Voters in many states have approved progressive measures that could not pass a Democratic-led Congress or Republican-dominated statehouses.
More low-income South Dakotans will have access to Medicaid, and Arizonans with medical debt will have more protections. Minimum wage workers in Nebraska will get a raise.
Here’s a sample of the ballot measures:
South Dakota voters voted to expand Medicaid to about 42,500 low-income residents by mid-2023. The measure passed 56 percent to 44 percent, according to data from the South Dakota Secretary of State.
“South Dakotans know that their families and neighbors deserve health care without being charged for or avoiding needed tests, procedures and medications,” said Kelly Hall, executive director of The Fairness Project, which sponsored the measure.
It is the seventh successful attempt to expand Medicaid in Republican-led states, which began with the approval of Maine voters in 2017. Ballot initiatives have also passed in Missouri, Oklahoma, Idaho, Nebraska and Utah in recent years. years.
More than 60 organizations — including the South Dakota Farmers Union, the Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce and several health care and faith groups — endorsed Amendment D. It would open coverage to adults making less than about $19,000 a year.
Currently, childless adults are not eligible for Medicaid in South Dakota, and parents must have very low incomes to qualify — about $1,000 a month for a family of four.
By expanding Medicaid, South Dakota is expected to receive an additional $328 million in federal funds in the first year and create 4,000 new jobs, according to Zach Marcus, campaign director for South Dakotans Decide Healthcare, which sponsored the measure. voting. The State Legislative Research Council found last year that the expansion would save South Dakota $162.5 million over five years.
Many Republican officials opposed the measure, citing its potential future costs. States are responsible for collecting 10% of the health care bill of expansion enrollees.
South Dakota Gov. Christy Noem, a Republican, has not supported the initiative, though she has said she would carry it out if voters approve it. An expansion bill failed on a vote in the state Senate earlier this year.
Until the vote, South Dakota was one of 12 states that had chosen not to expand Medicaid. The only states where citizen-led ballot initiatives might be possible are Florida and Wyoming, Hall said.
Nebraska voters chose to raise the state’s minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2026, from the current $9 an hour. The vote was 58 percent to 42 percent in favor, according to figures from the Nebraska Secretary of State.
About 150,000 workers are expected to benefit, according to the National Employment Law Project and the Economic Policy Institute, both left-leaning groups. About 75% of the employees are over 20 years old.
The measure would give those workers an extra $2,100 in pay, said Kate Wolf, campaign manager for Raise the Wage Nebraska. More than 25 organizations and lawmakers are part of the coalition that supported Initiative 433, which was supported by The Fairness Project.
“Initiative 433 passed tonight because Nebraskans understand that raising the minimum wage is about respecting and rewarding hard work,” Wolf said.
Voters in 2014 approved a measure to raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour by 2016.
Opponents, however, said the initiative would hurt businesses in the state and reduce job opportunities for youth.
“The initiative’s proposed increase is a 66.7 percent increase over four years,” Bud Synhorst, CEO of the Lincoln Independent Business Association, wrote in a local business publication last month. “This is a radical increase that will be felt throughout the economy.”
In Nevada, about 54 percent of voters had voted in favor of a state constitutional amendment to raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2024, as of Wednesday afternoon, according to data from the Nevada Secretary of State. The measure would also repeal an existing provision that sets different rates for the minimum wage based on whether the employer offers certain health benefits.
About 46 percent of voters opposed the measure as of Wednesday afternoon, though CNN is not yet predicting a winner.
The state minimum wage is already set to rise to $12 an hour for workers who do not receive certain health care benefits, and to $11 an hour for those who do, in 2024.
Supporters of the initiative, Question 2 on the ballot, said workers should have a constitutional guarantee of a $12 hourly minimum wage, preventing lawmakers from lowering it in the future. Opponents argued the change wasn’t necessary because the state legislature already has the power to raise the minimum wage.
Arizona voters overwhelmingly chose to change some rules governing medical debt owed by residents.
Proposition 209 passed 72 percent to 28 percent, according to figures from the Arizona Secretary of State. It would cap the medical debt interest rate at 3% and limit the medical debt wage payment to a maximum of 30% of earnings.
It would also increase the value of primary homes and cars that would be protected from medical debt collectors to $400,000 and $15,000, respectively, from $250,000 and $6,000, said Rodd McLeod, a spokesman for Healthcare Rising Arizona, which sponsored the measure that also supported. by The Fairness Project.
The measure would not forgive any medical debt, McLeod said.
Opponents argued the initiative would hurt consumers. It would make it harder for Arizona residents to get credit and for businesses in the state to collect on debt, as well as raise interest rates on consumer debt, according to Protect Our Arizona, which had hoped to defeat the measure.
Meanwhile, California’s Proposition 30, which would have added a 1.75 percent surtax on people making more than $2 million a year, was failing, 59 percent to 41 percent, as of Wednesday afternoon, according to data of the California Secretary of State. CNN is not yet projecting a winner.
Most of the funds would have gone to the promotion of zero-emission vehicles and fire prevention and control.
The measure was largely supported by Lyft, which, like other ride-hailing companies, is subject to another state rule requiring it to use mostly zero-emissions vehicles by 2030. Opponents, including its GOP state, said the measure was an attempt by Lyft to get taxpayers to foot the company’s bill.
Notably, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom also opposed the measure, appearing in an ad to defeat it.
“Prop 30 is advertised as a climate initiative, but it was actually invented by a single corporation to funnel state income taxes to their company’s benefit,” he said in the ad.
Supporters, who include environmental groups, public interest groups, unions and a group of Democratic officials, said the measure was necessary to address climate change in the state. It will generate about $100 billion over the next 20-plus years, they said.
