While Democrats celebrated their sweeping victories across the US on election night, voters in several states answered another question that didn’t get attention in the national press: Who should have the most control over America's elections: voters or the parties in power?
Ahead of Election Day, I highlighted 11 fronts in the fight to expand voter choice and protect political participation. Nine involved ballot measures, while two centered on ongoing legal and legislative battles.
Putting aside the legal and legislative battles, since those remain ongoing, perhaps the biggest story is that IVN projects Ballot Measure 2 in Alaska will fail, meaning voters have once again rejected an attempt to repeal the state’s election system.
It offers a foundation for what was mostly an encouraging picture for election reform advocates as the results continue to come in. There were some losses, but mostly there were major victories.
For example, Massachusetts voters rejected a nonpartisan Top Two primary. However, voters in Montana and Missouri approved stronger protections for citizen initiatives, while Utah voters rejected an effort to make certain initiatives harder to pass.
Ranked choice voting proposals on city ballots also showed promising early results, although not every contest had been finalized Wednesday morning.
Here is where all the reform measures IVN has followed stand.
Alaska Ballot Measure 2: Second Attempt to Repeal Nonpartisan Election System Trails
Result: "No" leads 51.9% to 48.2%. IVN Call: Rejected.
Supporters of Alaska’s nonpartisan Top Four primary system (including ranked choice voting in the general election) have a reason to feel optimistic Wednesday morning. The second attempt at repeal under Ballot Measure 2 looks like it will fail again.
With 393 of 400 precincts reporting early Wednesday, the “No” campaign held a narrow lead. What remains of the vote is largely absentee ballots, so the race is not settled yet. However, if history repeats, those absentee votes will lean in favor of reform.
This is why IVN is confident in its projection that Ballot Measure 2 will fail.
The reform package that it seeks to repeal came from behind in 2020 as a result of the remaining absentee vote. The first attempt at repeal in 2024 also failed largely due to these voters.
There is no indication to suggest the outcome will change this year—especially in the current electoral climate.
To recap: Ballot Measure 2 would repeal a nonpartisan open primary that allows all voters and candidates to participate on a single primary ballot, regardless of party. This includes the 63% of the electorate not registered with a party.
It would also repeal the use of ranked choice voting in the general election AND popular campaign finance disclosure and true source rules put in place by voters in 2020. The latter wasn’t part of the repeal effort in 2024 that failed by a razor-thin margin.
The question now is, will the Repeal Now campaign try a third attempt at repeal?
Massachusetts Question 3: All-Party Primaries Rejected
Result: Rejected
Massachusetts was the only state in the US with an initiative that would have eliminated separate partisan primaries and replaced them with a nonpartisan open system in which all voters and candidates participate on a single ballot, regardless of party.
Question 3 proposed a Top Two system similar to California and Washington. However, despite endorsements from organizations that span the political spectrum and from former Govs. Charlie Baker and Deval Patrick, opposition from the two major parties proved too much.
Supporters conceded defeat Tuesday night as “No” lead with about 61% of the vote. IVN was the first to call the race after examining each county in Massachusetts and coming to the conclusion that the needle wasn’t going to shift in reform’s favor.
Massachusetts retains its semi-open partisan primary system. Independent voters can choose a party ballot, but each party will still select its own general election nominees rather than compete in one consolidated primary.
And voters’ choices will be limited to the candidates of that party, though more than half of electoral contests each cycle go uncontested in the Commonwealth.
Irvine, California, Measure D: Ranked Choice Voting Gains Ground
Result: "Yes" leads 52.1% to 47.9%
Irvine voters have given an early edge to Measure D, which directs the city to implement ranked choice voting for mayoral and City Council elections after January 1, 2028, subject to technical and financial feasibility.
The measure was championed by Voter Choice Irvine and a coalition of organizations that span the political spectrum.
If approved, Irvine will begin moving away from its existing plurality voting system, in which a candidate can win with less than majority support.
Voters would instead rank candidates in order of preference, allowing their votes to transfer to another choice if their preferred candidate is eliminated.
That is, if the feasibility conditions attached to the measure are met.
Longmont, Colorado, Questions 3C and 3D: Voters Back Ranked Choice Voting
Result: Both measures leading
- Question 3C: Yes 55.8%, No 44.2%
- Question 3D: Yes 59.8%, No 40.2%
Longmont voters delivered what looks like one of the earliest victories for ranked choice voting.
Question 3C would introduce ranked voting methods for mayoral and City Council elections beginning in 2029. Question 3D, a companion measure, would realign City Council election cycles so that at-large races occur at the same time.
This will permit the city to use a proportional form of RCV.
Longmont will be the sixth city in Colorado to adopt ranked-choice elections.
Honolulu, Hawaii, Question 5: The One Ranked Choice Voting Proposal That Failed
Result: Rejected
With “No” votes at 55.8%, Honolulu voters rejected a proposal to not only use ranked choice voting for mayor, City Council, and prosecuting attorney, but to overhaul the way elections are conducted in the city.
Question 5 would have replaced the city's existing two-stage election system with a single ranked-choice election in November, beginning in 2032 and subject to state legislative approval.
Supporters argued the change would prevent candidates from winning elections outright during lower-turnout August primaries, when fewer voters participate.
But now, that system will remain in place.
Missouri Proposition A: Voters Reject a Partisan Congressional Map
Result: Rejected
Proposition A in Missouri was a referendum proposal challenging the congressional map Republican lawmakers adopted during a special legislative session in 2025.
There were concerns that there might be confusion at the polls since the measure asks if voters want to keep the map, not reject it.
However, those concerns evaporated on election night. Missouri voters delivered a decisive rejection of the intended gerrymander, with 61.8% voting “No.”
The map was designed to give Republicans an advantage in one additional congressional district, particularly by redrawing boundaries in the Kansas City area.
State officials fought tooth-and-nail to keep the referendum off the ballot. They sued, refused to count a third of signatures gathered, and tried to declare it unconstitutional.
But after a series of legal battles that reached the US Supreme Court, the People Not Politicians campaign got Proposition A on the ballot, and the state used the 2022 congressional map.
While it is possible that state lawmakers will try another redraw before 2028, the next proposal may make that impossible.
Shawn Griffiths
Missouri Amendment 6: Voters Strengthen The Right to Direct Democracy; Put New Limits on Lawmakers
Result: Approved
In a 60-40 vote, Missourians approved Amendment 6, which strengthens constitutional protections for the initiative and referendum processes.
The proposal, championed by Respect Missouri Voters, was designed to prevent legislators from rewriting or overturning laws approved directly by the electorate.
Under the proposal, state lawmakers will need an 80% vote in both legislative chambers before they can refer proposed changes to voters. They cannot amend or repeal voters’ decisions without their approval.
The amendment also protects existing signature requirements and the simple-majority standard for approving citizen initiatives, limiting lawmakers' ability to make the process more restrictive.
Combined with the rejection of Proposition A, some legal experts say the implications extend beyond the citizen initiative process and a single gerrymander. Lawmakers might now be prohibited from attempting another gerrymander until 2031.
This is the explicit timeline the constitution allows for redistricting.
But There’s More
Montana CI-133: Citizen Initiative Rights Win Constitutional Protection. Result: Approved. The measure strengthens protections for initiative and referendum processes. Specifically, it establishes stronger constitutional safeguards against government interference with citizen-led petitions, including protections against improper restrictions and technical disqualification of initiatives.
Utah Amendment B: Voters Reject a Higher Bar for Citizen Initiatives. Result: Rejected, by a vote of 63% No to 37% Yes. The measure would have raised the vote threshold to pass tax-related citizen initiatives to 60% (which would include broader proposals than one might initially think). Opponents argued that it imposed a tougher standard on citizen initiatives than on ordinary tax legislation passed by lawmakers.