Cannabis Is on the Ballot Next Month, but It’s Not Driving the Vote
Cannabis is showing up across the 2026 campaign, on state ballots, in governor’s races, in a Republican fight over hemp-derived THC, and in California, where candidates from both parties agree that the nation’s largest legal market is broken. It is a visible issue, but not a decisive one.
Voters in two states will decide cannabis measures directly. In Massachusetts, a measure to repeal key parts of the state’s voter-approved legalization has qualified for the November ballot, a notable turn in a debate long focused on expanding access. In Idaho, voters will decide whether to give the legislature sole authority over legalizing cannabis, closing off future citizen initiatives.
Just as telling, a proposed Arizona legalization repeal initiative won’t appear on the ballot, a Maine repeal campaign failed to gather enough signatures, and an Idaho medical cannabis initiative didn’t qualify. The broader picture is one of limited ballot activity, not a wave.
Several governors’ races offer sharp contrasts. In Iowa, Democrat Rob Sand would legalize and tax recreational or adult use, while Republican Zach Lahn opposes recreational legalization. In Kansas, Democrat Cindy Holscher has endorsed adult use legalization, while Republican Ty Masterson has consistently blocked medical marijuana bills in the state senate.
In Pennsylvania, one cannabis outlet calls the matchup between Gov. Josh Shapiro and Republican Stacy Garrity among the clearest on the issue, with implications for whether he keeps pushing adult use legalization in 2027. The same outlet flags Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Texas as races that could shape the direction of state law.
California tells a more complicated story. A decade after Prop 64, the licensed market is shrinking. Retail sales peaked near $5.2 billion in 2021 and have fallen every year since, to $4.7 billion in 2025, and the first quarter of 2026 was also down. With unit sales roughly flat, revenue is falling because prices are. Wholesale outdoor flower sells for about $334 a pound, far below the $1,200-plus of 2021, according to Cannabis Benchmarks data cited in a cannabis newsletter.
Taxes are a central grievance. A July 2025 jump in the state excise rate from 15% to 19% provoked a near-revolt before AB 564 rolled it back. Local taxes often run 10% or more, sales tax applies on top, and the federal 280E tax burden remains for adult use businesses. One Sacramento dispensary visited by Republican gubernatorial nominee Steve Hilton carried an effective tax rate of 38%. Meanwhile, 56% of California cities and counties ban retail sales outright, often leaving a cheaper unlicensed option closer than a licensed store. State agricultural data puts the total cannabis economy at $12.9 billion, making the licensed market a minority of consumption.
Unusually, the diagnosis is bipartisan. This month, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor, called the legal market “a complete disaster.” Hilton called the 38% rate “RIDICULOUS.” Their proposed cures, however, differ. Ma wants Prop 64 replaced through an industry-backed bill that would be passed by a two-thirds legislative supermajority rather than a costly ballot initiative.
Hilton favors a deregulatory, enforcement-heavy approach: an “Office of Fun and Freedom” to cut needless rules, an audit of cannabis tax flows, and an expanded California Highway Patrol to pursue illicit grows he links to cartels and foreign-linked operations.
The most politically charged cannabis question this fall may involve hemp-derived THC, where the divide runs through the Republican Party itself. In Texas, a statewide ban on most intoxicating hemp THC products took effect July 31. One outlet described it as an immediate wedge issue in the Senate race between Democrat James Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton, since its industry and customers don’t fit neatly into partisan categories.
In Washington, the federal ban on intoxicating hemp products was delayed from November 12 to December 11. Axios reported that President Trump personally called Sen. Ted Budd to argue for the delay, even though Sens. Tom Cotton, Pete Ricketts and Budd wanted the ban to take effect on schedule. A once-niche regulatory matter now divides Republicans, and the delay helps keep an awkward issue out of the campaign’s final weeks.
The federal backdrop adds complexity. Most medical cannabis moved to Schedule III in April, while adult-use remains in Schedule I pending a rulemaking hearing. Seventeen Senate Democrats have reintroduced a bill to end federal prohibition, calling the administration’s steps half measures; Republicans point to rescheduling as progress. Money is flowing, too, as six large cannabis companies gave a combined $11.5 million in June to a Trump-linked PAC ahead of the midterms, according to FEC filings.
How much does this matter to the outcome? Much of the coverage of the issue comes from industry and advocacy outlets with an interest in portraying cannabis as decisive, and no polling reviewed for this piece shows it driving votes in any of these races. The more defensible reading is that cannabis is a clear contrast issue, a real stake for an industry with money and jobs on the line, and a source of GOP tension, but not what most voters will decide on. The evidence so far suggests that economic concerns and broader partisan loyalties will do more to shape the results this November.
By David Feldman and Magnolia Mullen. For general information only; not legal advice.