Last week I posted about election-related ballot measures in next week’s vote, and in this post I’ll turn to measures on other subjects.

More states are considering cannabis-related measures this year than ever more. All five (Arkansas, Maryland, Missouri, North Dakota, and South Dakota) move in the direction of legalization, but with differences in tax and regulatory handling. Chris Edwards has lately looked at the tax implications and Jeff Miron at some of the substance (“More than a century of experience demonstrates that prohibition is a treatment far worse than the ‘disease’ it purports to cure.”). Five is also the number of states considering abortion on the ballot next week (California, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, and Vermont); Kansas voted in August.

California voters are being asked to ban flavored tobacco products; Scott Shackford explains what might happen if they do. On a more libertarian note, Coloradans could decriminalize some psychedelic plants and make alcohol delivery lawful over the long term rather than just on an emergency basis.

Even as Oregonians will vote on new gun controls, Iowa will decide whether to add a right to own and bear firearms to the state Constitution “and require strict scrutiny for any alleged violations of the right brought before a court.” Arkansas will consider Issue 3, amending the state constitution to provide that “government shall not burden a person’s freedom of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” Kansas will decide a legislative veto measure; while the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the device inconsistent with the structure of the federal constitution, that doesn’t prevent its adoption at the state level when state constitutions allow.

A body called the NYC Racial Justice Commission has drafted three ballot measures for consideration by New York City voters. John Ketcham writes that the package would infuse racial considerations into city governance.

Massachusetts and California will consider new taxes on higher earners, the Bay State measure being heavily backed by teachers’ unions deploying some shaky arguments. Colorado, again striking a happier note, will consider a cut in the rate of state income tax. D.C. will revisit the contentious tipped wage issue (be kind to your star server and vote NO on Initiative 82) while Nevada and Nebraska look at minimum wage hikes.

The most baleful labor-related measure by far is Amendment 1 in Illinois, pushed heavily by public-sector unions, which would not only enshrine collective bargaining as a right in the state constitution, but – the kicker — prohibit any law that “interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively.” No one quite knows what that means, but courts may well interpret it to strike down a wide variety of state and local laws and policies that it will be argued should have been decided through bargaining rather than unilateral resolution by lawmakers or public managers. In particular, government employers would be obliged to negotiate questions in two elastic categories workers’ “economic welfare” and “safety at work.” Just such considerations have been advanced by, for example, police unions asserting an interest in the rules on violent engagement with citizens, and teachers unions asserting an interest in whether pandemic-closed schools reopen. If courts agree, it will become unlawful for elected officials to pursue voters’ wishes on such questions without first negotiating them with worker representatives. Illinois courts have already interpreted language in the state constitution to bar even modest reform in public pension systems.

Much more here and generally from the Illinois Policy Institute, which has made itself a headquarters for critical analysis of the amendment. Earlier this year, IPI’s Adam Schuster recorded a Cato Podcast on the subject with Caleb Brown. Incidentally, while Amendment 1 by its terms covers all workers, most of those in private employment fall under the pre-emptive effect of federal labor law, meaning that the measure would mostly apply to public sector unions. And while three other states have language in their constitutions about a right to collective bargaining, none of them goes remotely as far as the Illinois language. Those concerned about sound state governance should watch the Illinois result closely.