Welcome to the Friday, Aug. 7, 2026, Brew.
By: Briana Ryan
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- Maricopa County Superior Court judges rule two education-related ballot measures unconstitutional in Arizona
- Julian Beaudion becomes the fifth major or minor party U.S. Senate nominee to withdraw from a general election this year
- 149 statewide ballot measures have been certified this year — above the average in even-numbered years.
Maricopa County Superior Court judges rule two education-related ballot measures unconstitutional in Arizona
In the past few weeks, two separate Maricopa County Superior Court judges ruled that two education-related ballot measures in Arizona — Proposition 143 and Proposition 145 — are unconstitutional for violating the state's separate amendment rule, which requires that voters decide unrelated constitutional changes separately. The Arizona Education Association brought both lawsuits against the two measures.
The judges instructed the Arizona Secretary of State not to put the measures on the Nov. 3 ballot. Supporters of Proposition 143 are not appealing the ruling on that measure. However, supporters of Proposition 145 are appealing the ruling on that measure.
Arizona voters approved the state's separate amendment rule, or what is often called a separate-vote requirement in other states, by approving Proposition 129 in 2022. The constitution states: "Every initiative measure shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title; but if any subject shall be embraced in an initiative measure which shall not be expressed in the title, such initiative measure shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be embraced in the title."
In the 33 states that have this requirement, voters must decide each proposed constitutional amendment as a separate ballot question.
Proposition 143
On July 24, Judge Gregory Como ruled that Proposition 143 violated the state's separate amendment rule because it addressed two unrelated topics — school districts' funding of union activities and collective bargaining with public labor unions. His ruling stated, "there is no ambiguity. [Proposition 143] flatly prohibits the State of Arizona or any local government from contracting with any labor union."
Proposition 143, a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, would have prohibited a school district and its employees from using public money or resources to support a labor organization, deducting any payment from an employee's paycheck to pay for membership dues, or distributing communications on behalf of a labor organization if they consume public resources.
It would also have prohibited the state or other political subdivisions from creating an exclusive representation or collective bargaining agreement with any labor organization. Proposition 143 would have superseded any existing contract, memorandum, agreement, or ordinance.
Currently, there is no statewide prohibition on collective bargaining for any class of public employee in Arizona. Nine states have some form of restrictions on collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between an employer and a public sector labor union. CBAs are contracts that determine employment terms and conditions. North Carolina and South Carolina have banned collective bargaining agreements for all public sector employees.
Proposition 145
On July 29, Judge Joseph Kreamer ruled that Proposition 145 violated the state's separate amendment rule because the protection of vouchers for military families and the broad override of any measure that would amend the state's Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program were not sufficiently linked.
Proposition 145, a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, would prohibit the state from confiscating money from the scholarship account of a child of a military family, including the ESA program which administers accounts to K-12 students in the state to fund nonpublic, private, and homeschool tuition and curriculum. It would also void any measure or law passed after Nov. 1 that violates the amendment.
This provision would apply to Proposition 212 — a proposed citizen initiative for the Nov. 3 ballot. The measure would change the state's laws surrounding the ESA program. For example, it would limit eligibility for the program to families earning less than $150,000 per year, beginning in the 2027-2028 school year, with the threshold adjusted by 2% annually. It would also list luxury items that could not be purchased with ESA funds. The measure's sponsors have submitted signatures to the Arizona Secretary of State for verification.
Certified measures removed from statewide ballots
Between 2014 and 2026, state courts removed or disqualified 19 measures in eight states after officials certified them for the ballot. Seven of the 19 measures (37%) were removed due to state constitutional issues, such as violations of single-subject or separate-vote requirements.
Before this year, the most recent court-ordered removals of certified measures in Arizona occurred in 2022, when the Arizona Supreme Court removed two measures:
- Election and Voting Policies Initiative - The Arizona Secretary of State initially determined that the initiative's sponsors submitted enough valid signatures to put it on the ballot. However, the Court ruled that some of those signatures were actually invalid and that the measure had failed to make the ballot by 1,458 signatures.
- Reduce Number of Income Tax Brackets to Flat Rate of 2.50% Referendum - The Court ruled that veto referendums in Arizona cannot repeal tax increases or decreases, except when a tax would fund a new government department.
Click here for more information about Proposition 143 and here for more about Proposition 145.
Julian Beaudion becomes the fifth major or minor party U.S. Senate nominee to withdraw from a general election this year
On Aug. 4, Julian Beaudion (D) withdrew from the South Dakota general election for the U.S. Senate — the fifth time a major or minor party U.S. Senate nominee has withdrawn this year. As a result, this year ties with 2014 for the most nominee withdrawals (voluntary, misconduct-related, or due to death) since 1918.
Beaudion said he decided to withdraw following a fire at his house: "After the fire, an opponent and those associated with the opponent, hit my family and I with intimidating threats to drop out of this race." Beaudion also said that he would not endorse either of the remaining candidates in the election — incumbent Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Brian Bengs (I).
South Dakota Democratic Party Deputy Director Joe Zweifel said the party will not nominate a replacement candidate.
Four other nominees have left general elections this year
On July 10, Graham Platner (D) withdrew from the Maine general election following an accusation of sexual assault. Troy Jackson (D) won the July 25 nominating convention to replace Platner.
On July 11, then-incumbent Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) died. There will be a special Republican primary on Aug. 11 to select a replacement nominee for the South Carolina general election.
On July 17, Cindy Burbank (D) withdrew from the Nebraska general election. It is unlikely the Nebraska Democratic Party will be one after the party endorsed Dan Osborn (nonpartisan) in August 2025.
On July 28, David Roth (D) announced he would withdraw from the Idaho general election after “work[ing] with my team to meet our remaining financial obligations and complete the formal withdrawal process.”
Twenty-eight of the 39 nominees who withdrew from a general election were replaced by their party. Seven of those 28 replacement nominees have been elected, with the most recent being former Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).
With the Democratic Parties in Nebraska, Idaho, and South Dakota either saying they will not nominate a replacement candidate or not commenting on their next moves, independent candidates will be left to run against Republican incumbents in each of those states.
In an analysis on independent candidates running this year, NPR's A.J. Simmons wrote, "In many states, one party's label has become a political liability, and candidates appear to be adapting accordingly. Every viable independent Senate candidate is either a former Democrat or closely aligned with the Democratic coalition in a state, and all are running in Republican-dominated states where Democrats are unpopular.”
Three states could have only one major party candidate on the general election ballot this year
From 2000 to 2024, there have been 16 general elections for the U.S. Senate with no Democratic candidate, compared to four with no Republican candidate. If the Democratic Parties in Nebraska, Idaho, and South Dakota choose not to nominate a replacement candidate, the number of general elections without a Democratic candidate would increase to 19.
During that period, each of the three states held one general election for the U.S. Senate with no Democratic candidate. There was no Democratic candidate on the Nebraska ballot in 2024. The same was true in Idaho in 2004 and in South Dakota in 2010. None of those states had a general election without a Republican candidate.
According to Smart Politics' Eric Ostermeier, there are 20 states in which a Democratic and a Republican candidate have run in every U.S. Senate election since 1914. That was the year that the first U.S. Senate elections took place following the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, which allowed for the direct election of U.S. senators.
In the other 30 states, there has been at least one U.S. Senate election that did not include either a Democratic or a Republican candidate.
Click here to read more about the outcomes of U.S. Senate nominees who have withdrawn from general elections since 1918.
149 statewide ballot measures have been certified this year — above the average in even-numbered years
As of Aug. 4, 149 measures have been certified for statewide ballots — more than the historical average of 135 at this point in even-numbered years from 2014 through 2024. From 2014 through 2024, an average of 153 statewide measures were certified in even-numbered years.
Since our last update, two separate Maricopa County Superior Court judges ordered the Arizona Secretary of State to remove Proposition 143 and Proposition 145 from the ballot for violating the state's separate-amendment rule.
Proposition 143 was removed from our overall count because its supporters announced they would not appeal the ruling. However, Proposition 145 is still included in our overall count because its supporters immediately appealed the ruling.
Over the past two weeks, one new measure was certified for the ballot:
Signatures are pending verification for 19 citizen initiatives:
- Arizona Proposition 212, Restrict Empowerment Scholarship Account Funds and Require State Board of Education Oversight Initiative
- Arkansas Fundamental Right to Initiative and Referendum and Citizen-Initiated Measures Process Amendment
- Colorado Cap Individual and Corporate Income Tax at 4.4% Initiative
- Colorado Establish a Graduated Income Tax Amendment
- Colorado Require Congressional Maps to be Approved by Both a Nonpolitical Commission and the Colorado Supreme Court Amendment
- Colorado Require Plain Language and Eighth-Grade Reading Level for Ballot Measures Initiative
- Colorado Require Voter Identification Number for Mail-In Ballots Initiative
- Colorado Right to Hunt and Fish Initiative
- Colorado Right to Purchase and Sell Natural Gas for Cooking or Heating in Homes and Businesses Amendment
- Colorado Sporting Goods Sales Tax for Environmental Funding Initiative
- Michigan Citizenship Verification and Voter Identification Initiative
- Michigan Utility and Government Contractor Campaign Finance Regulations Initiative
- Montana CI-132, Require Nonpartisan Judicial Elections Initiative
- Montana CI-133, Add Right to Initiative and Referendum Power to Declaration of Rights Amendment
- Montana Initiative 194, Exclude Political Spending from Artificial Persons' Charter Powers Initiative
- Nebraska Online Sports Betting Amendment
- Nebraska Regulate Online Sports Betting Initiative
- Nebraska Require a Four-Fifths Vote for Legislative Ballot Initiative Changes Amendment
- Nebraska Sex Requirement for School and College Sports Amendment
In Missouri, Secretary of State Denny Hoskins (R) announced on the Aug. 4 signature-verification deadline that two citizen initiatives would not appear on the ballot:
- He said the Missouri Congressional Map Referendum could not appear on the ballot because the Missouri Constitution does not authorize referendums on congressional redistricting plans, and that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures authority over congressional elections.
- He said the Missouri Initiative and Referendum Powers and Legislative Change Requirements Amendment could not appear on the ballot because the proposal violated the state's single-subject rule .
Supporters of both initiatives said they will challenge the decisions.
In Oregon, the Secretary of State announced on July 24 that supporters of the Criminalize Hunting, Fishing, and Intentional Injury to Animals Initiative did not collect the required 117,173 valid signatures.
The next relevant deadline is Aug. 25 in Oklahoma, when election officials must complete signature verification. Oklahoma does not have a fixed deadline for submitting initiative signatures.
Click here for more information about the measures on statewide ballots this year.
