WASHINGTON – Over a month after the elections, some voters across America are realizing that their decisions at the polls may not hold as much power as they believed. In several states, legislators have either started or announced intentions to change or invalidate election outcomes that were recently decided by voters.
In North Carolina, Republican lawmakers are attempting to limit the powers of the newly elected Democratic governor. Similarly, in Missouri, officials are signaling plans to reverse abortion rights that voters just affirmed. Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, Democrats are diluting a voter-backed initiative designed to increase legislative accountability.
Critics argue that such actions undermine democracy, continuing a trend observed in recent years. Anne Whitesell, an assistant professor of political science at Miami University in Ohio, pointed out that voters typically do not consider the possibility of their votes being overturned or disregarded when casting their ballots.
Various approaches to counter voter decisions are emerging, from outright annulments to delaying the implementation of initiatives. Whitesell remarked that this tactic was notably used by Republican governors after voters chose to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, leading to judicial involvement to enforce the voter-approved measures.
A striking example of this trend can be seen in North Carolina, where voters successfully reduced the Republican supermajority and elected Democrats to numerous statewide positions. Despite this shift, the outgoing Republican legislators initiated a lame-duck session to push through significant changes before losing their veto-proof majority. Among these changes is a measure that would strip the incoming governor of the power to appoint members to the state elections board, which was vetoed by the current Democratic governor but overridden by Republican senators.
Further changes include diminishing the governor’s ability to fill vacancies in the state courts and limiting the attorney general’s legal authority in opposition to legislative decisions. Rev. Rob Stephens, a social activist, expressed outrage over these moves, stating that voters aimed to end single-party dominance and have their chosen leaders take office, only to see their choices undermined.
Patrick Williamson, general counsel at the Fair Elections Center, emphasized that over 5.7 million voters in North Carolina chose their leaders with expectations about the authorities those officials would hold. He pointed out that these actions contradict the expressed will of voters, much like a 2018 rejection of a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at limiting the governor’s election board powers.
In Missouri, shortly after voters backed a constitutional amendment affirming abortion rights, a Republican senator proposed yet another amendment that would significantly restrict access to abortion services, allowing them only in medical emergencies.
Meanwhile, voters in Massachusetts had overwhelmingly granted the state auditor the power to audit the Legislature, but Democrats are arguing that this contradicts the separation of powers. Following the election, they modified the process for independent financial audits, which State Auditor Diana DiZoglio criticized as an attempt to undermine the initiative’s intended impact.
Similar incidents have been noted in other states as well. In Ohio, a proposed modification in the Republican-controlled Legislature could dramatically adjust the recently legalized recreational marijuana initiative. Key alterations include a significant increase in the tax rate on cannabis while also cutting the allowed number of recreational plants per household.
In Texas, numerous cities have recently decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, yet the state’s attorney general has pursued these cities legally, asserting they lack the authority to bypass state laws. In Tennessee, the Republican Legislature has repeatedly clashed with liberal-leaning cities, imposing restrictions on local policies, including a statewide ban on ranked-choice voting.
Earlier this year, the Utah Supreme Court ruled against lawmakers who had curtailed the powers of a citizen-led redistricting commission that voters had previously established. This commission was created in 2018, but faced legislative challenges that reduced its power two years later, resulting in contentious legal battles.
In the District of Columbia, Democratic council members voted in 2018 to repeal a voter-approved minimum wage hike for tipped workers, showcasing a trend of legislative pushback against the electorate’s will.
Currently, North Carolina is receiving significant attention for its legislative maneuvers, which some view as an audacious attempt at power consolidation by Republican lawmakers. John Fortier, a senior fellow at a conservative think tank, noted the ongoing struggle between parties over control and acknowledged that legislative actions may seem unappealing at times, reflecting changing political norms.
Christina Melody Fields Figueredo, director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, stated that the situation in North Carolina highlights the need for ongoing activism, ensuring that voters understand when their ballot decisions are directly challenged. She suggested that many of these political maneuvers often escape public notice, and for those burdened by economic struggles, the principles of democracy can appear abstract and distant.
