements. California voters will also consider Proposition 40, which would impose a one-time 5 per cent tax on billionaires living in the state.

Ballot measures matter because they can change rules without waiting for ordinary legislative action. Their effects can reach elections, rights, taxation and local development. The article also notes that measures may be unusual: Idaho voters are being asked to designate a state gun.

Thirty-six US states will vote for their next governor in these midterm elections. Together, those states represent around 80 per cent of the country’s population. This makes the governor’s races one of the election’s largest state-level contests.

The races are not all the same. In 19 states, no incumbent is on the ballot because the current officeholder chose not to run again or term limits apply. Democrats hope to reclaim the majority of governorships, which they last held in 2006. Republicans are also defending or contesting several important races.

The scale gives the results national political importance. States identified as potentially open to Democrats include Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Nevada and Ohio. Democrats are also challenging in Texas, Florida, Oklahoma and Nebraska, while Republicans are looking to Michigan and Oregon. The outcomes could shape policy during Trump’s final two years.

In general, a state governor leads the executive branch of state government. Governors typically oversee agencies, propose or administer budgets, appoint officials and may sign or veto legislation. The source does not list these powers, but they help explain why governor elections matter beyond one office.

A governor can affect whether state policies are implemented, challenged or given priority. For example, a governor may shape enforcement of voting requirements, abortion restrictions or immigration-related measures through appointments, administration and cooperation with other state officials. State legislatures and courts also play major roles, so a governor does not control every outcome alone.

The article places these contests alongside ballot measures on voting, abortion rights and immigration. Thirty-six states are voting for governors, representing around 80 per cent of the population. The results could therefore influence how major policies develop in many states and help determine the political environment during Trump’s final two years.

If voters approve these measures, state or local rules could change directly. The article identifies proposals involving voter identification, abortion rights, taxes and data-centre construction, zoning and approval requirements. These decisions can affect access to elections, public revenue, services and future development.

For example, stricter identification rules in Arizona, California, Colorado and Nevada could add requirements for voters. California’s Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5 per cent tax on billionaires living in the state, with supporters saying the money would fund healthcare, education and food assistance. Local data-centre measures could change where facilities are built or how they receive approval.

The consequences would vary by measure. A tax could raise or remove revenue, while zoning rules could slow, guide or restrict construction. Voting or abortion measures could establish different rules in individual states. Because proposals can shape policy for decades, their results may continue affecting residents and governments long after the election.

The article says most US states do not use preferential voting and identifies ranked-choice voting as an alternative used in Alaska. The source does not explain the mechanics, so the general explanation is that voters rank candidates by preference rather than marking only one choice.

Usually, if no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the last-place candidate is eliminated. That candidate’s ballots are transferred to voters’ next choices, and the process continues until someone has a majority. This mechanism can produce a winner through successive preferences, rather than a single count of first choices.

Alaska is asking voters whether to get rid of ranked-choice voting. The decision therefore concerns the state’s election method itself. If voters keep it, ranked preferences will remain part of the system; if they reject it, Alaska would move away from the approach. The article does not state which outcome voters will choose.

The article focuses on state and local elections but does not explain why they are separate. In general, the US system divides authority between the federal government and state governments, while local governments handle many community matters. States therefore make laws in areas not assigned exclusively to the federal government, subject to constitutional limits.

This structure allows states to organize their own elections, choose governors and place local or statewide measures on ballots. That is why voters in one state may consider stricter identification rules, while another considers taxes, ranked-choice voting or data-centre zoning. Local governments can also address construction and approval requirements.

Separate elections make state politics important even when the presidency is not on the ballot. In this election, 36 states representing around 80 per cent of the population are choosing governors. The results may produce different rules across states and shape national politics during Trump’s final two years.