There’s more at stake on Election Day than federal, state and local races. Voters in 37 states will decide the fate of 132 ballot initiatives, including a handful that could change how the democratic process works in nearly a dozen states.
Ballotpedia, the nonprofit organization that bills itself as the “digital encyclopedia of American politics,” has identified ballot measures affecting election administration in seven states as well as proposals in three states to change the ballot measure process itself.
A ballot measure, or ballot initiative, is a policy proposal to be decided by the voters of a state rather than by the legislature. About half the states have a process through which citizens can create initiatives and get them on the ballot. In others, such proposals are driven by the government.
Efforts to change the ballot initiative process are not new. In fact, RepresentUs recently released a study tracking five years’ worth of attempts to alter the rules.
“When our government isn’t responsive to the people, ballot initiatives are one of the tools that can rein in the power of self-interested politicians and give it back to the voters – where it belongs,” said RepresentUs CEO Joshua Graham Lynn. “Instead of spending their time strangling the voice of the people, elected officials need to uphold it. What are they so afraid of?”
Following is a breakdown of the proposals on the ballot this fall.
Initiatives impacting initiatives
On Nov. 8, voters in three states will determine whether to change the process.
In Arizona, the ballot questions are actually three proposed amendments to the state Constitution. The first would permit state lawmakers to change or defund ballot-approved laws if either the Arizona Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional. Opponents of the measure say it would give legislators too much power to override the will of the voters while supporters say it is necessary for fixing laws.
A second proposed amendment would require future ballot initiatives to address a single issue (and also require a clear description in the measure’s title).
The third measure would raise the threshold for approving ballot measures creating taxes to 60 percent of voters, more inline with the two-thirds requirement in the Legislature for creating taxes.
In Arkansas, a proposed constitutional amendment would change the requirement for approving future ballot initiatives from a simple majority to a three-fifths supermajority (in this case 60 percent of ballots cast). That requirement would apply to both citizen-driven and legislatively proposed initiatives. According to Ballotpedia, just 11 states currently require something more than a majority for constitutional amendments and no states require a supermajority for citizen-led state statutes (with a few specific exceptions in Florida, Utah and Washington).
Voters in South Dakota rejected a measure similar to the Arkansas proposal in June.
Finally, in Colorado, a ballot initiative would require future measures related to taxes to include details on the impact of such proposals.
Voting impacting voting
The seven voting-related measures cover voter identification, noncitizen voting, ranked-choice voting and more.
Arizona, the only state on both lists, has a ballot initiative that would require additional information from people who want to vote by mail. Currently, voters must sign early ballot envelopes, but the proposed measure would also require them to include their birth date and government ID number. It would also require all in-person voters to show photo identification. Current law allows voters to prevent two items, such as utility bills, that prove name and address in lieu of a photo ID.
A proposal on the ballot in Connecticut would allow no-excuse early voting. Connecticut is among five states that have restricted early voting.
Michigan voters, who already demonstrated the power of ballot measures by removing politics from the redistricting process a few years ago, will now decide whether to make changes to the voting process. A proposed constitutional amendment would ensure military overseas ballots postmarked by Election Day are counted, allow for an affidavit in place of a photo ID for voting purposes, allow the use of drop boxes and require a nine-day early-voting period. It would also create voter protections against harassment.
In Louisiana, voters will decide whether to amend their Constitution to ensure local governments do not allow noncitizens to vote. No city in the state is among the handful across the country that allows such a practice. The Louisiana vote will take place on Dec. 10, because the state uses Nov. 8 as a primary election.
Like Arizonans, the people of Nebraska will decide whether to change the voter ID requirements. The state does not currently require a person to present photo identification in order to vote, but a proposed constitutional amendment would change that.
Nevada may take the next step toward becoming the third state (after Maine and Alaska) to use ranked-choice voting for congressional and state elections. The proposal, which must be approved by voters in both 2022 and 2024, would create an open primary with the five candidates who receive the most votes regardless of party advance to an RCV general election. Alaska recently debuted its “top four” system.
Ohio, like Louisiana, is considering a constitutional amendment banning noncitizens from voting. In 2019, the people of Yellow Springs passed a measure allowing noncitizens to vote.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.