Here are the top 10 issues conservatives must watch on the November ballot

America’s Founders feared and detested direct democracy, with Benjamin Rush even warning that “a simple democracy is the devil’s own government.” Despite this, in states where issues are placed directly before voters, conservatives must act to secure favorable outcomes. This includes decisions in some states about limiting the scope of ballot initiatives themselves.

While much of the attention focuses on the presidential race, the impact of these ballot issues could rival the results of the top office and deserves our attention. Here is a non-exhaustive list of some of the most critical issues, especially in red states where we stand a strong chance of winning.

The outcomes of these ballot initiatives present a stark contrast between two possible futures: ordered liberty or anarcho-tyranny.

1. Unlimited abortion everywhere: 'No' on Florida Amendment 4

Unless conservatives mobilize, Democrats are on the verge of enacting unrestricted abortion laws, allowing the barbaric procedure through birth, in every swing and red state with a ballot amendment process. The most critical battleground is Florida’s Amendment 4, which is on the cusp of receiving the necessary 60% support. If it passes, Florida would have abortion laws more liberal than Sweden’s, in a citadel of conservatism.

Similar amendments are on the ballot in red states like Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and South Dakota along with swing states such as Nevada and Arizona. In red states, these amendments could be defeated solely with Republican votes.

Here is a list of abortion amendments for conservatives to oppose, courtesy of American Family Association Action:

2. Marijuana-fueled criminal vagrancy: 'No' on Florida Amendment 3

As those on the left push to turn Florida into a baby chop shop, they also aim to spread the stench of weed and its related criminal vagrancy. If Amendment 3 passes, marijuana use will be allowed in every public space for anyone over 21. Parks, universities, and public spaces would be outside legislative regulation. No state that has implemented this approach has avoided a decline in quality of life and a rise in criminal vagrancy. What if this happened in the best red state?

Additionally, Amendment 3 would only allow corporate marijuana, banning homegrown options. This ensures that the company spending $70 million to promote this amendment will monopolize the system — and it would be absolved of all liability for any negligence involving its product!

South Dakota conservatives face a similar threat with Measure 29, as do North Dakotans with Measure 5 and Nebraskans with Initiative 437.

3. Ban ranked-choice voting

Ranked-choice voting is not only cumbersome and convoluted, but it also serves a hidden agenda: sneaking in radical leftists without the Democratic label, thereby denying conservatives a fair Republican primary. This is how Democrats turned Alaska purple.

This year, conservatives are playing offense in Alaska, aiming to eliminate ranked-choice voting. A “yes” vote on Alaska Ballot Measure 2 would accomplish that. Likewise, a “yes” vote on Arizona Prop. 133 would pre-emptively ban the practice in the state, and Missouri Amendment 7 offers the same safeguard.

On the defensive side, we must stop ranked-choice voting from taking hold in Idaho and Nevada. Conservatives should vote “no” on Idaho Proposition 1 and Nevada Question 3, as both would institute ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries. Idaho, in particular, is crucial. If Proposition 1 passes, the uniparty could transform a solidly red state into the next Alaska.

In a similar vein, conservatives must oppose South Dakota’s Amendment H, Arizona's Prop. 140, and Montana’s CI-126. While these measures wouldn’t implement ranked-choice voting, they would replace traditional primaries with jungle primaries. This setup blurs partisan distinctions and allows lukewarm Republicans to team up with Democrats, effectively sidelining bona fide conservative candidates.

4. Limit unaccountable ballot initiatives

The Founders’ fears about mob rule are evident today in the sheer number of ballot initiatives, many of which are driven by special interests. Several ballot measures this year aim to restrict or limit the process of placing initiatives directly on the ballot. It's crucial for conservatives to support these measures to preserve legislative control and check the influence of currently unchecked, well-funded interest groups. Here are a few:

• Vote "yes" on Arizona Proposition 134: This change would require that the requisite threshold of 10% of qualified voters needed for petitions to change laws (15% for constitutional changes) would have to be achieved in each legislative district in order to qualify for the ballot. This will ensure that liberals cannot access the ballot to change laws based on petitions gathered mainly in liberal parts of the state.
• Vote "yes" on North Dakota Constitutional Measure 2: This reform would require a single subject for ballot initiatives and would also require that the proposed initiative appear on the ballot and be approved at both the primary and general election ballots to take effect.
• Vote "yes" on Utah Amendment D: As of now, a lower court judge has removed this question from the ballot, but assuming Republicans prevail in reinstating it on appeal at the state supreme court, Amendment D would allow the legislature to make changes to ballot initiatives passed by voters. Ultimately, empowering the legislature is the best form of representative democracy.

5. Protect South Dakota landowners

As part of the ongoing assault on landowners, Gov. Kristi Noem (R) signed SB 201 into law earlier this year. The law overrides local regulations and zoning ordinances, making it easier to construct carbon capture pipelines. Now this law has been placed on the ballot as a referendum. A “no” vote on Referred Law 21 would repeal SB 201, restoring local control and protections for landowners.

6. Stop unaccountable redistricting committees

Ohio Issue 1 proposes a complicated process for selecting a 15-member committee to draw congressional and legislative maps. A panel of unelected former judges would choose the members, and they would be required to reflect the state’s demographic makeup, effectively corrupting the process with diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology. While gerrymandering is a problem on both sides, giving unelected individuals control over redistricting is even worse than having legislators draw the maps.

7. End governors’ emergency public health powers

Four years after governors declared de facto martial law during COVID and suspended individual rights, many states still haven’t curtailed their governors' public health powers. In Arizona, voters will decide on Proposition 135, which would require the governor to call a special session of the legislature upon declaring an emergency. It would also limit the declaration to 30 days unless the legislature approves an extension.

8. Implement state-based immigration enforcement

Arizona’s Proposition 314 seeks to strengthen immigration enforcement at the state level. It would criminalize illegal entry into Arizona and target illegal aliens using false documents to obtain employment or state benefits. The measure would also let state prosecutors charge illegal immigrants with state crimes, providing Arizona with more authority over immigration enforcement. If successful, it could push illegal immigration flows toward states like California. Other Republican-led states might consider passing similar laws through their legislatures.

9. Make local elections partisan: 'Yes' on Florida Amendment 1

In red states, Democrats often leverage superior funding to run local candidates on nonpartisan ballots, hiding their agenda. To counter this, we need party affiliations documented for as many local offices as possible. Florida Amendment 1 would make all school board elections partisan, a move that should be replicated in other states for all offices, including municipal and judicial elections, which are frequently nonpartisan.

10. Punish drug trafficking and theft: 'Yes' on California Proposition 36

California’s Prop. 36 could be a surprise in this deep-blue state. Although radical blue-state propositions generally win easily, this measure, addressing public safety, strikes a chord with a majority of voters. Since Prop. 47 downgraded theft and drug crimes in 2014, California has faced an escalating crisis of homelessness, vagrancy, drug use, and organized retail theft. Prop. 36 aims to reverse some of the leniencies fueling the crime wave. Despite the state’s political leanings, even Kamala Harris is reportedly too bashful to admit she’s voting for Prop. 36 as a California resident.

Other important criminal justice initiatives include Arizona’s Prop. 313, requiring life sentences for child sex traffickers; Colorado’s Amendment I, removing the right to bail for first-degree murder when proof of guilt is substantial; and Colorado’s Prop. 128, which would abolish early release for repeat violent offenders.

The outcomes of these selected ballot initiatives present a stark contrast between two possible futures: ordered liberty or anarcho-tyranny. Yet conservatives are being heavily outspent and out-organized, even in the reddest states.

As of August 30, proponents of Florida Amendment 3 raised $90 million compared to only $14 million from opponents. For Amendment 4, it’s $51 million against $5 million.

In Missouri, those in favor of Amendment 3, which deals with abortion, have raised $5.5 million, whereas opponents have only raised $200,000.

In Montana, opponents of abortion up to birth raised just $27,000 compared to $11.8 million from proponents, while in Arizona, the imbalance is $23.2 million against a paltry $900,000.

It’s not just about abortion and marijuana. The left is outspending conservatives by staggering amounts on every issue I’ve mentioned, with conservatives often not reporting any campaign expenditures by August. Alarmingly, few Republican governors, apart from Ron DeSantis in Florida, have taken public stances on these critical amendments in their states.

Even in a tough election cycle for Republicans, there is no justification for liberal amendments winning in deep-red states. The only reason they might win is due to a lack of voter education on the ballot language. The absence of any organized movement on the right or within state Republican parties to inform voters is a significant and potentially catastrophic oversight.