What Else Is on the Ballot? Taxes, Voter ID, and State Court Justices

America has abundant oil and natural gas, but energy security takes more than energy in the ground. It requires smart policies that ensure supply, modernize infrastructure, and strengthen energy supply chains. Learn more at energy security framework.org. Pay for by the American Petroleum Institute. From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. As Zohran Mamdani and Andrew Cuomo trade their final jabs before next Tuesday's 2025 elections, let's pause and take a look at what else is on the ballot, including taxes in Texas, voter ID and a red flag law in Maine, and three state Supreme Court justices in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Welcome. I'm Kyle Peterson with the Wall Street Journal. We're joined today on this very spooky Halloween edition of Potomac Watch. by my colleagues editorial board member, Manet Uquay-Ukwe-Brua and columnist Kim Strassel. The big races next week are, of course, in New York City, where Zohran Mamdani is leading Andrew Cuomo by 15 and a half points in the latest Real Clear Politics average of polls. Also big races in Virginia, Abigail Spanberger, leading Winsome Earle-Sears by seven and a half points to be the next governor. And then in the Attorney General's race, incumbent Republican Jason Miaris, now leading most polls over Jay Jones after the Democrats deranged. text messages came out. But that isn't the only thing voters will be deciding next week and some states more than others love their direct democracy. ballot initiatives. Let's start in Texas, which Meney has no less than 17 state propositions on the ballot, including Prop 5, a constitutional amendment authorizing a tax exemption on animal feed. We won't be spending very long today chewing that one over, but the journal Meney had an editorial on three of these measures that might have some economic effects, particularly as Texas tries to continue drawing businesses and financial services from other. States, including New York. The headline on that editorial is the Yall Street Tax Plan for Texas. Give us a sense of what's at stake there. Yeah, Texas is in the middle of this big financial boom. For the past five or so years, you've had a lot of different financial services institutions moving to Dallas in particular. And it seems like lawmakers are trying to see if let's put some policies down that can help to expand and protect that. So the first one of these ballot measures. that voters in Texas are going to have the chance to decide on is.

to prohibit any capital gains tax from being imposed in the future. So Texas doesn't have a capital gains tax currently. It doesn't have an income tax at all. And that's already in the Constitution. The thing is, they want to make sure that legislatures aren't able to come up with a crafty way to sort of sneakily create a backdoor capital gains tax. And of course, that already happened in Washington State in 2022. They framed it as an excise tax. So basically they're saying, we're taxing the transaction. We're not taxing the actual capital gains tax. itself. Somehow the state Supreme Court upheld that. And now Washington State has a 9% capital gains tax after increasing it from the original 7%. So Texas wants to make sure it doesn't go down that road. They have a similar provision, which is going to ban the state from creating a future estate tax at death. So people will make sure that they're able to pass down their full estate to their inheritor. And they also have one that will prohibit attacks. on certain financial transactions like stock sales or purchases and prohibit an occupational tax on people who happen to work in the financial industry. And that one is definitely meant to protect the Texas Stock Exchange, which is going to start trading next year. It's one of the big institutions that they hope will help to expand the Yall Street Financial Center in Dallas. And so it's a good example of a state saying, we know we have a good business climate now, but we can't guarantee that that's going to. to be the same in the future, especially as the composition of the state changes. You have a lot of people moving to Texas from California and potentially bringing their political values down there as they do. And so Republicans in Texas right now want to give voters the chance to lock in some sound tax policy and make sure that the financial boom and the general pro-business growth in the states is going to be able to continue. There is something interesting, Kim, about voting for constitutional women maybe to prevent a state from doing. something that a state is not currently doing. And aside from these tax provisions, that's a similar case with Prop 16 in Texas, this is a constitutional amendment to clarify that voters in Texas must be United States citizens. That is already state law in Texas. And it's true that in some other states, there have been localities that have experimented with opening up their, you know, often their boards of education elections or school board elections to non-citizens. on the argument that they are also living in town and often sending their children to those schools. It's interesting because this is also a classic way to drive turnout is to put a very popular ballot initiative on the ballot and get people that riled up about it and excited about it and then hope that they vote up and down the ballot for your candidates as well. On the other hand, if that was the strategy here, I don't think they would have done it in an off-year election like that. They would have waited until 2026. So maybe this is. Just an effort, as Monet says, to lock in some of these policies, particularly as we every two or four years have the conversation now about, is Texas really going purple? Is it going blue? Is this going to be the time? And so far it hasn't, but they are trying to. write some of those policies into the state constitution before it does. Yeah, and this is what I just love about these initiatives. Not only are they really good policy, but this is different. I mean, Texas is trying to look out ahead for its future. And as you say, lock in some really important benefits, make sure that they can't have some of these terrible things that have crept in in other states to mess up financial fortunes. I mean, and you have to remember this in the context of just how much.

Texas has changed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics noted that the number of Texans who were employed in investment banking or securities rose 27%. from 2019 to 2024, Dallas is now the nation's second biggest finance hub after New York, which is fantastic. I also just love this, this notion that if New York really does have crummy taxes and crummy leadership, that you can just go somewhere else. Your people will live in a happier environment. They'll make more money. They'll keep more of it. And, you know, Texas doesn't want to lose this. We are seeing this more to across states, and I think it's an incredibly healthy development. Too often initiatives are put on to try to correct something that has gone dramatically wrong in the state. You know, taxes have gone up too high. Now the voters get mad and they're going to try to put some limiting principle on it, for instance. But we're seeing this more. You know, there's these that are trying to make sure they lock in Texas's financial fortunes. You've seen, as you said, more states moving to, even though we have a federal law saying you can't vote if you're not a citizen, they're actually clarifying this, putting it into the Constitution, in part to keep local municipalities from trying to get around that the way that we've seen in some very blue cities. Another one that I would mention that you've seen more states gravitating to. I don't think there's one on the ballot this cycle, but last year there were numerous states putting into their constitution or passing into statute a prohibition against changing to a ranked choice voting system, which is something that states have recognized as sort of a bit of a danger to their voting environment. So I think it's a really healthy trend in general, and I'm really looking forward to seeing how some other states maybe, you know, try to use that incredible voter enthusiasm to think about the future of a state rather than try to fix things after they happen. Hang tight. We'll be right back in a moment. America has abundant oil and natural gas, but energy security takes more than energy in the ground. It requires smart policies that ensure supply, modernize infrastructure, and strengthen energy supply chains. Learn more at energy security framework.org. Pay for by the American Petroleum Institute. This podcast is brought to you by ReliQuest. Cybercriminals are constantly attacking. They want your data. They want your identity. They want your innovation. RelyA-Quest fortifies your business with agentic defense, AI that detects, contains, and eliminate cyber threats in minutes. It helps your security team move faster at the work that matters most to protect the business now and delivers insights to help them predict what's next. R-A-A-A-Gentic Defense for the Enterprise. Learn more at R-A-A-A-A-E-E-S-T-com.com. Welcome back. Let's turn to Maine where there are a couple of initiatives on the ballot that could be close, according to the polling we have right now. First is question one. This is on voter ID, and it would also make other changes to Maine's election law. There's a poll by the University of New Hampshire that has it down by one point as of, I think, last week, 48% saying they planned to vote for it, 49% saying they've planned to vote against it. Manet, here are a couple of the pieces of questions.

Question one, so it would require voter ID, a government ID at physical polling places when people come to cast their ballots. It would kind of follow what some other states have done in trying to also have ID requirements in the absentee process. So, for example, when you are applying for a main absentee ballot, you would be asked on the form to write your state ID driver's license number on that form. Then there are some ancillary changes to election law. example, it would limit municipalities to one ballot drop box per town, no matter how big or small the town is. And it would end this ongoing absentee list. So in Maine, seniors and people who can't get out of their houses very well can basically raise their hand to say, I would like an absentee ballot in perpetuity every election. That is supposed to open next year to all voters. And question one would override that and say, you need to have a new absentee request every time there's an election that comes around. And one thought that strikes me, Manet, about the challenges of direct democracy is this initiative, the question, the legislative language that it would enact, is something like 11 or 12 pages. And I wonder, given the polling that you see across the board by demographics, by party preferences, by states, by regions, people like voter ID laws. They tend to favor them. They think that that's common sense. And I wonder if part of the narrowness of this is just that there are all sorts of other things thrown into this initiative. And even if you're a voter who likes the ID idea, maybe you don't like the Dropbox idea. So there's a challenge of trying to stuff too much maybe into one of these referendums and then giving voters, you know, you've got to do an up or a down. Absolutely. I think that these kinds of multifaceted ballot measures simply shouldn't be done. I think that there should be pretty strict rules about what different types of policy proposals can be included under one single question because you're asking, A, too much of the voters in terms of going through all the materials and making sure that they can make an informed decision about each plank of it. But then also, as you mentioned, the possibility that they will favor some of it and oppose other parts and policies that they... would have been happy to approve if they have been presented individually. They now feel as if they can't cast their vote for it because there's one single poison pill included in there. And I think that there's just an important distinction to draw between the way that legislators cast votes versus the way that the public cast votes in the ballot booth. I think that legislators often vote on multifaceted legislation that combines a whole bunch of policies altogether, but they have the opportunity to participate in the actual process of constructing that and amending it. If they think this provision should be struck, they can lobby their colleagues and try to make that happen on the floor of the legislature before they take the final vote. Whereas if you are just an ordinary voter going to vote on a ballot measure, you are getting something that has come in its final form. You have no input over its construction. And so you can't try to peel parts off or add parts if you would like to do that. And so I think that it makes sense to say that there should be some kind of limit making sure that voters aren't being asked to vote on. extremely complicated, multifaceted ballot measures of this kind. The second question in Maine, question two is on creating a red flag law for firearms in Maine. And according to this University of New Hampshire poll, that is trailing by two points, but with a lot of voters undecided. So 38% saying they plan to vote yes, 40% saying they plan to vote no, 22% undecided. And Kim, again, I wonder if there's a challenge of

direct democracy here because this is a complicated question. So Maine, a few years ago, passed what they call a yellow flag law, which my understanding is that there's not really anything else in the country that is exactly this approach. And what it allows law enforcement to do is if there's somebody who is perceived to be a danger to themselves or to others, they can take that person into custody, take them for a mental health evaluation, and then eventually get an order basically to confiscate that person's guns. So critics say that this is too cumbersome and has a difficulty catching everyone. This proposal would create a separate parallel red flag system where family members or household members of someone who is perceived to be a danger can ask a judge to issue a similar ruling that this person is a significant danger and needs to give up those weapons. But Kim, I guess it strikes me again. is kind of a complicated issue. And for people who are, you know, going about their days, taking their kids to sports practices, maybe working a job or two, trying to make ends meet, there's a reason that we have a representative democracy and we elect people who are supposed to decide, you know, is the yellow flag law working? Do we need a red flag law? What are the exact contours of due process? And so I think there are challenges. I think maybe you see that in the huge double-digit share of people undecided. with trying to write a bill that is a dozen or two pages long and say to voters, yes or no? Yeah, this second question has a couple of things working against it. One is that it's getting opposition from both sides, and I should note that. So, you know, it was put forward by gun control advocates. As one might expect, there's some gun rights groups that very much object to it. And Maine certainly got a solid group of voters that are also very second amendment supporting. And one of the things that worries them about this is that When you get into the realm of allowing family and household members to petition for these sort of things, you start getting in a very messy family relations. One of the arguments against that for a long time has been that there's just not enough due process for those that are being accused. And that was one reason why Maine went the yellow flag route to begin with, and that, yes, it is a little bit of cumbersome and that the police have to initiate the process. And you've got to take a person in for a mental health evaluation and judges are involved, etc. The argument is that actually if you're going to take away someone's constitutional rights, it should be a little bit cumbersome. It should not, in fact, be as simple as snapping your fingers or having someone in your family that has had a long time feud with you attempting to, you know, upset your life because of some personal grievance. And, you know, it's also the reality that there are other states that have red flag laws. And we know that it's They don't necessarily perform as the promoters of them. Say they will. Minnesota has one, for instance. It did not stop Robin Westman from shooting up the Annunciation Catholic Church. The other problem is that, you know, you have people like Janet Mills, who is the Democratic governor in Maine, who's saying, actually, no, we have a yellow flag law. It's working. And so you kind of have opposition from both sides to this measure. But the other thing is you say is simply, and I really believe this.

is a complexity, and it's a great conversation to be having, and it's happening out in the states. In fact, there are a number of states who are, and it's being viewed as a good governance turn, increasingly arguing and instituting rules saying that any initiatives on their ballots can't be more than one line long, and that you can't explain it in a paragraph that it really shouldn't be on the ballot. And voters have generally approved of that notion because they are often very confused by these extreme long measures and conflicted over them. And some of them have been bitten by this process as well, too. If you talk to Alaskans, for instance, when they ended up voting for rank choice voting, many of the people who voted for that measure didn't even know they were getting it because it was part of this massive ballot measure that claimed to be about getting rid of dark money in elections. And everybody woke up the next day and found out that, in fact, their entire voting situation had changed. So it isn't just that some of these ballots initiatives can be very confusing and conflicting to people, but some states have begun to recognize that they can also be manipulated by folks who are trying to get things through and not being entirely transparent about what all is in a ballot initiative and that that is unfair to voters. Hang tight. We'll be right back after one more break. America has abundant oil and natural gas, but energy security takes more than energy in the ground. It requires smart policies that ensure supply, modernize infrastructure, and strengthen energy supply chains. Learn more at energy security framework.org. Pay for by the American Petroleum Institute. Don't forget, you can reach the latest episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just ask your smart speaker, play the opinion Potomac Watch podcast.

to continue rather than giving voters the chance to push further when the current policy may be working and the one that they would have the chance to approve in the ballot measure could actually push them towards a more muddled or politically dangerous situation. Let's save a few breaths for Pennsylvania where there are three state Supreme Court justices up for retention elections. And to set the level here, there is a five to majority of Democrats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court right now. I know there are still people. that are upset about the way that Supreme Court majority stretched the voting laws during COVID and the pandemic election. And that's not all. So here is a summary of one of the rulings last year. The majority ruled that a ban on Medicaid coverage for abortions was presumptively unconstitutional. A 219-page majority opinion by Justice Donahue overturned previous precedent and ruled that the state's equal rights amendment protected abortion rights. because the ban on public funding amounted to discrimination based on sex. So, Kim, a lot of frustration, I think, among Republicans and conservatives in Pennsylvania that this is a Supreme Court majority that is stretching the law to get the political and the policy ends that it wants. The three justices on the ballot are Christine Donahue, Kevin Doherty, and David Wecht. And if they are not retained, the prospect here is that you might have. they deadlocked 2-2 Supreme Court for a while because I guess the way it works in Pennsylvania is that Governor Josh Shapiro could potentially appoint justices to fill these open seats, but that would require some approval from the Republican Senate. And the Republican State Senate is unlikely to grant that approval. So interesting here, the thing that I always find hard to gauge about these kind of judicial elections is how much voters are tuned in. whether their default is to retain or not to retain. So an interesting poll recently, 43% of registered voters undecided on Justice Donahue, 51% on Justice Doherty, and 55% for Justice Wecht. So that makes it pretty hard to figure out what is going to happen if more than half a voters, you know, a week or two before election today, have no idea how they're going to vote that on their ballot. Just to set the scene here, so Pennsylvania and other states do this. too, they have these retention elections for the justices, right? So these three individuals ran back in 2015. All three of them ran as Democrats. Interestingly, in Pennsylvania's system, they now lose their party affiliation, so they're not running again under a particular party anymore. But rather, the voters are being asked, do we want to keep them or not keep them? You have judicial retention elections in other states, and voters by and large find them extremely frustrating. One reason for that is that there's so little information or way of gauging what most judges do in a state. And so the voters have very little feel for how good or not good of a job a particular judge is done. Now, it's a little bit easier, obviously, in this case, when you're talking about a Supreme Court, because so many of their opinions, they do fewer opinions and what they do tend to be the last word in the state and can be quite consequential, so people are more tuned in. That's what makes this really interesting. Democrats kind of got to this question of the importance of state Supreme Courts before Republicans did. And Pennsylvania was one of the places they put a lot of attention of getting these Democrats elected and to change the makeup of the court. Republicans have been ruining that ever since. There have been a lot of decisions. You name some of the voting decisions they put out. There was this abortion decision. This.

Court has been extremely aggressive on the question of redistricting, which has really made Republicans steamed in the state. And so the GOP is going all in on this. They are putting a lot of attention and focus on this retention election. There is some belief that by the time all is said and done, there's been more than 7 million dumped into this retention election. Some people think it may. prove to be the most expensive retention election in a judiciary in the country, and we'll see how it works out in the end. But one thing that's also a possibility that I think people aren't working through, you're correct. If they lose, they basically get booted out of their seats in January, and those seats remain vacant through 2027, the 27 election. Josh Shapiro has no chance of replacing them because he needs two thirds of the Senate, not just Republicans in the Senate, but two thirds of the Senate to agree to replacements, which they will not agree to. But one thing that could be interesting is people are talking about the situation where all three of them lose and then you end up with this deadlock on the court. But what if only one of them loses, for instance, or two of them loses, that's also a possibility. So it's hard to see voters maybe making many big distinctions among the three of them. But, you know, you never know. So this is a really interesting watch. Thank you, Kim and Manet. Thank you all for listening. You can email us at PW Podcast at WSJ.com. If you like the show, please hit that subscribe button. And we'll be back next week with another edition of Potomac Watch. America has abundant oil and natural gas, but energy security takes more than energy in the ground. It requires smart policies that ensure supply, modernize infrastructure, and strengthen energy supply chains. Learn more at energy security framework.org. Pay for by the American Petroleum Institute.