Welcome to the Friday, Oct. 24, 2025, Brew.
By: Lara Bonatesta
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- Voters in six states will decide on 24 statewide ballot measures on Nov. 4
- The challenges of providing robust data, Part 2, by Leslie Graves, Ballotpedia Founder and CEO
- A comprehensive look at 124 years of ballot measures in Florida
Voters in six states will decide on 24 statewide ballot measures on Nov. 4
There are less than two weeks to go until Election Day, and Ballotpedia will cover more than 10,000 elections on Nov. 4. To help our readers understand what’s at stake, the Daily Brew will feature previews of key elections from now through Election Day. To see what elections we’re covering in your area, check out our Sample Ballot Lookup Tool.
Today, we’re taking a look at statewide ballot measures. Click here and here to see our previews on mayoral elections and other local battlegrounds on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Voters in six states—California, Colorado, Maine, New York, Texas, and Washington—will decide on 24 statewide measures.
Overall, 30 statewide measures have been certified for the ballot in nine states this year. Earlier in 2025, voters in Louisiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin decided on six ballot measures. Voters approved two and defeated four.
There are two citizen initiatives on the ballot in Maine. This is fewer than the average of six on the ballot in odd years from 2001 to 2025. Legislatures put 28 measures on the ballots this year, including the 22 that voters will decide on Nov. 4. An average of 32 referred measures were on the ballot in odd years from 2001 to 2025.
Here’s a look at the statewide ballot measures that voters across the country will decide on Nov. 4.
California Proposition 50 would allow the state to use a new, legislature-drawn congressional district map for elections from 2026 through 2030. The proposed map would replace the existing maps, which the 14-member Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC) adopted in December 2021. Under Proposition 50, five Republican-held districts would shift to become more Democratic, based on the 2024 presidential election results. Proposition 50 is the most expensive measure this cycle and the seventh most expensive in the state’s history, with official reports showing campaigns have raised a combined $139.9 million through Oct. 13. To learn more about Proposition 50, click here to listen to our Sept. 9 episode of On The Ballot.
Colorado voters will decide on two legislatively referred state statutes: Proposition LL and Proposition MM. Both measures relate to the state’s Healthy School Meals for All Program (HSMA), which reimburses public schools for providing free breakfast and lunch to students. In 2022, voters approved Proposition FF, which created the HSMA and reduced state income tax deductions for taxpayers with a federal adjusted gross income of $300,000 or more to fund the program.
Under Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), the state must refund revenue collected above the estimated amount, plus 10% interest, to taxpayers unless voters approve another measure allowing the state to keep the excess revenue.
Proposition LL would allow the state to keep $12.4 million in excess revenue and interest from reduced state income tax deductions to provide funding for HSMA.
Proposition MM would further reduce state income tax deductions for taxpayers earning $300,000 or more to generate additional revenue for the Healthy School Meals for All Program and, once the program is funded with reserves, for SNAP.
Maine voters will decide on a citizen initiative that would:
- Require voters to present photo ID for in-person and absentee voting
- Limit the number of election drop boxes in a municipality to one
- Require a bipartisan team of election officials to collect ballots from drop boxes,
- Eliminate the option for disabled and senior voters to request an absentee ballot automatically for each election without a separate request
Currently, voters are required to present photo ID to vote in person in 24 states.
The other citizen initiative would establish a process for obtaining an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO). It would allow family members, household members, or law enforcement to petition a court to restrict a person’s access to dangerous weapons, including firearms, if the court determines the person poses a significant danger of causing physical injury. Currently, 21 states have laws authorizing courts to issue extreme risk protection orders, and six states have laws that prevent or restrict the adoption of extreme risk protection orders.
New York voters will decide on a constitutional amendment the Legislature placed on the ballot. The amendment would authorize the state to use 323 acres of the Mount Van Hoevenberg complex for winter sports facilities and infrastructure, and add at least 2,500 acres of forest land in the forest preserve in the Adirondack Park.
Texas voters will decide on Proposition 16, a constitutional amendment that says “persons who are not citizens of the United States” can not vote in elections in Texas. Current state law requires that residents must attest to being a citizen when registering to vote. Because Proposition 16 is an amendment, any future changes would require an additional constitutional amendment. Currently, no state constitution explicitly allows for noncitizen voting in state or local elections, and 17 states explicitly prohibit it.
Texas voters will decide on 17 measures this year, the most in the country. All of them are constitutional amendments.
Washington voters will decide on a legislatively referred measure to allow the state’s Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS) Trust Fund to be invested in stocks. A similar measure was on the ballot in 2020, but it was defeated 54.4%-45.6%.
Click here to learn more about statewide ballot measures in 2025.
The challenges of providing robust data, Part 2
This week’s column will bring to a close our journey through the elements that comprise robust information and why we believe it’s so important for our readers, and every voter, to have access to it.
Now, we’re at the part of the journey where we must discuss the challenges ahead. I’ve hinted at them in previous columns. Still, here, we meet the biggest challenges we face as we work to gather robust information on the candidates seeking the roughly 500,000 local elected offices across the country.
The sheer number of offices and candidates poses a challenge in itself. To put matters plainly, it’s unlikely that we will ever be able to provide the same sort of information for a school board race or a county commissioner’s election that we can provide for a gubernatorial election or a U.S. Senate race. We simply don’t have the resources — especially the time necessary for a thorough and thoughtful analysis of each candidate.
Volume is part of that. Another is turnover among local officials. It’s much harder to track and stay in touch with local elected officials and the candidates running against them because those positions change so frequently.
And, as I’ve written in previous columns, some forms of information are just harder to get at the local level, be it a survey response, news about endorsements, any pledges candidates have signed, and so on.
But the biggest challenge we face is compiling a comprehensive and accurate list of candidates running for all local offices, as well as the election dates for those offices.
We must collect this essential information from the 7,700 local election websites all over the country. Some of those sites are state-of-the-art, and information is readily available. Others are harder to navigate. That’s the nature of our electoral system – it is dispersed, locally-controlled, and sometimes very complex.
And there’s one more twist: many times, this information isn’t available until about two months, and sometimes less, before the election.
That means we have to do huge volumes of work in a very short time.
For example, we want every candidate in the country to fill out our Candidate Connection Survey. Typically, candidates for local office learn about our survey when we email them, unless they’ve participated before. That means we have to find their email address, which can be a formidable challenge all by itself.
Of course, if Ballotpedia had nearly unlimited financial resources to hire as many professional staff as circumstances dictated, we could get all the information that’s out there and add it to every candidate’s profile on our website.
But even if we had the resources to do that, I don’t think it would be a wise use of capital. It makes much more sense to build a strong, robust volunteer organization that can carry out its job sustainably and securely for years to come.
We are continually working on ways to make our data gathering more efficient and our ability to identify robust candidate information more effective. It is deeply gratifying, and not a little humbling, to see so many people from all walks of life volunteering their time to help us gather this robust information.
It is equally gratifying — and supremely motivating — to see the growing number of people who use Ballotpedia’s tools and resources to help them research and understand the candidates and issues on their ballots.
And it’s amazing to see many of these people decide to invest in our work so we can help even more voters make informed choices.
Robust information is at the heart of what Ballotpedia is doing to empower voters. It’s our mission, our passion, and our goal. If you haven’t joined us in making it happen, please do so now — as a volunteer, a donor, a subscriber, or all three.
A comprehensive look at 124 years of ballot measures in Florida
Ballotpedia’s Historical Ballot Measure Factbook will document nearly 200 years of direct democracy in the United States. This ongoing research effort will provide an unparalleled resource for researchers, reporters, and the public on how ballot measures have evolved, the issues they have covered, and their role in our civic life.
Today, let’s look at historical ballot measures in Florida. Our comprehensive inventory of Florida ballot measures spans from 1900 to 2024. In that time, Florida voters have decided on 407 ballot measures—approving 288 (71%) and defeating 119 (29%).
There are five different types of ballot measures in Florida. Legislatively referred constitutional amendments have appeared on the ballot the most (327), with voters approving 70% of them. Initiatives have appeared on statewide ballots 44 times, with voters approving 75% of them.
Florida is also the only state with commissions that can place constitutional amendments on the ballot. The Florida Constitution Revision Commission (FCRC) and the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission (TBRC) have placed 31 amendments on the ballot, with 20 approved and 11 defeated.
Florida ballot measures have addressed 140 unique topics, with some addressing multiple topics in one measure.
Here is a selection of important and interesting measures from the Florida Factbook:
- With the adoption of the 1968 constitution, voters also created the Florida Constitution Revision Commission. The commission is tasked with examining the constitution, holding public hearings, and referring constitutional amendments to the ballot no later than 180 days before an election. Voters defeated measures to abolish the commission in 1980 and 2022.
- In 1988, voters approved Amendment 6, 57.9%-42.2%, creating the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, which can refer amendments to the ballot.
- In 1996, voters approved Amendment 1, 69.3%-30.2%, instituting a two-thirds supermajority requirement for new state taxes and fees. In 2006, voters approved Amendment 3, 57.8%-42.2% requiring a 60% supermajority requirement for all constitutional amendments.
- In 1998, voters approved Amendment 11, 64.1%-35.9%, providing public campaign financing for statewide offices. Voters considered two amendments to repeal the public financing provisions in 2010 and 2024, but neither received 60% of the vote to be adopted.
- In 2024, Florida voters defeated an amendment that would have added the following language to the state’s Declaration of Rights: “… no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” The vote was 57% in favor to 43% opposed.
The measure with the smallest margin was Amendment 10 in 1988, which was defeated with 50.17% of voters opposed and 49.83% in support. It would have established and expanded tax exemptions for municipal and local property. The measure with the largest margin was approved 92%-8% in 1936. The amendment allowed the state to create and fund a uniform statewide public assistance system for residents who “age, infirmity, or misfortune, may have claims upon the aid and sympathy of society.”
There was an average of 31 measures on the ballot in each decade, and an average of 69% of those measures were approved. The decade with the highest approval rate was the 2000s, when 29 (or 91%) of 32 ballot measures were approved. The decade with the lowest approval rate was the 1900s, when seven (or 33.3%) 21 ballot measures were approved.
Click here to see our comprehensive coverage of Florida ballot measures, and here to find a list of our other completed factbooks.