Referendums for November 3, 2026: Voting Against Violence
by Rachel MacNair
Since 2020, we’ve been running a project website that tracks U.S. state and local referendums dealing with socially-approved killing of human beings (abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, war), or related structural violence that leads to killing (poverty and discriminatory practices).
Peace and Life Referendums
Abortion is frequently a ballot topic, especially since the Dobbs decision overturning Roe. The death penalty and euthanasia do make occasional appearances, but not much. War is something that looms large in policy but not in state and local referendums — yet there have been some, especially dealing with war memorials, gun policy that isn’t mere regulation but gets into war relationships, and treating police work as if it were military. Racism will include matters of immigration policy, many symbolic actions that impact how people think, and finally abolishing all slavery by removing the exception for prisons. Quite a few different approaches to alleviating poverty pop up. More details are explained in the Topic Pages.
means we think a yes vote would be best for diminishing violence
means we think a no vote is needed since the referendum encourages socially-approved violenceAbortion:
Idaho – a successful petition drive put a pro-abortion statute on the ballot to overturn the state’s abortion ban.
Missouri – the state legislature put on an amendment to the state constitution to overturn the pro-abortion amendment passed in 2024. Nevada – they already voted overwhelmingly in 2024 for a pro-abortion constitutional amendment in a state where no abortion bans were ever contemplated. The rules state they have to vote on it twice before it goes into effect.
War:
Arizona – turning policework into the war mindset, the measure seeks to define drug trafficking as terrorism and therefore use war tactics to counter it. Massachusetts – a petition drive put a veto referendum about firearm regulations passed by the legislature on the ballot. We focus only on those that relate to preventing mass shootings, as a form of war.Poverty:
Oklahoma – a successful petition drive for a rise in the minimum wage should have put this on the ballot in 2024, but government officials’ shenanigans delayed it until now.Abortion, Poverty, Racism, War:
Colorado – one of the very few that connects several of our issues, a successful petition drive wants to overturn state legislation stopping federal overreach and instead have local authorities turn any undocumented immigrants (or those that can’t prove otherwise right away) accused of a violent crime over to ICE. This bypasses the court system that knows how to adjudicate these properly, in favor of an agency that doesn’t even try to.
“I feel very, very strongly about the right to life of the unborn, the weakest and most vulnerable of human beings. I don’t see how you can subscribe to the consistent ethic and then vote for someone who feels that abortion is a ‘basic right’ of the individual. The consequence of that position would be an absence of legal protection for the unborn.” (Cardinal Joseph Bernardin) The so-called Consistent Life Network isn`t really consistent or pro-life, since a man like Wendell Berry, who supported unlimited abortion, is one of your endorsers.
To the public: this is the latest in a set of messages on the topic of our endorsers from someone who’s posting comments not responsive to the actual post. You can see the rest of them under the “Slavery and Abortion” post. Now I address the commenter:
I think you have a very strange understanding of what “really” pro-life means, if all our writing and educating and our courage in standing up to those who attack us for our pro-life stand is all for naught, because someone endorsed us.
We don’t vet individuals on our endorser list. If they endorse, that’s a declaration that they’re against abortion, along with the other issues.
For many of them, in the circles they run in, that’s a brave stand to take. And we’re keenly aware that their doing so has a positive impact on the people we’re trying to reach.
So we do have some endorsers who don’t think illegalization is the best approach to stopping abortion. As my writings show, I don’t agree; I think it’s one of many essential approaches. But if they want to pursue one of the other approaches, we’re in an all-hand-on-deck situation. We need everybody working on the aspects that most appeal to them.
Besides, they’re more likely to come to realize the value of an illegalization strategy if we have conversations with them about it, rather than dismissing them as not good enough.
Basically, we’re searching for converts. Not heretics. I think your search for heretics is by itself bad strategy, and will hurt the babies we’re trying to protect. It’s looking for purity rather than effectiveness. Especially when you attack people who are working hard for the pro-life cause when you could be spending that time instead persuading more people to adhere to it.
— Rachel MacNair