The Ballot Beyond the Candidates
From constitutional rights to billionaire taxes, seven decisions worth understanding before November 3.
In Missouri, voters are being asked to reconsider reproductive rights they approved just two years ago. In Virginia, a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage remains on the books, despite being unenforceable for more than a decade. And in Alaska, voters will use an election system they are simultaneously being asked whether to repeal.
These are among the decisions Americans will make on November 3, alongside the congressional and gubernatorial races dominating national attention. Some could change the legal protections people rely on, while others could reshape how public services are funded or how future elections are conducted.
Across 39 states and the Northern Mariana Islands, voters will consider 146 statewide ballot measures. The remaining 11 states have no statewide measures this November, although their residents will still vote in elections for public office and may encounter local questions. While the national conversation focuses largely on who will hold political power, these measures offer voters a more direct role in shaping the laws and institutions that govern everyday life.
Ahead of Tuesday, here are seven developments worth understanding—and what their outcomes could mean.
Missouri: The reproductive rights voters approved—and could reverse
In November 2024, Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment protecting reproductive healthcare decisions, including the right to end a pregnancy before fetal viability. The measure passed with 51.6 percent of the vote, establishing protections that differed substantially from the restrictions previously enacted by state lawmakers.
The change took time to reach patients. Existing regulations remained tied up in legal challenges, and it was not until June 2026 that a court ruling allowed clinics to resume offering medication-based pregnancy termination services for the first time since 2018. Now, just months later, Missouri voters are preparing to reconsider the protections that made those services possible.
Amendment 3 would repeal the 2024 constitutional protections and replace them with substantially narrower provisions. Pregnancy termination would generally be restricted to specified circumstances, including medical emergencies, certain fetal conditions, and cases of rape or incest within the first twelve weeks. The amendment would also impose restrictions on gender-transition procedures for minors.
Supporters describe the measure as a way to restore legislative oversight and establish clearer limits. Opponents argue that it would take away protections voters recently approved and reduce women's authority over decisions involving their own bodies and medical care.
The timing makes Missouri particularly significant. A constitutional right established by voters in one election could be substantially reversed in the next. Beyond the immediate consequences for reproductive healthcare, the vote raises a question about how durable voter-approved protections can be when the political leadership of a state remains opposed to them.
Missouri residents will also decide Proposition A, concerning the state's congressional boundaries. Republican lawmakers approved a new map in 2025 that could strengthen their party's position in future elections, but opponents challenged its implementation through a referendum. Following a series of court decisions, the existing boundaries will be used for this November's congressional races, while Proposition A will determine whether the newer map can govern subsequent elections.
The two measures address different issues, yet both concern the relationship between elected officials and the public. One could alter the scope of women's healthcare protections; the other could change how communities are represented in Congress. In both cases, voters are being asked to consider decisions pursued by state lawmakers and determine what should govern in the years ahead.
Virginia: Three questions about rights that could endure
Virginia's constitution still contains a prohibition on same-sex marriage, even though the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges made that prohibition unenforceable. On Tuesday, voters will decide whether to remove it and establish an affirmative constitutional protection for marriage equality.
Question 2 would replace the existing language with a provision recognizing marriage between two adults, regardless of sex, gender, or race. Marriage equality is already protected under federal law, but the amendment would establish an additional safeguard within Virginia's constitution, making the protection less dependent on future changes in federal judicial interpretation.
Two other amendments address reproductive healthcare and voting rights. Question 1 would establish constitutional protections for personal decisions involving contraception, fertility treatment, pregnancy, miscarriage management, and related medical care, subject to specified limitations. Question 3 would automatically restore voting rights to people convicted of felonies upon release from incarceration, rather than requiring restoration through the governor's authority.
What connects these proposals is their emphasis on protections that extend beyond a particular administration. Virginia voters are being asked whether certain rights should remain matters of ordinary legislation and executive discretion or receive the stronger protection of constitutional law.
The distinction matters in a country where federal court decisions and changes in political leadership can reshape the legal landscape. A state constitutional amendment cannot settle every future dispute, but it can establish protections that are more difficult to reverse. Virginia's election offers a particularly clear example of how voters can influence the legal foundations of rights that affect marriage, healthcare, and participation in democracy.
California: A tax on billionaires—and a ballot that could block it
California voters could approve a new tax on billionaire wealth this November and still see it prevented from taking effect. That possibility is part of what makes the state's Proposition 40 one of the more unusual questions on the ballot.
California already taxes high personal incomes, but it does not impose a general tax on accumulated wealth. For billionaires whose fortunes are concentrated in stocks and business ownership, that distinction can be substantial. Investments may rise considerably in value without the gains being subject to income tax until they are realized.
Proposition 40 would introduce a one-time tax equal to 5 percent of the net worth of qualifying billionaires who were California residents at the beginning of 2026. Ninety percent of the revenue would be dedicated to healthcare, with the remainder supporting education, food assistance, and administration.
The proposal arrives as states prepare for changes in federal healthcare funding. Supporters argue that extraordinary private wealth could help sustain public services without raising taxes on most residents. Opponents warn that a wealth tax could encourage wealthy residents to relocate, potentially reducing future income-tax revenue and investment.
The complication is that California voters will also consider Propositions 41 and 42, which would establish restrictions on certain new taxes. If either passes with more affirmative votes than Proposition 40, a court could determine that the measures conflict and prevent the wealth tax from taking effect, even if a majority of voters approved it.
The result is an unusually complicated decision about how public services should be financed. California is not simply debating whether billionaires should pay more. It is also reconsidering the state's authority to introduce new forms of taxation, and whether those tools should remain available to future lawmakers.
The outcome could offer an important test of how Americans think about wealth, public investment, and the responsibilities of the country's highest earners.
Alaska: An election about how elections work
Alaska voters will participate in Tuesday's election using ranked-choice voting, while simultaneously deciding whether to abandon the system for future elections.
The state adopted its current approach in 2020. Candidates compete in an open primary, with the four highest vote-getters advancing regardless of party. During the general election, voters can rank candidates by preference, allowing their votes to transfer to another candidate if their first choice is eliminated.
Ballot Measure 2 would repeal that system and restore political-party primaries followed by general elections in which voters select a single candidate. It would also eliminate several campaign-finance disclosure requirements enacted alongside the original reform.
Supporters of the repeal argue that traditional elections provide greater clarity and give political parties a more direct role in selecting their nominees. Opponents maintain that the existing system gives voters more flexibility and encourages candidates to appeal beyond their party's most committed supporters.
The question has already been tested. In 2024, Alaska voters narrowly rejected an effort to repeal ranked-choice voting, preserving the system by just 743 votes following a recount. Two years later, the issue is returning to the ballot, offering another test of an election model that has attracted attention well beyond the state.
What Alaska decides could influence similar debates elsewhere. Election rules may seem procedural, but they shape which candidates advance, how campaigns compete, and whose preferences ultimately determine the result. The state's vote offers a reminder that the way Americans choose their representatives is itself a consequential political decision.
Three more developments worth watching
Washington: A tax that could disappear before it begins. Earlier this year, Washington lawmakers approved a 9.9 percent tax on annual individual income above $1 million, scheduled to begin in 2028. Initiative 645 would repeal the tax before collections start and prohibit state and local governments from imposing individual income taxes in the future. The state has long relied heavily on sales and other taxes rather than a general personal income tax, making the proposal part of a larger debate about how the tax burden should be distributed. Tuesday's decision will determine whether Washington proceeds with a new approach to taxing high earners or places additional limits on future tax policy.
North Dakota: Could school meals become a constitutional guarantee? North Dakota currently provides free school meals through programs that rely in part on household income. Constitutional Measure 2 would guarantee every student attending a participating school one breakfast and one lunch each school day at no cost to families, regardless of income. Supporters argue that universal access could reduce household expenses and ensure children are not excluded because their families earn slightly too much to qualify for assistance. Critics question the cost and whether a permanent constitutional obligation is preferable to ordinary legislation. The vote reflects a broader debate about whether certain public services should be available universally or targeted toward those with the greatest financial need.
Minnesota and Tennessee: Two states poised for historic firsts. Neither Minnesota nor Tennessee has ever had a woman governor, but both are expected to elect one on Tuesday. Minnesota's Democratic nominee, Amy Klobuchar, faces Republican Lisa Demuth, while Tennessee's Republican nominee, Marsha Blackburn, faces Democrat Jerri Green. According to an October 28 analysis from Pew Research Center, 17 states have never had a woman governor, even though women first entered those offices more than a century ago. The milestones are significant, but the candidates' differing positions on healthcare, education, and other policies remain central to what their elections will mean.
Beyond the headlines
These are only a handful of the decisions Americans will make on November 3. Across the country, voters will also encounter questions involving schools, housing, transportation, taxation, and local public services, many of which receive considerably less attention than the races at the top of the ballot.
Not every decision will produce an immediate change. Some measures could face legal challenges, while others will require funding, new regulations, or additional legislation before their full effects become clear. Their influence may unfold over years rather than weeks.
That makes understanding the existing law as important as understanding the proposed change. What does a measure actually alter? Who would be affected? And what would remain in place if voters rejected it? These are often more useful questions than the political messaging surrounding a proposal.
As Election Day approaches, it is worth taking a few minutes to review what is appearing on your own ballot, including the questions that have attracted little national coverage. Consider which issues affect your community, how the proposed changes might shape your everyday life, and what they could mean for the years ahead. Official state and local election resources can provide a useful starting point.
The results of November 3 will be measured in congressional seats, governorships, and control of Washington. Those outcomes will shape the country's political direction, but they will not tell the entire story.
In states across the country, voters will also determine which protections endure, how public resources are distributed, and what rules shape future elections. Understanding those decisions is part of understanding the election itself—and the country that will emerge from it.
