2025 and 2026 ballot measure totals trend above average for odd and even years

By

Ballotpedia staff

Welcome to the Friday, April 18, Brew. 

By: Briana Ryan

Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

  1. 2025 and 2026 ballot measure totals trend above average for odd and even years
  2. Beyond Encyclopedia: How Technology Powers Ballotpedia’s Mission
  3. A school board president in Wisconsin faces an April 22 recall election

2025 and 2026 ballot measure totals trend above average for odd and even years

As of April 15, the number of certified statewide ballot measures for both 2025 and 2026 is trending above average compared to previous election cycles. Here’s an overview of the measures that have been certified so far.

2025 ballot measures

Seven measures have been certified in Louisiana, Ohio, Washington, and Wisconsin for 2025. Since 2010, an average of six measures have been certified at this point in odd-year election cycles.

Voters have already decided on five measures so far this year.

  • On March 29, voters rejected four constitutional amendments in Louisiana. 
  • On April 1, voters approved one constitutional amendment in Wisconsin. 

The next ballot measure election is May 6 in Ohio.

One new measure was certified for the Nov. 4 ballot in Washington in the past two weeks. The Washington Legislature referred the measure, related to investing in the Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS) Trust Fund, on April 11.

2026 ballot measures

For 2026, 29 measures have been certified in 20 states. Since 2010, an average of 21 measures have been certified at this point in even-year election cycles. 

Six new measures were certified in four states for elections in 2026 in the past two weeks.

Signature deadlines for 2025 and 2026

Signatures were verified for two indirect initiatives in Maine, which would appear on the Nov. 4, 2025 ballot. In Nevada, signatures were verified for one indirect initiative, which would appear on the 2026 ballot. Since both states have an indirect initiative process, initiatives with enough valid signatures first go to the legislatures before they have a chance to appear on the ballot. If the legislatures approve the initiatives, it becomes law. If the legislature does not act on or reject the initiative, the initiative goes on the ballot.

The most recent signature deadline for initiatives was Jan. 23 in Maine. Supporters submitted signatures for the two indirect initiatives noted above.

The next signature deadlines are July 2 in Ohio and July 3 in Washington for initiatives intended for the Nov. 4, 2025, ballot.

Click here for more information on the measures certified for the 2025 ballot. You can also check out information on the measures certified for the 2026 ballot here.

Beyond Encyclopedia: How Technology Powers Ballotpedia’s Mission

Please join me here each Friday for my column on what Ballotpedia is focused on building for you and for voters across the country. Your feedback and insights are welcome.

Ballotpedia is the encyclopedia of American politics. We provide encyclopedic coverage of elections at every level of government. But when we step back a bit, it becomes clear that Ballotpedia is more than an encyclopedia.

We are also a digital media company — the Daily Brew you’re reading right now is one of those media products, as are our YouTube videos, podcast, and more. And Ballotpedia is also, fundamentally, a technology company.

What does that mean?

We use technology as a means to achieve a purpose. For us, that purpose is providing voters with the most complete and accurate portrait of every candidate for every office on their ballots.

In practice, that means we are trying to provide comprehensive information on elections for more than 500,000 offices at the federal, state, and local levels. That’s a big job for anyone. But what makes it more complex is that our election system is decentralized, and those 500,000-plus elections (the overwhelming majority of which are for local offices) operate under different rules.

Our challenge, then, is to build a fast, reliable, adaptable system that can work within this highly complex environment and provide voters with the information they need to make informed choices.

One of those systems is our Sample Ballot Lookup. This powerful tool puts the encyclopedic depth of Ballotpedia’s research on individual candidates and elections in the palm of every voter’s hand.

As powerful as this tool has become, it’s still limited because we don’t have information on every candidate. That’s unacceptable. We know it. We’re working on it. And developing technologies that can help us close this information gap is a big part of the solution.

But is technology the only solution? I asked Ken Carbullido, our Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy, what he thought about this.

He gave it to me straight: “No, it is not possible.”

Ken said providing complete, accurate, neutral information on candidates for more than 500,000 offices — and not just once, but for every election, now into the future — “will require a combination of volunteers, staff, process, and technology.”

In other words, there are no shortcuts. But there are ways to make our search for all that information more productive, more predictable, and much more successful.

One of those ways is using artificial intelligence.

Ken said one way Ballotpedia uses AI is to “evaluate text from hundreds of election administration webpages and determine if an election event announcement is on the page.”

One thing we’ve learned about local elections, in particular, is how and when they are scheduled can vary greatly, even within a single state. Technology helps us stay abreast of what’s happening in these localities so we can turn our scarce human resources to other tasks — one of the most important being confirming everything our tech has identified.

Ken said, “We place the information in the hands of Ballotpedia staff who will validate and confirm it, ensuring its quality and accuracy.”

The possibilities for technology seem to have few limits. But, as Ken is quick to mention, regardless of what the tech may be, it will never be able to replace our people. “Technology is making our staff more efficient and effective,” Ken said. “And in the end, it’s our staff and volunteers who steer, direct, operate, and adapt our technology to serve the voters who count on us to deliver information they can trust.”

The technology matters if it leads to better, higher quality data to help voters.

A school board president in Wisconsin faces an April 22 recall election

On April 22, voters will decide a recall election against Angela Hansen-Winker, the president of the Wrightstown Community School District Board of Education in Wisconsin. Nicole Verbeten is running against Hansen-Winker in the election. Whoever receives the most votes will finish Hansen-Winker’s term, which is due to expire in 2026.

According to The Green Bay Press Gazette’s Jesse Lin, the group “Residents 4 Wrightstown Community School District” started the recall effort in December 2024 while the school district was investigating Superintendent Andy Space for allegations related to “contractual matters, school purchases, open meeting law issues, legal counsel issues, board/staff relations, and insubordination.”

Members of the group said the investigation into Space lacked transparency. They also said school board members did not prioritize the best interests of the district’s students, employees, and parents.

Through her attorney, Hansen-Winker said, “The accusations outlined in the recall petition are demonstrably false or personal political grievances from those who hate that the voters chose change, oversight, and accountability to put our schools first, costing them their control.”

In some states that allow recalls, a recall can only occur under certain circumstances. However, there are no specific grounds for a recall in Wisconsin. To get the recall on the ballot, supporters have 60 days to collect signatures equal to 25% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election in the relevant jurisdiction. The recall against Hansen-Winker required 1,206 verified signatures. The school board clerk announced on March 11 that the group had enough verified signatures to put the recall on the ballot. Hansen-Winker challenged that certification in court, but the court has not yet ruled on that challenge.

As of April 14, we’ve followed 12 school board recall efforts against 23 members this year. Three members, including Hansen-Winker, face upcoming recall elections. One board member resigned, and the efforts against 16 board members did not go to a vote. The efforts against three board members remain underway.

From Jan. 1 to April 14, we followed 120 recall efforts against 170 officials across all office types this year. Ten officials were successfully recalled during that period, with a success rate of 6%.

To read more about this recall campaign, click here.