Cannabis legalization in the United States has made huge gains; in the decade since Colorado and Washington legalized adult-use cannabis in 2014, nearly half the states (24) have followed suit. Medical cannabis has followed a similar trajectory over a slightly longer period—forty states have legalized since California was the first to do so in 1996. Many of these states legalized cannabis through the initiative process, where voters directly make decisions on policy proposals, rather than elected officials doing so as representatives of their constituents. However, recent actions by state legislatures and officials may be harbingers of change in the cannabis landscape, as there are efforts in multiple states aimed at rolling back voter-approved cannabis legalization measures or limiting the ability of voters to use the initiative process for cannabis legalization. This blog will examine the legislation and lawsuits currently being considered in Ohio, Nebraska, and Idaho that could override the outcomes of initiatives or the ability of residents to further determine state cannabis policies through direct democracy.
Ohio
In November 2023, Ohio voters approved, with 57 percent of the vote, a ballot measure to legalize adult-use cannabis for people over the age of 21. Adult-use cannabis sales commenced at state-licensed dispensaries approximately nine months later on August 6, 2024. However, in early 2025, the Ohio legislature introduced bills that would modify some key components of cannabis policy in the state.
Among its many provisions, Senate Bill 56 (SB 56), which was passed by the Senate in February, would decrease the home cultivation limits from 12 plants to six. It would also establish limits for THC content in cannabis products of 35 percent for plant products and 70 percent for extracts. These limits mirror the current limits for medical cannabis. Cannabis edibles would be restricted to 10 mg of THC per serving and 100 mg per package. SB 56 also includes a public consumption ban, limiting usage to inside private residences, unless prohibited by rental agreements.
With respect to the cannabis industry, if enacted, the bill would prohibit persons with a felony conviction from obtaining any cannabis licenses and repeal the Cannabis Social Equity and Jobs Program, which provided financial assistance and license application support to individuals adversely impacted by the previous enforcement of cannabis-related laws. The bill also caps the total number of dispensaries statewide at 350; there are currently approximately 140 legal dispensaries in Ohio. SB 56 merges the operations of the Division of Cannabis Control (DCC), which oversees the adult-use cannabis program, and the Division of Marijuana Control (DMC), which oversees medical cannabis under DCC for greater consistency in implementation.
The possession of cannabis products purchased out of state would also be prohibited. SB 56 requires adult-use cannabis to be stored in its original, unopened packaging and prohibits any person from transporting cannabis or paraphernalia in a motor vehicle unless it is stored in the trunk of the vehicle (or behind the last upright seat if there is no trunk).
Current Ohio state law prohibits adverse actions related to issues such as parental rights, determinations of child abuse and neglect, medical care, and tenants’ rights against a person based solely on their status as a consumer of adult-use cannabis. SB 56 would repeal these protections for adult-use cannabis consumers; however, medical cannabis patient protections would be untouched.
Currently, the House of Representatives is considering the companion bill, House Bill 160 (HB 160). HB 160, as composed at the time of this writing, differs in some ways from SB 56. For example, HB 160 makes no alterations to current home cultivation limits and only bans public consumption when it is not in privately owned backyards or porches, rather than banning all public outdoor consumption. HB 160 also amends some policy areas not included in SB 56, such as changes to local government revenues from cannabis sales. Local governments would continue to receive revenue under HB 160, but at a lower percentage (20 percent, down from the current 35 percent) and only for a temporary five-year window. HB 160 is currently being reviewed in committee. If it is eventually approved by the full House of Representatives, HB160 will have to be reconciled to eliminate any differences in the Senate and House bills, as identical versions of the bill must pass before going to the governor for signature.
Based on the provisions currently under consideration, the Ohio cannabis program is likely to face substantial changes if that takes place and will move further away from what voters approved in 2023.
The future of cannabis reform may hinge not just on public opinion but on sustained civic engagement, legal clarity, and the availability of democratic tools that allow voters to shape the laws that govern them.
Nebraska
On November 5, 2024, four states—Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota—had ballot measures in front of voters regarding the legalization of cannabis. Nebraska’s two ballot measures legalizing medical cannabis and creating an oversight commission for medical cannabis sales were the only successful campaigns; the initiatives (numbered 437 and 438) received overwhelming support, with 71.05 percent and 67.29 percent of votes in favor, respectively. However, the ballot measures have since faced legal challenges and resistance from a few key current and former elected officials.
The inclusion of the two measures on the ballot was provisional at the time because of a pending legal challenge by former state senator John Kuehn. The initiatives were permitted to be on the ballot, but the results may not be counted, pending the outcome of the challenge. The lawsuit alleged that many of the signatures collected to put the initiative on the ballot should have been invalidated. The Lancaster County District Court was not persuaded, ruled against Kuehn, and the voter results of the two ballot measures were certified on December 12, 2024.
With that case pending on appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, Kuehn then filed a second lawsuit in December 2024. The new lawsuit, Kuehn v Pillen et al, seeks to invalidate the ballot measures on the grounds that state marijuana laws are unconstitutional because of the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which created the current federal scheduling, or classification, of controlled substances. Cannabis is currently considered a Schedule I drug because it is deemed to be without accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. As a result, it is federally illegal. Kuehn’s suit argues that the federal prohibition preempts, or overrules, Nebraska’s legalization efforts. This lawsuit is currently being considered by the Lancaster County District Court.
With these legal challenges pending, the Nebraska legislature is considering several bills to implement the two medical cannabis initiatives. On March 2, 2025, the current state attorney general, Mike Hilgers, and US Senator Pete Ricketts wrote an op-ed in the Omaha World-Herald encouraging the legislature to take no immediate action this session in support of legalization. Citing the unresolved litigation surrounding the initiatives, the pair recommend careful consideration. “This legal cloud counsels patience. With the fate of the marijuana initiatives not yet known due to the fraud in the petition process and serious litigation yet to come, the entire framework rests on shaky and uncertain ground.” Legal challenges notwithstanding, they also cite the lack of scientific research on the long-term effects of cannabis and the potential side effects of cannabis legalization, such as driving under the influence and illicit market cannabis trade, as reasons for thoughtful deliberation. “Patience in evaluating the science and its implications for public policy will help promote a safe Nebraska. The Legislature should study the law and science of marijuana and slow down before acting on marijuana this session.”
The Office of the Attorney General has also not ruled out taking its own legal action against not only the ballot measures but any attempt to implement them. In a brief filed to dismiss the inclusion of public officials in the Kuehn v. Pillen et al. lawsuit, the Attorney General’s Office argues that Kuehn doesn’t have the standing to challenge the ballot measure, but they do. “Even assuming Kuehn’s suit raises a matter of great public concern, he cannot show that he is the best suited plaintiff because the Attorney General has clear legal authority—and has pledged—to bring a lawsuit challenging the Measures himself.” Additionally, the brief cites the testimony of the Attorney General’s office in a legislative hearing that “if the Medical Cannabis Commission tries to [license entities to dispense marijuana in Nebraska], the Attorney General’s Office will challenge that action as preempted and unenforceable.” Based on the pending legislation and the comments of the Attorney General’s Office, the path forward for voter-approved medical cannabis in Nebraska looks far from smooth.
Idaho
Finally, the Idaho state legislature has taken initial steps towards a constitutional amendment that would prevent cannabis legalization through voter initiatives from happening in the state. On March 11, 2025, the legislature passed House Joint Resolution 4 (HJR4), which would restrict the power to legalize the “growing, producing, manufacture, transporting, selling, delivering, dispensing, administering, prescribing, distributing, possessing, or using of marijuana, narcotics or other psychoactive substances” to the legislature. The legislatively referred constitutional amendment does itself, however, need voter approval and will be on the ballot for voters to consider in the November 3, 2026, election. Approval by voters would amend the constitution to prohibit any future cannabis legalization measure from appearing on the ballot, granting the legislature the sole authority over this issue.
In direct opposition to the provisions of HJR4, a potential ballot measure, the Idaho Marijuana Legalization Initiative, would legalize the adult use, possession, and cultivation of cannabis. This measure is not guaranteed to appear before voters, but it has been cleared to begin collecting signatures to attempt to qualify as a ballot measure. Supporters have until May 1, 2026, to collect the required 70,725 valid signatures for the measure to be certified for the November 2026 election. So, it’s possible Idahoans may be asked in 2026 both if they approve legalizing cannabis by ballot initiative and if they approve losing the ability to legalize cannabis by ballot initiative.
Idaho has generally been one of least hospitable states for cannabis legalization and decriminalization; not only is it one of only 10 states that has not legalized medical cannabis, the governor recently signed House Bill 7 into law, which, effective July 1, 2025, establishes a new mandatory minimum fine of $300 for anyone convicted of possession of less than three ounces of cannabis. Possession over three ounces in Idaho is a felony, punishable with a fine up to $10,000 and five years in prison.
… it’s possible Idahoans may be asked in 2026 both if they approve legalizing cannabis by ballot initiative and if they approve losing the ability to legalize cannabis by ballot initiative.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while cannabis legalization in the United States has seen tremendous momentum over the past decade, the evolving political and legal landscape suggests that the road ahead is far from a straight or settled path. In states like Ohio, legislative efforts are actively working to revise and, in some cases, significantly curtail elements of voter-approved cannabis policies. The proposed changes could move Ohio’s program further away from the expressed will of its voters, demonstrating the tensions that can arise between direct democracy and legislative authority.
Meanwhile, Nebraska presents another layer of complexity, where even overwhelming voter support for medical cannabis has not protected the measures from persistent legal and political opposition. Ongoing lawsuits and potential legal action from the Attorney General’s office continue to cast uncertainty over implementation, leaving patients and advocates in limbo.
In Idaho, this opposition to legalization has taken the form of a preemptive strike against the very mechanism that allowed reform in other states—the initiative process. If voters approve HJR4 in 2026, they will significantly restrict their own ability to shape cannabis policy through direct democracy.
Together, these cases highlight a critical moment in the trajectory of cannabis policies across states: while public support continues to grow, institutional and political barriers remain strong. The future of cannabis reform may hinge not just on public opinion but on sustained civic engagement, legal clarity, and the availability of democratic tools that allow voters to shape the laws that govern them.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Heather Trela is director of operations and fellow at the Rockefeller Institute of Government