The upcoming 2026 midterm elections are drawing national attention not only for the balance of power in Congress but also for a slate of state-level initiatives that could reverberate for years. Thirteen states are presenting measures that touch on who may vote, how much the wealthiest pay, and whether transgender athletes can compete in teams that align with their gender identity. Understanding the details of each proposal helps voters grasp the real stakes behind the headlines.
Voter-access initiatives in 13 states
Four western states—California, Colorado, Nevada and Arizona—along with North Carolina are proposing new voter identification requirements. The measures would oblige poll workers to check a photo ID before a ballot is accepted, a change supporters argue safeguards election integrity. Opponents counter that such rules disproportionately affect low-income voters, the elderly and people of color. Nevada already saw a similar measure win 73% of the vote in 2024, but its constitution demands approval in two successive elections for the rule to become law.
Conversely, six states are contemplating language that would limit voting to U.S. citizens only. Alaska, Arizona, South Dakota, Kansas, Arkansas and West Virginia have introduced amendments that would explicitly bar non-citizens from appearing on any state-run ballot. Federal law already restricts non-citizen voting, yet these states seek to codify the restriction in their own constitutions. While Republican leaders have highlighted alleged “illegal voting” by non-citizens, documented cases remain exceedingly rare.
Two states are moving toward expanding access. Massachusetts voters will decide whether to allow same-day voter registration on Election Day, eliminating the current waiting period. Virginia’s proposal would automatically restore voting rights to individuals released from incarceration, a step aimed at reintegrating former inmates into civic life.
Gender-related measures: sports and medical care
Four states—Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska and Washington—have placed on the ballot initiatives that would bar athletes from competing in teams that differ from the sex they were assigned at birth. Washington’s measure goes further, requiring students on female teams to present medical documentation confirming their biological sex. Proponents argue the rules protect fairness in women’s sports; critics say they single out transgender youth and could violate anti-discrimination statutes.
Elsewhere, Colorado and Missouri are voting on bans that would prohibit surgeons and other health-care providers from performing gender-transition procedures on minors. The language in these proposals would make it illegal for any physician to offer hormone therapy or surgical interventions to anyone under 18, framing the issue as a child-protection measure. Advocacy groups for transgender rights contend that such bans ignore established medical guidelines and could cause lasting harm to vulnerable teenagers.
Tax proposals and reproductive-rights votes
California’s Proposition 40, dubbed the “billionaire tax,” would levy a one-time 5% tax on the assets of any resident with net worth exceeding $1 billion. If approved, the revenue is earmarked for state health-care, food-assistance and public-education programs. The measure has sparked a massive advertising battle, with opponents spending roughly $368 million to defeat it, while supporters have raised about $36 million.
Other states are also tweaking tax structures. Colorado’s initiative would replace its flat-rate system with a progressive schedule ranging from 3.7% for incomes under $25,000 to 8.4% for earnings above $1 million. Washington voters will decide whether to repeal a 9.9% surcharge on million-plus earners, and Iowa, North Carolina and Colorado have similar proposals on the ballot.
On reproductive policy, voters in Virginia, Idaho and Nevada will consider constitutional amendments that affirm the right to make private reproductive decisions. In contrast, Missouri’s 2024 amendment that guaranteed reproductive freedom faces a repeal effort, putting the state’s abortion landscape back into legislative hands.
