Constitutional amendments and other changes to state law were on the ballot in 41 states last week. The results offer a fascinating — and often confounding — account of where voters stand on policy issues. State Court Report’s Erin Geiger Smith, Sarah Kessler, and Zoe Merriman have an excellent roundup of the most significant results (also cross-posted on Slate). Here are a few themes that I found most striking.

Election results tell a mixed story about abortion rights. Ten states had abortion rights measures on the ballot last week, a majority of them initiatives by voters. Abortion rights amendments have become such a big part of our politics that it may be hard to remember that prior to Dobbs, the 2022 ruling in which the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade’s abortion protections, not a single state had explicit language in its state constitution protecting abortion rights. (Several states did protect abortion rights under more general state constitutional provisions such as the right to privacy.)

Abortion rights amendments won approval in seven states, including Missouri, where voters overturned an abortion ban, and Arizona, where abortion will now be available until viability. (You can read more about the abortion measure results here.) Voters also passed an amendment in Montana, where abortion rights have been protected up to now by a state supreme court whose membership is growing more conservative. (Last week, the conservative candidate won one of two open seats in Montana’s supreme court election, replacing a more liberal justice.) The remaining states already have strong protections on the books: Colorado, Maryland, Nevada (where the measure must win on the ballot again in 2026 in order to take effect), and New York. These developments bring the total number of state constitutions with explicit abortion rights protections up to 10 (California, Michigan, Ohio, and Vermont are the others).

But last week’s election also highlighted complexities. In 2022 and 2023, abortion rights amendments won on every ballot where they appeared, while measures limiting abortion rights universally failed. But this year, an abortion rights initiative lost in Florida, where the proposed amendment attracted 57 percent of the vote but fell short of the required 60 percent threshold (most states require only a bare majority), as well as in South Dakota, a state with a very conservative voter base. In Nebraska, voters rejected an abortion rights amendment and supported an amendment put forward by abortion opponents that purported to protect abortion rights by codifying existing restrictions — an approach that may serve as a model for abortion opponents in future elections.

Comparisons with the presidential race results are also striking, although I won’t pretend to have a clear political diagnosis: In 5 states where Donald Trump won an electoral majority, a majority of voters also supported abortion rights amendments. And in all 10 states, abortion rights amendments outperformed Trump.

Workers’ rights initiatives performed well in conservative states. Direct democracy offers avenues for voters to push back against state legislatures that may not be aligned with their policy preferences. That’s certainly been the story around abortion rights. But last week also saw similar dynamics at play around protections for workers in several states where voters also supported Trump.

Voters in Nebraska, Alaska, and Missouri adopted initiatives providing for paid leave, and the latter two also increased the minimum wage. At the same time, Californians are on track to reject a proposition that would have increased that state’s minimum wage to $18. There’s been much talk over the past week about potential political realignments among working-class voters. Look for strategists on all sides to be digging into what these results might tell us about what issues the public values when it comes to workers.

Voters protected direct democracy. About half of all states provide for some form of direct democracy through initiatives and referenda, including 17 states where voters can use initiative processes to amend state constitutions. Perhaps not surprisingly, there’s been a recent trend of state legislatures seeking to make these initiatives more difficult. Last week, voters in Arizona and North Dakota rejected constitutional amendments proposed by their state legislatures that would have created more onerous signature requirements and other hurdles to passing initiatives. These moves follow an unsuccessful effort last year in Ohio to increase the threshold for approving constitutional amendments. My takeaway? Popular sovereignty is popular.

Voters in 29 states elected justices to 69 seats on their states’ highest courts last week. Republican justices in Ohio solidified their majority, Democratic justices in Michigan expanded theirs, Kentucky added a Democratically endorsed justice to its court — and much more. In this new era of post-Dobbs state judicial politics, campaign ads warned that judicial races “would affect reproductive rights, messages that candidates and groups did not often put before voters in previous cycles,” writes Brennan Center senior counsel and State Court Report founding editor Douglas Keith. Read more

A pregnant 13-year-old was not treated at a hospital for hours due to Idaho’s new law that forbids nearly all medical care for children without parental consent. Other states have enacted laws that require parental consent for abortion care or contraception — many of which have been challenged in state court. “In a country with deep geographic disparities between those who can access the health care they need and those who can’t, the gap is even more pronounced when it comes to children’s rights,” Brennan Center senior counsel Kathrina Szymborski Wolfkot and New York University student Betsy Zalinski write. Read more

Eight state supreme court justices told State Court Report what they had expected to do with their lives. Most had no plans to become judges. Instead, they had hoped to be teachers, filmmakers, doctors, or engineers. One dreamt of becoming a garbage collector. Yet they all found their way to the highest echelons of the bench, deciding cases that affect the daily lives of countless Americans on issues like abortion, voting rights, and environmental justice. Read more

Missouri’s Planned Parenthood clinics filed a lawsuit last week asking the court to declare unconstitutional and block enforcement of Missouri’s ban on abortion, its ban on the use of telemedicine for abortion, its 72-hour waiting period for the procedure, and multiple other restrictive abortion-related laws. The lawsuit follows Missouri voters’ approval of a constitutional amendment allowing abortion up to viability, or around 23 weeks. The lawsuit also challenges the state's post-viability abortion restriction to the extent that it is inconsistent with the amendment, including its definition of viability.

The Massachusetts high court ruled that it was not unfairly prejudicial for prosecutors to admit rap lyrics as evidence in a criminal case. Bridget Lavender and Matthew Segal of the American Civil Liberties Union previously wrote in State Court Report that courts should be wary of allowing prosecutors to point to a defendant’s singing or writing of violent rap lyrics as evidence that he or she has committed a violent crime.