The Rockefeller Institute’s work spans a broad range of public policy areas, some of which tend to overlap more often than others. This fall, however, elections across the country are touching on a number of policy issues from across our research portfolios, including drug policy, gun violence policy, and environmental health and technology policy. Below are a few of the key questions voters will decide that we’ll be monitoring in November.

Drug Policy—Cannabis Ballot Measures

This election day, voters in two states will have the opportunity to weigh in on cannabis-related initiatives. In both instances, the successful passage of the initiatives would result in a retrenchment, rather than an expansion, of cannabis legalization.

Massachusetts voters will consider Question 8, which asks if the existing adult-use cannabis market in the state should be repealed. While the state’s medical cannabis program would not be affected, successful passage of the ballot measure would mean that the sale, use, taxation, and possession of adult-use cannabis would no longer be legal in Massachusetts as of January 2028. Personal cultivation of cannabis in residences would also be prohibited. Massachusetts voters previously legalized adult-use cannabis by ballot measure on November 8, 2016.

Proponents of Question 8 believe that the legalization of adult-use cannabis has contributed to an increase in car accidents and ER visits and that the societal costs associated with the effects of legalization outweigh the tax revenue generated from sales. Opponents argue that repeal of the current regulatory system would result in the return of the illicit cannabis market, the loss of tax revenue and businesses, and a decline in public health and safety. If Question 8 passes, Massachusetts would be the first state to dismantle a fully developed adult-use cannabis market.

Another statewide ballot measure in Idaho would prevent voters from legalizing any cannabis program in the future through the ballot initiative process, reserving legalization power only for the state legislature. The measure was originated by the legislature, as House Joint Resolution 4 (HJR4). Voter approval would result in an amendment to the state constitution to provide that “only the legislature shall have power and authority to legalize the growing, producing, manufacturing, transporting, selling, delivering, dispensing, administering, prescribing, distributing, possessing, or using of marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances.”

Idaho is one of the few states that has not legalized a medical or adult-use marijuana program. Proponents of HJR4 argue that decisions about drug policy are too important to not be conducted through the legislative process. Those opposed believe that HJR4 takes power away from the people and that the legislature can amend or repeal any problematic drug policy initiatives that may be passed by voters. Together, these 2026 ballot measures illustrate that cannabis policy is continuing to evolve, and that it includes not only the expansion of legalization to new states, but also potential reversions of and limitations to how those expansions occur.

Gun Violence Policy—Firearm Initiatives

Although New York does not have any gun-related issues on the ballot this November, several other states will allow voters to weigh in on firearm-focused initiatives at the polls. These measures vary considerably in their scope and focus, ranging from changes to firearm regulations to the designation of an official state gun.

Massachusetts’ ballot, in addition to considering Question 8 on cannabis policy, will put forward Question 9, which serves as a referendum on the 2024 law enacted to modernize the state’s firearm laws. Among the provisions of the previously enacted law were new requirements for ghost guns to have serial numbers, strengthened firearms licensing regulations, an expanded definition of assault-style weapons, and additional restrictions on components (e.g., bump stocks, trigger cranks) that can make semiautomatic firearms function more like automatic weapons. The law further required that firearm owners register their guns and request serial numbers for unnumbered weapons by October 28, 2026. Additionally, the 2024 law expanded the list of individuals eligible to petition for an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) to include school administrators and healthcare providers; the law also permitted courts to require the surrender of firearms, permits, and licenses when issuing a Harassment Prevention Order.

A majority “yes” vote on Question 9 would keep the 2024 law in place, whereas a majority “no” vote would repeal it. Notably, repealing the law would not affect other previously enacted provisions, including the state’s existing assault weapons ban, firearm licensing and safety training requirements, tracking of point-of-sale purchases, and the ability of law enforcement and family members to petition for ERPOs. Supporters of Question 9 argue that the law respects rights protected by the Second Amendment while helping to maintain low rates of gun violence and protect public safety. Conversely, opponents of Question 9 suggest the 2024 law is too cumbersome and restrictive, impacting law-abiding gun owners and lawful activities such as hunting.

Voters in Arkansas relatedly will weigh in on Issue 2, known as the “Protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Amendment.” Although Article 2, Section 5 of the Arkansas State Constitution already recognizes the right of state citizens to have guns for “common defense,” the referendum proposes two specific changes. First, it would explicitly extend the right to keep and bear arms to include the possession and use of ammunition, firearm accessories, and other components “without limitation.” Additionally, the measure proposes an expansion of the right to keep and bear arms beyond just common defense, to include any lawful activities including hunting and other recreational purposes. Proponents of the measure suggest that the changes would actually clarify rights that citizens always were entitled to, while opponents of the measure suggest that the changes could make it more difficult to keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited purchasers or possessors, potentially undermine public safety and responsible gun ownership, and may do little to protect children.

Finally, in Idaho, an advisory question will be included on the ballot asking voters to weigh in on which firearm they believe should be adopted as the official state gun. Voters will have six to choose from, including the Winchester Model 1873 .44-.40, the Colt M1911 .45 automatic pistol, and the Remington Model 700 .30-06 caliber bolt-action rifle. House Bill 932, enacted in April 2026, authorized the question to appear on the ballot, although the results of the vote are not legally binding. In order for any of the options to become the state’s official gun, the state legislature would need to pass legislation to that effect following the outcome of the vote on the question.

Environmental Health & Technology—Data Centers

For much of their existence, data centers were seen as essential infrastructure for economic development, digital services and, more recently, as essential to support the building of artificial intelligence technology. This year, however, the rapid expansion of data centers and their increasing scale has become a source of political conflict. Host communities and researchers have raised concerns about electricity costs, water consumption, air pollution, and economic concerns. These conflicts have increasingly entered electoral politics, and data centers have become a significant issue in the 2026 midterm elections across federal, state, and local elections.

An analysis by NPR found that campaigns across various gubernatorial, House, and Senate races have spent more than $45 million on advertising mentioning data centers. Candidates in both federal and state elections have increasingly incorporated data center development into their campaign messaging, often linking the issue to environmental concerns, environmental concerns, and corporate accountability. Although Democrats may emphasize environmental concerns and Republicans may focus on local control or opposition to powerful entities, both parties have concerns about the rising energy costs associated with data centers. Data centers have been a main focus in the campaign messaging of competitive races, including Ohio’s Senate race between former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown and Republican incumbent Senator John Husted. This issue has resonated with a wide base of Ohio voters, where 78% of respondents surveyed in October 2026 supported a moratorium on new data center construction. Data centers have also been a major issue in certain gubernatorial races. In Georgia, which is the fastest growing market for data center development, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Keisha Lance Bottoms has called for a statewide moratorium on the construction of new data centers, while her opponent Rick Jackson has argued that local elected officials should have jurisdiction to approve or reject potential developments. In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul issued the first statewide moratorium on certain data centers in July, citing concerns about the rapid growth of development with regard to potential energy and water impacts, as well as the need for local community benefits. This has, likewise, become a point of divergence in the state’s gubernatorial election, with Republican challenger Bruce Blakeman framing his opposition to the moratorium with respect to local control.

This year voters in communities across the country will also directly decide data center-related ballot measures. According to Ballotpedia, there are at least 49 local ballot measures across 13 different states pertaining to data centers. These ballot initiatives and referendums range somewhat in their approach, though they tend to move in a similar policy direction. They include permanent prohibitions on data center construction, temporary moratoriums on data center development, and voter approval requirements for certain data center developments. These local measures would, if differently, all give voters a more direct role in determining whether and under what circumstances data centers can be built or operate in their communities.

The prominence of data centers in the 2026 midterm elections reflects the growing debate over the benefits and costs of the more rapid development of data centers as of late. Although candidates differ in their approaches to data center development, it is becoming an increasingly resonant political issue. This election will provide an important test of whether growing public opposition to data centers will translate into voter engagement and further requirements or restrictions. We will continue to monitor these developments as we track state and local actions in New York State with our NYS Data Centers and Legislation Dashboard.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

Heather Trela is director of operations and fellow at the Rockefeller Institute of Government.

Jaclyn Schildkraut is the executive director of the Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium (RGVRC) at the Rockefeller Institute of Government.

Mathilda Scott is a policy analyst at the Rockefeller Institute of Government.