Missouri’s Amendment 3 would add language to the state constitution protecting the right to reproductive freedom, defined as:

“[T]he right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.”

The Amendment also allows the state legislature to regulate abortion after fetal viability. Abortion in Missouri is currently banned with exceptions such as procedures necessary for the health or life of the mother. The current law went into effect in June 2022 in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Fiscal Impact

The official ballot title contains the statement:

State governmental entities estimate no costs or savings, but unknown impact. Local governmental entities estimate costs of at least $51,000 annually in reduced tax revenues. Opponents estimate a potentially significant loss to state revenue.

The measure appearing on the ballot contains similar language, and both have been controversial. While state entities estimating no cost are equivalent to a finding of zero fiscal impact in measures frequently covered in this guide, the contribution by local government entities is uncommon and specific to this measure.

Proponents Arguments

Support and opposition to Missouri’s ballot measure protecting abortion rights mostly divide along familiar ideological lines. The state’s Democratic Party, ACLU, and League of Women Voters chapters endorsed the initiative. Statements issued by groups in favor of the amendment will be familiar to Missourians and all Americans who have followed the recent abortion debate.

Opponents Arguments

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Governor Mike Parsons (R-MO) joined state pro-life and Catholic groups in opposing the amendment. Again, opponents’ main talking points do not differ in tone or content from those employed in similar debates nationwide. 

Discussion

Unlike several other pro-choice state initiatives in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Clinic decision overturning Roe vs. Wade, Missouri’s proposed amendment does more than provide extra protection to current pro-choice legislation. Given the current legislative ban, the fate of Amendment 3 in November should have immediate and important consequences for the provision of abortion in Missouri.

Many ballot initiatives require informed voters to familiarize themselves with details of fiscal policy and regulation that are not usually at the forefront of political debate and on which voters may not have strong opinions when walking into the voting booth. Missouri’s proposed amendment on abortion rights is just the opposite. Most voters nationwide already have pro-choice or pro-life views–often firmly held–and will vote on the measure according to those views.

Voting along ideological lines makes at least as much sense in Missouri as in other states since passing the amendment will do much more than prevent rights from future threats or make a progressive political statement. Neither side has advanced any arguments of core importance suggesting voters behave otherwise.

Ironically, the most contentious disputes between Missourians supporting and opposing the amendment have sprung from the attempted moderation of the measure at issue and the law it would replace. The exceptions already provided–cases where otherwise prohibited abortion may be allowed or where generally protected abortion may be restricted–are vaguely enough worded to allow both sides to fall back on familiar tropes when casting each others’ views in a negative light.

The most egregious example is the already-mentioned addition to the estimate of zero fiscal impact by state authorities. This cost was calculated selectively by a few participating counties intended to capture reduced tax revenue from the unborn who would have been residents but for the amendment.

Missourians will vote on Amendment 3 based on previously developed pro-choice and pro-life positions. The result will largely determine the future of abortion in the state, though clashes between groups on both sides promise to continue no matter the result.

The post Missouri Amendment 3 would constitutionally protect reproductive freedom appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Arizona Proposition 138 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that would change the structure of minimum wage for tipped workers. Under current law, workers who regularly receive tips from customers can be paid up to $3 less per hour by the employer so long as the worker’s total reported compensation is at least equal to the statewide minimum wage. This reduction in employer-provided wages is known as a “tip credit” against the minimum wage.

Proposition 138 proposes to change the maximum allowable tip credit from $3 per hour to 25% of the minimum wage. In 2025, Arizona’s minimum wage—which is indexed to inflation—will increase from $14.35 to $14.70 per hour. That means the allowable tip credit would change from $3 to $3.67 per hour if Proposition 138 is approved. However, employers would only be able to utilize the tip credit if the employee’s total compensation is at least $2 per hour higher than the minimum wage. So, the minimum compensation for tipped workers would rise above the minimum wage for other workers, but employers would be able to claim a slightly higher tip credit because a portion of the employee’s compensation is derived from tips.

Legislators proposed Proposition 138 in June, at least in part, as a response to a competing initiative—Proposition 212—that would have eliminated the tip credit and raised the minimum wage statewide to $18 per hour. Proposition 212 was withdrawn by its sponsors in August after failing to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Fiscal Impact

Legislative analysts did not develop a concrete estimate of Proposition 138’s fiscal impacts. However, they identified several key economic trends that could have a fiscal impact as a result of its passage. Higher wages could impact business activity or profits, employee wages, and consumer behavior to the extent that higher wages are passed onto consumers as higher prices. 

Fiscally, these changes could manifest themselves in state individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, and sales taxes. Analysts concluded that “the overall impact on state revenue collections cannot be determined in advance.” State spending on means-tested programs could also be affected, although analysts could not determine this impact in advance.

In particular, analysts note: “While there is considerable academic research on the effect of increases in the hourly minimum wage, research on the effects of the minimum wage tip allowance is more limited.”

Proponents’ Arguments

Proposition 138 received the support of all Republicans and four Democrats in the Arizona House and passed along party lines with Republican support in the Arizona Senate. The legislative proposal was backed by the Arizona Restaurant Association after the sponsors of failed Proposition 212 began gathering signatures. Rep. Justin Wilmeth (R-Phoenix), who sponsored Proposition 138 as a legislative measure, referenced the competing proposal as a motive for his effort, saying:

“We all know that the restaurant industry is a very small profit industry. If you have a disparity in a forced raise of costs for a business, they will either shut down, limit staff or make other alternatives.” 

Grant Krueger, a restauranteur aligned with the Arizona Restaurant Association, told reporters that many servers in his restaurants earn more than $41 per hour when tips are included. If he were forced to pay a higher minimum wage directly and could not claim a tip credit, he would need to raise menu prices. He also argued the restaurant experience would change as more restaurants use electronic kiosks to replace higher-priced labor, saying:

“We’re going to see more and more tablet based ordering and QR based ordering, as opposed to the full service hospitality experience that our customers have known to love and to appreciate.”

Opponents’ Arguments

Proposition 138 is opposed by Raise the Wage Arizona, a local affiliate of One Fair Wage, a national organization that has sponsored ballot initiatives in 25 states to raise the minimum wage. Raise the Wage Arizona also organized the failed Proposition 212.

Raise the Wage Arizona attorney Jim Barton argues that Proposition 138—titled the “Tip Workers Protection Act”—is misleading. Barton filed a lawsuit seeking to disqualify Proposition 138 from the ballot shortly after it was approved by lawmakers based on these arguments. In early August, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson denied Barton’s challenge, noting the court does not have the authority to remove a proposed initiative from the ballot simply because it makes passage of a competing ballot measure more or less likely.

Barton has also responded directly to claims made by Grant Krueger, arguing that if Proposition 138 passes, “that server who was making $41 an hour will now make $40.40 an hour…I don’t know that anyone can say with a straight face that 60 cents an hour, one way or another, is going to shut down the restaurant industry or mean they’re going to have to start using QR codes.”

Discussion

Despite conflicting portrayals by proponents and opponents, Proposition 138 would unambiguously raise the minimum earnings of a tipped worker by $2 per hour. It would also allow a modest increase in the tip credit employers are allowed to claim to satisfy this requirement. 

Most states allow employers to apply some tips received by tipped workers toward satisfying a minimum wage requirement. Only seven states—Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington—do not allow for a tip credit. The U.S. Department of Labor maintains a database of state laws relating to minimum wages for tipped employees. Its July 2024 edition reveals that Arizona currently offers the fourth-smallest tip credit, at $3 per hour, among the 43 states that allow for a tip credit. Hawaii’s tip credit is the smallest, at $1.25 per hour, while Maryland’s is the largest, at $11.37 per hour. The federal standard, which prevails in 15 states, allows for a tip credit of $5.12 per hour, while the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. As a result, federal law requires employers of tipped employees to pay at least $2.13 per hour directly to employees as long as the employer can document that the employee received at least $5.12 per hour in tips.

Arizona’s minimum wage is already substantially higher than the federal standard. As a result of Proposition 206’s passage in 2016, Arizona’s minimum wage rose gradually to $12 per hour by 2020 and was thereafter indexed to inflation. Employers were also required to offer paid sick leave. According to federal data, Arizona’s minimum wage was the tenth-highest nationwide in 2024. The state with the highest minimum wage was Washington, at $16.28 per hour. Net of the tip credit, only four states—California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington—impose a higher minimum wage than Arizona.

If Proposition 138 is approved, these rankings will change slightly for tipped workers. The minimum wage for tipped workers would be $2 per hour higher than for all other workers in Arizona, rising to about $16.70 per hour in 2025 after the minimum wage is again adjusted for inflation. That wage would exceed the current minimum wage for tipped workers in every other state.

The Common Sense Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Arizona, attempted to model the macroeconomic effects of Proposition 138 using a common input-output mathematical model of the local economy. The model assumed all bartenders and servers and approximately half of other customer-facing restaurant employees would experience a $3 per hour boost to wages. Federal data show this group of employees in Arizona currently averages $22.04 per hour, including tips. The model concludes that consumer prices in restaurants and bars would rise 1%, Arizona’s overall economic output would decline by $500 million and personal income would fall by $700 million as consumer behavior adjusts to a relative rise in prices for restaurants. The model also expects 1,935 net job losses in the restaurant and bar industry by 2030.

The evidence on how minimum wages affect workers is clear: 

• Some workers get a pay increase.  
• Many teenage and young adult workers see their jobs cut. Despite the individual studies supporters will point to showing no job cuts, there are vastly more studies that find job reductions from minimum wage hikes. 
• Many more workers see their hours cut.  
• Other workers have benefits cut, especially healthcare. 

The post Arizona Proposition 138 would change the minimum wage for tipped workers appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Missouri Proposition A would amend Missouri’s existing minimum wage statute by increasing the minimum hourly compensation that an employer can legally pay an employee to $13.75 in 2025 and $15 in 2026. In 2018, Missouri voters approved Proposition B, which increased the minimum wage statewide on an incremental annual basis from $7.85 per hour until it reached $12 in 2023. Thereafter, the existing minimum wage would increase annually at the rate of inflation. As a result, Missouri’s minimum wage for 2024 is $12.30 an hour. If Proposition A is approved, the minimum wage will continue to be adjusted upward each year at the rate of inflation as it is under current law.

In addition, Proposition A would require most employers to offer paid sick leave. Businesses with 15 or fewer employees would need to provide at least five paid sick days per year, while businesses with more than 15 employees would need to provide at least seven paid sick days. Employees would also gain a legal right to carry over 80 hours of unused sick time from one year to the next. The government and many non-profit employers would be exempt from these requirements. 

Fiscal Impact

State budget analysts attempted to assess the prospective fiscal impact of Proposition A and concluded it would result in “one-time costs ranging from $0 to $53,000, and ongoing costs ranging from $0 to at least $256,000 per year by 2027” as the policy affects the pay and benefits of direct employees. In addition, “state and local government tax revenue could change by an unknown annual amount depending on business decisions.” That is, reduced corporate earnings could reduce corporate income tax receipts, while changes in employment levels could affect individual income tax or sales tax receipts.

Proponents’ Arguments For

Proposition A is sponsored by Missourians for Health Families & Fair Wages. The organization has raised $4.3 million in support of the initiative, coming from a range of progressive organizations. On its website, the organization argues that parents are forced to “decide between sending their children to school sick or losing a day’s pay because they don’t get paid sick days” and that the state’s existing minimum wage has not kept up with the cost of living.

Campaign spokesman Richard Von Glahn suggested to the Missouri Independent that the paid sick leave provisions are about fairness. He said, “Sick days are very common amongst the highest paid workers, you know, executives, those types of positions.”

State Rep. Crystal Quade, the Democratic candidate in the Missouri gubernatorial race, argues that minimum wage jobs aren’t only for the young. “The reality,” she told reporters, “is we have so many parents and so many people who are working minimum wage jobs, multiple minimum wage jobs to get by because they can’t actually find good quality high paying jobs in the state of Missouri.”

Opponents’ Arguments Against

The Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry opposes Proposition A, arguing that it oversteps decisions that should be made at the firm level and creates new liabilities for Missouri businesses. “A business owner’s ability to set their own workplace policies and procedures is really the bedrock on which our free enterprise system is built,” commented Kara Corches, the chamber’s interim president and CEO. “So this is creating a new mandate for employers in terms of wage as well as paid leave policy, that is really against that principle of ‘let business decide.’”

Ray McCarty, CEO of Associated Industries of Missouri, asserts that “you will have people that abuse the system” due to the changes.

Discussion

Standard economic theory indicates that as the price of anything increases, the quantity demanded will decrease. In terms of labor, this means that prospective employers will seek to employ fewer workers as the price they must pay for those workers rises.  

In theory, wages are primarily a function of productivity, and minimum wage laws tend to most strongly affect the labor market for workers with limited skills or experience, such as those seeking entry-level jobs. Empirical evidence confirms this is true. The Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes data about the characteristics of minimum wage workers every year. Its latest release, summarizing data from 2023, shows that 3% of employed teenagers are minimum-wage earners while only 1% of workers over the age of 25 are minimum-wage earners. Workers without a high school diploma are also twice as likely to be minimum-wage earners. Similarly, part-time workers are twice as likely as full-time workers to be minimum-wage earners. Although this federal data assesses the characteristics of workers earning the federal minimum wage, which is lower than many states require, it demonstrates that the effect of minimum wage laws is concentrated at the entry level. To the extent minimum wage laws reduce employer demand for labor, relatively unskilled or inexperienced workers are likelier than skilled and experienced workers to experience unemployment. 

There are two main caveats to this reasoning. First, if almost all entry-level workers are being paid more than the minimum wage, then a minimum wage law will not affect employment levels. For instance, the average hourly wage for a Missouri food preparation worker was $15.92 per hour in 2023, while for retail salespersons, it was $17.17, according to federal data. Although these occupations are commonly entry-level and associated with minimum wage laws, the proposed minimum wage that would be implemented with the passage of Proposition A is unlikely to strongly affect market outcomes. 

Second, the cost or availability of different production techniques may affect the relationship between the minimum wage and employment offerings. For example, if machinery like a computerized sales kiosk is available at a lower cost than a minimum wage worker, businesses are more likely to substitute machinery for human workers, which would result in fewer job offerings. By contrast, if labor cannot be easily substituted for machinery, then employers may be compelled to retain human workers and offset the additional wage cost through some combination of higher prices charged to consumers or reduced corporate earnings. As economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis concluded in 2021: “A higher minimum wage can also result in employers using automation to replace more expensive human labor.” 

The evidence on how minimum wages affect workers is clear: 

• Some workers get a pay increase.  
• Many teenage and young adult workers see their jobs cut. Despite the individual studies supporters will point to showing no job cuts, there are vastly more studies that find job reductions from minimum wage hikes. 
• Many more workers see their hours cut.  
• Other workers have benefits cut, especially healthcare. 

Despite evidence showing that minimum wage laws tend to reduce employment opportunities for entry-level workers or result in higher consumer prices that negate the purchasing power of nominally higher wages, minimum wage laws have been popular at the ballot box. Between 1996 and 2022, 28 ballot initiatives appeared across the country proposing higher minimum wages, and 26 of those were approved by voters. Nevada and Nebraska were the most recent states to raise minimum wages through ballot initiatives in 2022. As of 2024, Washington State has the highest minimum wage at $16.28 per hour, while Missouri, at $12.30 per hour, ranks 18^th among the states. 

Although organizers claim that wages have not kept up with the cost of living, the existing minimum wage is indexed to inflation so that it grows each year in proportion to living expenses. 

The language in Proposition A includes a requirement to award sick leave to all employees. This fringe benefit is an additional form of employee compensation and carries a financial cost that would push the implied minimum wage higher than what is stated. Employees would be awarded one hour of paid sick leave for each 30 hours worked, which implies an additional compensation value of $0.50 on an hourly basis. Employees in large firms would be permitted to use up to 56 hours of sick leave per year, while employees in small firms could use only 40. While this caveat may be intended to shield small businesses from some of the measure’s economic impacts, it’s not clear why a worker would need more sick time simply because they work in a business with 15 or more employees. 

The post Missouri Proposition A would increase the minimum wage, create a sick leave mandate appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Arizona Proposition 140 would replace Arizona’s current semi-open partisan primary election process with a single open primary. The proposition would also require the Arizona State Legislature or the secretary of state to decide how many candidates would advance from the single open primary to the general election. The proposition may or may not establish ranked-choice voting in certain elections, depending on actions by the legislature or secretary of state. Proposition 140 would affect all elective state and county offices and candidates for the U.S. Senate and for the U.S. House of Representatives. Notably, the proposition has unique implications for elections to the Arizona State House of Representatives because each district elects two members to office rather than one.    

Currently, Arizona has a semi-open primary system whereby only registered party members and unaffiliated voters are allowed to participate in each party’s primary elections. Only registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters may vote in Democratic Party primaries, and only Republicans and unaffiliated voters may vote in Republican Party primaries. In most primary elections, the candidate receiving the most votes in each party’s respective primary advances to the general election—one candidate represents each party. In elections to the Arizona State House of Representatives, each district elects two representatives, so more than one candidate may emerge from a party’s primary. Proposition 140 would replace this system with an open primary where all candidates appear on one ballot, regardless of party affiliation. 

Under the initiative, a specified number of candidates receiving the most votes would advance to the general election. Proposition 140 does not specify how many candidates will move on to the general election; instead, it gives the Arizona State Legislature until November 1, 2025, to decide. For example, lawmakers could decide that only the top two candidates from the open primary should be included in the general election. Or the legislature could allow up to five general election candidates in most races. In elections to the Arizona State House, the number of general election candidates could range from four to seven. If the legislature does not act by November 1, 2025, the secretary of state will determine how many candidates are allowed to compete in general elections.

Finally, the initiative would establish rank-choice voting in general elections with more than two candidates (or more than four candidates in general elections to the Arizona State House of Representatives). Under rank-choice voting, voters rank their preferred candidates rather than selecting one candidate to receive their votes. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. That candidate’s votes are then redistributed based on voters’ ranked preferences. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority.

Fiscal Impact 

The official fiscal impact analysis prepared by the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee states that “[b]ecause the proposition’s implementing details are subject to further action by state and local governments, the overall fiscal impact cannot be determined in advance.” However, the analysis suggests that Proposition 140 would increase the cost of administering elections by:

1. Increasing the number of candidates that appear on the general election ballot
2. Changing the length of both sample and election ballots 
3. Increasing the number of voters receiving a primary ballot

Additional costs would likely be primarily borne by local governments rather than the state. There is uncertainty regarding Prop. 140’s impact on presidential primary elections, which are currently paid for by the state. Prop. 140 prohibits the use of state monies for partisan primary elections, but it does not explicitly require a single open primary for presidential races. In other words, presidential primaries could not continue to be funded by the state unless the legislature takes action to alter the presidential primary process. 

Proponents’ Arguments

Supporters of Prop. 140 argue that it will result in greater electoral competition, improve representation, and reduce political polarization. For example, former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard argued that: 

Today, 80% of all Congressional and Legislative candidates are basically elected outright in low turnout partisan primaries. This reform will require more competition which creates better choices, and better results for Arizona. It will make our state stronger.

The campaign in favor of Prop. 140 is led by the Make Elections Fair PAC. According to Sarah Smallhouse, chairperson of the Make Elections Fair PAC:

With independent and unaffiliated voters now accounting for the largest part of the Arizona electorate it’s illogical to confine voter choices in the primaries to the very parties they’ve chosen to separate from. Let all candidates compete, let the voters decide and let the best candidates win.

Paul Johnson, former mayor of Phoenix, has also argued that: 

This initiative to amend our State Constitution is intended to reward the individual over the party, to cherish the heroes who embrace the individual power granted to us in our sacred founding documents. To fulfill the wishes of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson who all warned us about the power of political faction. Today, we are here to give voice to the individual who wants freedom, today we are here to restore American values which celebrate individual liberty. This proposition promotes competition within our political system, to ensure that the best ideas rise to the top and that voices of all Americans are heard. 

Opponents’ Arguments 

Opponents of Prop, 140 have argued that eliminating the current partisan primary process would violate the rights of private political parties to select their own nominees. As Jeff DeWit, former chairman of the Arizona Republican Party, has argued:

Republicans don’t want Democrats voting for our primary candidates, and I’m sure Democrats don’t want us voting for theirs…All unaffiliated voters, or as they are commonly referred to as, Independents, already can and do vote on the primaries to make their voices heard.

Others have objected to Prop. 140 because it may lead to some political parties to be entirely excluded from general elections. In some cases, the top candidates that advance from the primary could all be from the same party. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has raised this concern, commenting that: 

…their measure will result in some races where candidates from only one political party appear on the general election ballot, depriving many voters of any choice at all.

Discussion 

While expanding voter choice and allowing non-partisan voters to play a more significant role in elections are laudable goals, it is not clear that open primaries are a good means for achieving those goals. Ranked-choice voting, on the other hand, is an effective strategy for offering voters more choices. Supporters of ranked-choice voting argue that it allows voters to choose their most preferred candidate first without worrying about wasted votes or spoiler effects. This would lend voters more choice. 

Political parties are fundamentally private organizations with the right to set their own rules for nominating candidates. To infringe on that right is to violate the freedom of association. No matter how large or powerful the two major parties may be, the government has no role in determining the process for their primary elections. That limitation does not prevent non-partisan voters from vocalizing their dissatisfaction with major-party nominees. In particular, replacing Arizona’s current semi-open primary process would not have any appreciable effect on the ability of unaffiliated voters to participate. Better alternatives for including non-partisan voters in the electoral process include allowing minor-party candidates to participate in debates and redrawing gerrymandered districts.

Ranked-choice voting, on the other hand, would improve Arizona’s current general election process. Ranked-choice voting alleviates concerns about wasted votes and spoiler effects, and such ballots may lend more opportunity for minor party candidates. Moreover, there is evidence that ranked-choice voting can result in higher voter turnout and increased engagement with political campaigns. While critics have raised concerns that ranked-choice voting may be confusing for voters, research indicates that “ranked ballots do not raise the probability that a voter would cast a void (uncountable) vote, despite raising the probability of at least one violation of voting instructions.” Unfortunately, it is not clear whether Prop 140 would establish ranked-choice voting. The proposition leaves much to be decided by the legislature or secretary of state.

Overall, Prop. 140 grants far too much power to the legislature or secretary of state by allowing them to determine how many candidates can compete in general elections. The impact of Prop. 140 is, therefore, uncertain and could generate substantial conflict without any clear benefit.

The post Arizona Proposition 140 would implement a single primary for all candidates appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Colorado Proposition 131 would change the election process for certain state and federal offices by establishing top-four open primaries and ranked-choice voting. The initiative would only affect elections for the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, Colorado University Board of Regents, the state board of education, and the state legislature. 

Currently, Colorado has a semi-open primary system where only registered party members and unaffiliated voters are allowed to participate in each party’s primary elections. Only registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters may vote in Democratic Party primaries, and only Republicans and unaffiliated voters may vote in Republican Party primaries. The candidate receiving the most votes in each party’s respective primary advances to the general election—one candidate represents each party.

In the top-four open primary system proposed by Proposition 131, all candidates would appear on the same ballot in primary elections. Voters could cast their vote for any candidate, regardless of party affiliation. The top four candidates overall would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. Rather than one candidate representing each party, multiple candidates from a single party could be among the top four that advance to the general election. 

Proposition 131 would establish rank-choice voting in the general election. Under rank-choice voting, voters rank their preferred candidates rather than selecting one candidate to receive their vote. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. That candidate’s votes are then redistributed based on voters’ ranked preferences. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority.

Notably, Proposition 131 is unlikely to take effect in the near future. In May 2024, the Colorado Legislature passed Senate Bill 10, a law that requires 12 municipalities to adopt and implement ranked-choice voting before Proposition 131 is implemented for state and federal elections. Given that only a few municipalities in Colorado currently use ranked-choice voting, Proposition 131 likely won’t be implemented until 2028 or 2030.

Fiscal Impact 

Proposition 131 will likely have a negative fiscal impact, although the precise costs of implementation are unknown. The official fiscal impact statement prepared by Legislative Council Staff projects a $3.6 million increase in Department of State revenue in the second and third years of implementation. The projected increase assumes that the Department of State will adjust business filing fees to cover additional costs. 

Proposition 131 is projected to cost $97,280 in the first year of implementation. Costs will rise substantially to $5,925,869 in the second year and $5,689,293 in the third year. The official cost estimates include expenditures for voting system software updates, poll worker training, voter outreach, and ballot redesign. 

Proponents’ Arguments 

Supporters of Proposition 131 argue that top-four open primaries will provide voters with more choice and reduce political polarization. For example, Loren Furman, Colorado Chamber of Commerce president and CEO, has argued that:

By expanding voter choice, we believe that Proposition 131 will encourage balance on both sides of the aisle and reduce the polarization that leads to bad policy for business.

Proponents suggest that Colorado’s current election system grants too little voice to voters who are not members of either major political party. Dick Williams, the former chair of the Colorado Republican Party, has argued: 

We used to have a great process in Colorado. It was very competitive, and it worked well. Colorado has changed in the last 10 years. The electorate has changed. We went from a third, a third, a third in the electorate to now, nearly 50% of the electorate are unaffiliated voters. They are rejecting both parties, and they’re rejecting both parties because both parties are going to their extremes, both Republicans and Democrats.

Colorado Governor Jared Polis endorsed Proposition 131, saying: 

While Colorado has among the best voter integrity and access protections, no system of voting is perfect, and I think instant runoff voting is better than our current system because it gives voters more choices. I’m hopeful that if it passes it will encourage participation and improve our democracy.

Opponents’ Arguments 

Opponents of Proposition 131 argue that the initiative is a misleading attempt to undermine Colorado’s election system. For example, U.S. Representative Lauren Boebert has stated that “[r]anked choice voting is a scheme launched by well-moneyed interests who are only concerned with their own power and not giving Coloradans a choice at the ballot box.”

Some opponents have also argued that Proposition 131 is backed by powerful interests, including big corporations and wealthy individuals. Patrick Dillon, the co-chair of the Green Party of Colorado, has argued that:

Just like the origin of this proposal, it’s backed by big money. So in the open primary, what you’re going to find is those who have access to those resources, and those who are interested in protecting their corporate interests, they’re going to fund the candidates that best align with them.

Former Republican State Representative Dave Williams specifically targeted Kent Thiry, a sponsor of the initiative and former healthcare industry executive, saying:

Self-serving rich liberals shouldn’t be able to buy their way onto a ballot and manipulate democracy with deceptive marketing…Thiry wants to be governor and validate his ego by spending his massive wealth to change the rules of the game so he can have a better chance at winning.

Discussion 

While expanding voter choice and allowing non-partisan voters to play a more significant role in elections are laudable goals, it is not clear that open primaries and top-four election processes are a good means for achieving those goals. Ranked-choice voting, on the other hand, is an effective strategy for offering voters more choices. Supporters of ranked-choice voting argue that it allows voters to choose their most preferred candidate first without worrying about wasted votes or spoiler effects.

Because ranked-choice voting alleviates concerns about wasted votes and spoiler effects, such ballots may lend more opportunity for minor party candidates. Moreover, there is evidence that ranked-choice voting can result in higher voter turnout and increased engagement with political campaigns. While critics have raised concerns that ranked-choice voting may be confusing for voters, research indicates that “ranked ballots do not raise the probability that a voter would cast a void (uncountable) vote, despite raising the probability of at least one violation of voting instructions.”

Regarding open primaries, political parties are fundamentally private organizations with the right to set their own rules for nominating candidates. To infringe on that right is to violate the freedom of association. No matter how large or powerful the two major parties may be, the government has no role in determining the process for their primary elections. That limitation does not prevent non-partisan voters from vocalizing their dissatisfaction with major-party nominees. Moreover, Colorado already has semi-open primaries, so unaffiliated voters are able to participate in partisan primary elections. Better alternatives for providing voters with greater voice and choice in the electoral process include allowing minor-party candidates to participate in debates and redrawing gerrymandered districts.

Overall, the Colorado top-four ranked-choice voting initiative has some laudable goals and contains some ideas worthy of consideration. However, mandating open primaries and a top-four system both conflict with other long-established goals of primary elections. 

The post Colorado Proposition 131 would implement top-four ranked-choice voting appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Here, you will find voter guides on every statewide initiative on the ballot in the following states: 

California

Colorado

Florida

Nevada

In addition, we have done relevant policy research on some topics being voted on in multiple states. As such, we have analyzed several of the ballot measures on policy issues, including:

Crime and Criminal Justice

Drug Legalization and Regulation

Education

Housing

Abortion

Gay Marriage

Minimum Wage

Rank Choice Voting

Additional voters’ guides for other states and issues are here.

The post Voters’ guide to 2024 statewide ballot initiatives appeared first on Reason Foundation.

California Proposition 2: Public Education Facilities Bond Measure

California Proposition 3: Right to Marry and Repeal Proposition 8 Amendment

California Proposition 4: Parks, Environment, Energy, and Water Bond Measure

California Proposition 5: Lower Supermajority Requirement to 55% for Local Bond Measures to Fund Housing and Public Infrastructure Amendment

California Proposition 6: Remove Involuntary Servitude as Punishment for Crime Amendment

California Proposition 32: $18 Minimum Wage Initiative

California Proposition 33: Prohibit State Limitations on Local Rent Control

California Proposition 34: Require Certain Participants in Medi-Cal Rx Program to Spend 98% of Revenues on Patient Care Initiative

California Proposition 35: Managed Care Organization Tax Authorization Initiative

California Proposition 36: Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated Felonies Initiative

The post Voters’ guide to California’s statewide ballot questions (2024) appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida Amendment 1: Partisan Elections for Members of District School Boards

Florida Amendment 2: Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment

Florida Amendment 3: Marijuana Legalization Initiative

Florida Amendment 4: Right to Abortion Initiative

Florida Amendment 5: Annual Inflation Adjustment for Homestead Property Tax Exemption Value

Florida Amendment 6: Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Campaigns

The post Voters’ guide to Florida’s statewide ballot questions (2024) appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Colorado Amendment I: Remove Right to Bail in First Degree Murder Cases Amendment

Colorado Proposition KK: Sales Tax on Firearms Dealers, Manufacturers, and Ammunition Vendors Measure

Colorado Amendment J: Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment

Colorado Proposition JJ: Retain Sports Betting Tax Revenue for Water Projects

Colorado Amendment 79: Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative

The post Voters’ guide to Colorado’s statewide ballot questions (2024) appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Nevada Question 1: Remove Constitutional Status of Board of Regents

Nevada Question 2: Revising Language Related to Public Entities for Individuals with Mental Illness, Blindness, or Deafness

Nevada Question 3: Top-Five Ranked Choice Voting Initiative

Nevada Question 4: Remove Slavery as Punishment for Crime

Nevada Question 5: Sales Tax Exemption for Diapers

Nevada Question 6: Right to Abortion Initiative

Nevada Question 7: Voter Identification Initiative

The post Voters’ guide to Nevada’s statewide ballot questions (2024) appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Colorado Amendment 79: Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative

Florida Amendment 4: Right to Abortion Initiative

Maryland Question 1: Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment

Missouri Amendment 3: Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative

Nevada Question 6: Right to Abortion Initiative

New York Proposal 1: Equal Protection of Law Amendment

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G: Right to Abortion Initiative

The post Voters’ guide to 2024 ballot initiatives related to abortion appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Five states have ballot initiatives before voters on criminal justice issues (Arizona, California, Colorado, Missouri, and Nevada). They cover a range of important criminal justice issues, including new punishments for certain crimes, fines and fees, use of bail, and whether or not inmates can be required to work. 

Arizona Proposition 311: Criminal Conviction Fee for First Responder Death Financial Benefit Measure

Arizona Proposition 313: Life Imprisonment for Sex Trafficking of a Child Measure

California Proposition 6: Remove Involuntary Servitude as Punishment for Crime Amendment

California Proposition 36: Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated Felonies Initiative

Colorado Amendment I: Remove Right to Bail in First-Degree Murder Cases Amendment

Colorado Proposition KK: Excise Tax on Firearms Dealers, Manufacturers, and Ammunition Vendors Measure

Missouri Amendment 6: Levying of Fees to Support Salaries of Law Enforcement Personnel Amendment

Nevada Question 4: Remove Slavery as Punishment for Crime from Constitution Amendment

The post Voters’ guide to 2024 ballot initiatives related to crime and criminal justice appeared first on Reason Foundation.

California, Kentucky, and Nevada voters will vote on important education initiatives this year, including school choice and bonds to fund new schools.

California Proposition 2: Public Education Facilities Bond Measure

Florida Amendment 1: Partisan Elections for Members of District School Boards

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2: Allow State Funding for Non-Public Education Amendment

Nevada Question 1: Remove Constitutional Status of Board of Regents Amendment

The post Voters’ guide to 2024 ballot initiatives related to education appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Rank-choice voting allows voters to put the candidates on the ballot in the order they prefer rather than just picking one. Our guides explain how rank-choice voting works and what has been learned from places that use it.  

Alaska Ballot Measure 2: Repeal Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative

Arizona Proposition 140: Single Primary for All Candidates and Possible Ranked-Choice Voting General Election Initiative

Colorado Proposition 131: Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative

Idaho Proposition 1: Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative

Nevada Question 3: Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative

Oregon Measure 117: Ranked-Choice Voting for Federal and State Elections Measure

The post Voters’ guide to 2024 ballot initiatives related to rank-choice voting appeared first on Reason Foundation.

California Proposition 3: Right to Marry and Repeal Proposition 8 Amendment

Colorado Amendment J: Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment

Hawaii Remove Legislature Authority to Limit Marriage to Opposite-Sex Couples Amendment 

The post Voters’ guide to 2024 ballot initiatives related to same-sex marriage appeared first on Reason Foundation.

This year, voters in Florida and South Dakota will be choosing whether or not to legalize adult recreational marijuana use. Voters in Massachusetts will decide on legalizing adult access to psychedelics. 

Florida Amendment 3: Marijuana Legalization Initiative

Massachusetts Question 4: Regulated Access to Psychedelic Substances Initiative

South Dakota Initiated Measure 29: Marijuana Legalization Initiative

The post Voters’ guide to 2024 ballot initiatives related to drug policy appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Alaska Ballot Measure 1: Minimum Wage Increase and Paid Sick Leave Initiative

Arizona Proposition 138: Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers

California Proposition 32: $18 Minimum Wage Initiative

Missouri Proposition A: Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Initiative

The post Voters’ guide to 2024 ballot initiatives related to minimum wage appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Currently, Article I, Section 23 of Hawaii’s Constitution states: “The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” The Hawaii Remove Legislature Authority to Limit Marriage to Opposite-Sex Couples Amendment was put on this year’s ballot by the state legislature so voters can choose to remove the current language in Section 23 or to leave it as-is. 

Fiscal Impact  

Hawaii legalized same-sex marriage licenses in 2013, and same-sex marriage was legalized across the United States in 2015 with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. There is therefore no fiscal impact.   

Proponents’ arguments  

The Democratic Party of Hawaii supports the amendment. Democratic Governor Josh Green gave written testimony to the House Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs in favor of the measure, noting that Hawaii’s Supreme Court over 30 years ago maintained that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples was discriminatory and that in 2013, the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act recognized same-sex marriages. U.S. House Representative Jill Tokuda (D-2nd) offered written testimony arguing that the Supreme Court’s threat to revisit the Obergefell decision demands action to preserve the rights of LGBTQ Hawaiians.   

Among the nongovernmental supporters of the amendment’s passage are the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, the Hawaii Health & Harm Reduction Center, and the Hawaii State AFL-CIO. The Hawaii State AFL-CIO, in its testimony to the House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs, wrote, “As a labor organization, we understand the importance of fighting for the rights of marginalized communities,” rooting their endorsement in the need for equal treatment under the law, fairness, and non-discrimination.

The ACLU, in its written testimony to the House Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs, noted that it had opposed the original constitutional amendment, which would become Section 23, on the grounds that it was discriminatory. It believes that because the language is discriminatory, it should be removed. The ACLU also emphasized the importance of doing so due to the Supreme Court’s “roll back of abortion and civil rights protections, and dicta suggesting the potential over-turning of Obergefell vs. Hodges.”   

Opponents’ arguments  

The bill introducing the constitutional amendment, Hawaii House Bill 2802, was not passed unanimously, although there was bipartisan support. It passed in the House 43-6, with one Democrat and five Republicans voting against it. The Senate voted 24-1 in favor, with one Republican voting against it.  Those who opposed the bill did not give written statements to the House Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs.   

No political, nongovernmental, or religious organizations are taking formal positions opposing the amendment. One of the chief political proponents of the 1998 constitutional amendment to grant the legislature the ability to reserve marriage to heterosexual couples, State Senator Mike Gabbard (D-Kapolei), apologized this year for his role in that amendment and voted to repeal it.   

Discussion   

Hawaii’s Amendment 2, which would become Section 23, in 1998 was approved by 70% voters to establish in the state constitution that only members of the opposite sex could legally marry in Hawaii. The right for same-sex couples to marry in the state was nevertheless legislatively granted in 2013 with the state Marriage Equality Act. The ability for states to prohibit marriage for same-sex couples was later further invalidated by the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which ruled that marriage was a right guaranteed to same-sex couples under due process and equal protection. However, Section 23 remains in the state constitution. 

This amendment removes vestigial and now dormant language from the Hawaii constitution that enabled the legislature to limit marriage on the basis of sex. Hawaii was one of 30 states that amended its constitution via ballot initiative to include language that limited, or potentially limited, marriage to unions between a man and a woman between 1998 and 2012. To date, only Nevadans have repealed their amendment. There is no other practical change, fiscal or social, that will come from voters’ approving this amendment. Both judicially via Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) and legislatively via Hawaii’s Marriage Equality Act (2013), and the Respect for Marriage Act (2022), same-sex couples in Hawaii are entitled to marry and have their marriage recognized across all 50 states.  

It is still appropriate for Section 23 to be democratically removed by the voters of Hawaii, for several reasons. This language has been deemed unconstitutional, because it violates core principles of personal freedom and equality under the law. Removing it ensures that the government is limited in its ability to legislate morality and restrict access to a socially validated institution that also provides numerable tangible and intangible benefits. And, societal attitudes have changed dramatically since Section 23’s passage. Seventy percent of Hawaiians now support the right for same-sex couples to legally wed, and so it is likely to pass, along with similar ballot measures in Colorado and California.    

The post Hawaii constitutional amendment would remove legislative authority to ban same-sex marriage appeared first on Reason Foundation.