What 2024’s Ballot Measures Reveal About Blue State Discontent

Blue states and cities, long seen as bastions of progressive governance, are facing mounting criticism for governance failures that have pushed voters toward alternative solutions. Urban counties saw a red shift that we have not seen in the past two presidential elections.

Voters in blue states showed that they were concerned about urban disorder, rising crime, homelessness, and public inefficiency — issues that have visibly plagued blue cities in recent years. From San Francisco to New York City, cities face challenges such as fare evasion, shoplifting, and high housing costs that erode public trust in local leadership. As Josh Barro has pointed out, many of these issues reflect basic governance failures, not just ideological divides.

“I write this to you from New York City, where we are governed by Democrats and we pay the highest taxes in the country, but that doesn’t mean we receive the best government services. Our transportation agencies are black holes for money, unable to deliver on their capital plans despite repeated increases in the dedicated taxes that fund them, because it costs four times as much per mile to build a subway line here as it does in France, and because union rules force the agency to overstaff itself, inflating operating costs. Half of bus riders don’t pay the fare, and MTA employees don’t try to make them. Emotionally-disturbed homeless people camp out on the transit system ….and even though police are all over the place (at great taxpayer expense) they don’t do much about it, and I can’t entirely blame them since our government lacks the legal authority to keep these people either in jail or in treatment.”

The results of Blue State ballot measures reveal this tension, with outcomes that would have once been secure victories now narrowly passing — or outright failing. As state and local Democratic leaders recalibrate their policy agendas to address this crisis, it’s worth examining the ballot measures that signal where the fault lines lie.

Voter Skepticism Toward Expansive Policies

Oregon’s Measure 118’s overwhelming defeat (79% against) in one of America’s most progressive states demonstrates the limits of ambitious progressive policy experiments. The measure would have created a new 3% tax on business sales over $25 million to fund universal rebates to residents — a policy where all eligible residents receive a financial payment, often funded by taxes or fees collected from other sources. In this specific case, Measure 118 would have provided all eligible residents with $1,600 per year.

What’s particularly telling is who opposed it: Democratic Governor Tina Kotek joined with labor unions and business groups, suggesting even traditional progressive allies are increasingly skeptical of broad redistributive policies without clear practical benefits. Despite supporters framing it as a step toward universal basic income, voters saw it as disconnected from their immediate needs.

Massachusetts Ballot Measures Highlight Growing Caution

In Massachusetts, the rejection of the tipped worker wage increase (64.4% against) came after intense debate about practical impacts. The measure would have gradually raised tipped workers’ minimum wage from $6.75 to match the state’s $15 minimum wage by 2029.

Despite supporters arguing tips should be rewards rather than wage subsidies, workers themselves often opposed the change. As James Rooney of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce noted, both waitstaff and restaurant owners warned it would harm the hospitality industry.

Massachusetts’ gig work unionization initiative passed by only a narrow margin (53.8%), suggesting Democratic voters may not see unionization for gig workers as a top priority. While the measure allows ride-hailing drivers for apps like Uber and Lyft to unionize while remaining independent contractors, Drivers for Massachusetts Drivers United, representing 1,800 ride-share drivers in MA, were mostly split on the measure. The narrow victory in a union-friendly state like Massachusetts further underscores a cautious approach to experimental labor policies, even among traditionally progressive constituencies.

California’s Crossroads: Pragmatism Over Ideals

California’s ballot results further highlight voters’ pivot toward pragmatic solutions over sweeping ideological changes. The voting patterns suggest a deeper frustration with basic governance failures in blue cities. As Ezra Klein notes,

“The rage I just hear from people…the sense of disorder rising — not just crime but homeless encampments, trash on the streets, people jumping turnstiles in subways.”

This frustration manifests in the ballot box, where voters are increasingly skeptical of expansive government programs without clear oversight.

Proposition 32: Wage Hike Rejected

Proposition 32, which proposed raising the minimum wage to $18, is set to fail narrowly (50.8% against). Voter concerns about small business sustainability overshadowed traditional support for wage hikes. In San Luis Obispo County, 60% of voters opposed the measure, with local business owners mentioning fears of increased operating costs.

Many also cited increasing issues with inflation and cost of living as a reason to oppose this hike:

“The cost of living in California is too high. Prices are up more than 20% in the last three years for food, gas, utilities, healthcare, and clothing. Proposition 32 makes it even worse as it will increase costs on family-owned businesses who can least afford it and force small employers to increase prices for consumers to absorb the higher minimum wage.”

The rejection underscores a broader wariness of policies perceived as out of step with economic realities, even in traditionally progressive regions.

Proposition 36: Tougher on Crime

Proposition 36, however, passed with overwhelming support (68.9% approval), signaling a strong demand for tougher crime measures. Designed to address property crime by aggregating theft values for repeat offenders, the measure directly responded to public frustration with lenient penalties under prior reforms like Prop. 47. This result highlights a clear backlash against policies perceived as enabling disorder, reinforcing the notion that public safety remains a priority for voters.

The measure’s success proves particularly noteworthy given Vice President Harris’s response when asked about it as a California voter. Despite her background as a prosecutor, she chose to sidestep the question entirely, stating she wouldn’t discuss her vote so close to election day. This reluctance to take a position on an overwhelmingly popular anti-crime measure — even in her home state — exemplifies the broader Democratic leadership’s hesitation to align with public sentiment on law enforcement issues, even when voters across the political spectrum clearly signal their preferences.

Practical Solutions Find Support: Rhode Island’s Housing Bond

Patterns are starting to emerge across blue states where voters increasingly favor targeted, practical solutions over expansive new programs. In a state known for progressive policies, this rejection suggests voters are demanding governance focused on immediate needs rather than systemic overhauls.

Amid these shifts, Rhode Island’s $120 million housing bond (65.5% approval) offers an example of when progressive policy succeeds in blue states. Unlike California’s rejected housing measures, Rhode Island’s bond targeted specific issues with clear outcomes, earning widespread support.

This success contrasts sharply with California’s Proposition 5’s defeat and Oregon’s broad measures. The difference lies in specificity — Rhode Island voters saw exactly how funds would be used, with concrete timelines (2026–2030) and clear oversight.

A Call for Competence

The 2024 ballot results reveal a critical shift in voter priorities across blue states: a growing impatience with lofty promises and ideological ambitions that fail to address immediate, tangible needs.

Voters in blue states are signaling a desire for leadership focused on delivering practical, effective governance over sweeping systemic changes.

This shift stems from frustration with governance that appears more focused on expanding programs than ensuring they work. Voters are skeptical of policies that promise transformative outcomes but lack the planning, oversight, and execution to deliver meaningful benefits. They want solutions that meet everyday needs — safer streets, affordable housing, and efficient public services — not sprawling initiatives that strain resources and deliver little impact.

Representative Mary Gluesenkamp Perez, who won in a red district, captured a crucial insight about the disconnect between Democratic governance and voter concerns: “There isn’t a spreadsheet in the world that can explain why people have to take groceries out of their carts. You need to meet people where they are — that’s where you start.”

This disconnect appears in 2024’s blue state ballot measures, where voters repeatedly rejected progressive governance approaches while demanding practical solutions to everyday problems.

To regain trust, progressive leaders must shift from trying to do everything to focusing on a few core areas and doing them well. This means cutting inefficiencies, improving transparency, and prioritizing initiatives that yield visible, measurable improvements for the broader public. Success will depend on addressing the disconnect between governance ideals and the realities faced by constituents.