The Markup: How November’s ballot measures will reshape our elections

When voters go to the polls, they won’t just choose who represents them. Voters in 18 states will also decide how future elections work: what ID you need to vote, how primaries are run, whether states can pursue mid-decade redistricting, and more. These ballot measures give voters a direct say in what future elections will look like.

In this special edition of The Markup, we break down the election-related measures on the November ballot and how they could change future elections. 

Voter Qualifications

Among the ballot measures that would impact voter qualifications in future elections, no subject is more prevalent than voter ID. In the August Oklahoma primary, voters passed a constitutional amendment requiring voters to present ID when voting by any method. In November, voters in six states will consider voter ID constitutional amendments:

  • Arizona Proposition 144: Voters will consider a constitutional amendment requiring government-issued identification for all voting methods. Arizona law currently requires voter ID for in-person voting and uses signature verification for early voting (mail-in) ballots. Because the state legislature referred this amendment directly to voters, Governor Katie Hobbs cannot veto it if voters approve the measure.
  • California Proposition 39: Petitioners placed a constitutional amendment on the November ballot requiring voters to present a government-issued ID when voting in person and provide the last four digits of a government-issued ID number when voting by mail. Current California law does not require voter ID. 
  • Colorado Initiative 362: Petitioners placed a constitutional amendment on the ballot requiring voters to provide the last four digits of their Social Security number or REAL ID number when returning a mail ballot. Colorado mails a ballot to every registered voter, so this policy would affect most voters. Colorado constitutional amendments need 55% of the vote to pass. 
  • Nevada Question 7: Petitioners placed a constitutional amendment on November’s ballot requiring voters to show photo ID when voting in person and the last four digits of their driver’s license or Social Security number when voting by mail.
  • North Carolina: North Carolina legislators referred a constitutional amendment to voters requiring photo ID when voting by any method. North Carolina law already requires photo ID for in-person voting and a copy of photo ID for mail voting. Adding these requirements to the state constitution would make it harder for the General Assembly to change the law in the future.
  • Ohio Issue 3: Ohio legislators referred a constitutional amendment to voters that would require specific forms of photo ID for in-person voting and specific identifying numbers for voting by mail. This amendment would essentially enshrine Ohio’s current voter ID laws into the state constitution.

Voter Registration

Voters in two other states will weigh changes to how people register and regain the freedom to vote: 

  • Massachusetts Question 4: Voters will consider legislation to create Election Day registration. If passed, the measure would allow eligible voters to register at their polling place on Election Day with proof of residency. 
  • Virginia Question 3: In two consecutive sessions, Virginia lawmakers approved a constitutional amendment that would automatically restore voting eligibility to people with past felony convictions once they complete any term of incarceration. This would mark a major change from current Virginia law, which leaves rights restoration entirely up to the governor’s discretion. 

Election Structure

Two states will consider ballot measures to change how their primary and general elections work. 

  • Alaska Ballot Measure 2: For the second time in two years, voters will decide whether to repeal Alaska’s top-four system, in which all candidates run in a single primary, and the top four vote-getters advance to a general election decided by ranked-choice voting. In 2024, a similar ballot measure to repeal this system narrowly failed statewide by fewer than 700 votes.
  • Massachusetts Question 3: Voters will consider a constitutional amendment to replace the current party primary system with a “top-two” system like those in California and Washington, where all candidates run in a single primary and the top two finishers advance to the general election.

Mid-Decade Redistricting

The recent wave of mid-decade congressional redistricting has prompted several ballot measures that let voters greenlight or limit efforts to redraw congressional districts.

  • Missouri Proposition A: Missouri voters will have the chance to exercise the “People’s Veto” to decide whether to approve the new congressional map the legislature passed last year. The vote follows years of litigation, including three stops at the U.S. Supreme Court. If approved, the new map will take effect for the 2028 election.
  • Colorado Amendment 86: Petitioners placed a constitutional amendment on the ballot to require the state’s independent redistricting commission and state Supreme Court to approve any new congressional map proposed before the 2030 census. Like Initiative 362, it requires 55% of the vote to pass. 
  • Maryland Question 3: The Maryland General Assembly referred a constitutional amendment to voters that would remove certain barriers to redrawing the state’s congressional map before the 2028 election.

Rules Governing Future Ballot Measures

Voters in three states will decide constitutional amendments that would make it harder to pass future ballot measures by raising the share of votes needed to approve them. Eleven states already require more than a simple majority to approve constitutional amendments. In August, Missouri voters resoundingly rejected Amendment 4, which would have required majority approval in each congressional district for any citizen-initiated constitutional amendment.

  • North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1: The state legislature referred this constitutional amendment to voters to raise the threshold for approving citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to 60%. The increase would not apply to amendments the legislature refers to voters. 
  • South Dakota Constitutional Amendment L: The state legislature referred this constitutional amendment to voters to raise the threshold for approving future constitutional amendments to two-thirds. 
  • Utah Constitutional Amendment B: This legislatively referred amendment would raise the threshold for approving citizen-initiated legislation that creates new or increased taxes to 60%.
  • Missouri Amendment 6: Missouri may move in the other direction.. After rejecting Amendment 4, Missouri voters will consider Amendment 6 in November. Amendment 6 would enshrine protections for the citizen initiative process into the state constitution. It would bar future legislative efforts to alter the initiative process and require an 80% vote from both chambers for the legislature to amend a law passed through the initiative process.

Other Measures to Watch

  • Citizen-Only Voting Amendments: Voters in Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, South Dakota, and West Virginia will consider constitutional amendments stating that only U.S. citizens may vote. These amendments are largely symbolic — each state’s laws already limit voting to U.S. citizens.
  • Michigan Proposal 1: Michigan state law requires a vote every 16 years on whether to call a state constitutional convention. This will be the fourth vote since the 16-year rule was implemented in 1978. Each previous time, strong majorities rejected a convention.

Whatever the outcome, these results will shape election rules for years to come. Follow along on our Election Policy Tracker and email press@votingrightslab.org to set up an interview with one of our policy experts.