WeedVoter

Proposition A

The Houston Freedom Act — City Charter Amendment on Marijuana Enforcement Priority and No-Knock Warrants

A yes vote

Adds a new Article X, the "Houston Freedom Act", to the Houston city charter. Under the certified ballot caption, a yes vote requires the Houston Police Department to make enforcement of Class A and Class B misdemeanor marijuana possession its lowest law-enforcement priority, "with related reporting requirements", and prohibits Houston police officers from requesting or executing "no-knock" search warrants — the caption bars requesting such a warrant as well as executing one. The full charter text, as printed in the city's notices of election and published by the campaign, runs to eleven sections, Secs. X.01–X.11. X.01 titles the article and X.02 states its purpose. X.03 makes misdemeanor marijuana possession the department's lowest possible enforcement priority "[u]nless and until a binding act of a state or federal court requires otherwise", and requires the city to update its annual budget, its police department manual and its relevant policies and procedures accordingly.

X.04 states a city policy of supporting diversion options where legally permissible, which may include referrals to mental-health or substance-use treatment, community service, or other alternatives to arrest or prosecution consistent with Article 16.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, while preserving the discretion of police and prosecutors to enforce state law. X.05 provides that an officer with probable cause to believe a substance is marijuana may seize it, and must then write a report explaining the grounds for the seizure. X.06 requires the City Manager to make the city's budget and annual reporting show the total funds and staff time spent on THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) concentration testing of cannabis-related substances, lets City Council allocate testing funds by majority vote where it determines the testing serves a compelling public-safety purpose, and requires a public statement when THC testing expenditures are proposed.

X.07 requires city policies and internal operating procedures to be updated to match the article and officers to be trained on each of its provisions. X.08 requires a one-time audit of all misdemeanor marijuana enforcement by the city police department in the five years before the policy takes effect, prepared by the City Manager and presented to City Council at a public meeting subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act no later than 120 days after the policy takes effect, and published on the city website and archived. For each year under review the audit must report total misdemeanor marijuana arrests, total citations, and demographic information for each person charged, including age, gender, race and ethnicity; a second section must estimate the average staff hours and average cost per charge, total THC testing spending, and total misdemeanor marijuana enforcement spending for each year.

X.09 requires an annual public report on implementation, the first due no later than 120 days after the policy takes effect, covering total arrests, total citations, the age, gender, race and ethnicity of each person charged, the number of cases referred to diversion programs, and estimated enforcement staff hours, also published on the city website and archived. X.10 is the no-knock provision: in the charter text it bars any Houston police officer from requesting, executing or participating in the execution of any search warrant that does not require the officer to knock, announce their presence and wait at least 15 seconds before execution. The 15-second wait is in the charter text only; the certified ballot caption does not mention it. X.11 severs any section a court finds unlawful or unenforceable, leaving the rest of the article in force.

A no vote

Article X is not added to the charter. Houston police enforcement priorities for Class A and Class B misdemeanor marijuana possession, the department's use of no-knock warrants, and the city charter all stay as they are, and none of the budget, training, audit or annual reporting requirements takes effect.

The Attorney General sued five Texas cities over ordinances their voters passed in 2022. An appeals court ruled for the state on Austin’s and San Marcos’s in 2025 and sent both back with an instruction to enter a temporary injunction, which stops enforcement while a case is tried rather than ending it; in Austin one was entered, in San Marcos we have not confirmed that it was, and neither has been to trial, Denton’s council repealed its own, and Dallas agreed to stop enforcing its 2024 measure while its case continues. Houston is asking the question again, in the same state, in the same cycle in which that Attorney General is on the ballot for a different office. Two differences from 2022 are on the face of the documents: this is a charter amendment rather than a city ordinance, and the enforcement-priority section as the city's notice prints it applies only unless and until a binding act of a state or federal court requires otherwise. Houston also straddles three counties, so three separate county election authorities print the same question.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

On the ballot as "City of Houston, Proposition A". The proposition letter and the printed caption are now confirmed against the certified ballots of two independent county election authorities, which print them word for word identically. Montgomery County Elections prints it on page 4 of its 21-page master sample ballot for election GEN110326 (elections.mctx.org/Samples/GEN110326/paper.pdf, linked from the county's own sample-ballot index). Fort Bend County prints it on 41 of the 250 precinct ballot styles it posts for 2026-11-03; we read all 250, and all 41 carry one single identical caption. The certified English caption reads, verbatim: "Shall the City Charter of the City of Houston be amended to 1) require the Houston Police Department to make enforcement of Class A and Class B misdemeanor marijuana possession its lowest law-enforcement priority with related reporting requirements and 2) prohibit Houston police officers from requesting or executing "no-knock" search warrants?"

The certified Spanish caption, which both counties also print, reads, verbatim: "¿Debería modificarse la Ley Orgánica de la ciudad de Houston para: 1) exigir al Departamento de Policía de Houston que considere la persecución de los delitos menores de clase A y clase B por posesión de marihuana como su prioridad más baja en materia de aplicación de la ley, con los correspondientes requisitos de información, y 2) prohibir a los agentes de policía de Houston solicitar o ejecutar órdenes de registro "sin previo aviso"?" The printed choices are "FOR / A FAVOR" and "AGAINST / EN CONTRA". The two counties differ only in typography — Montgomery sets the quotation marks around no-knock and sin previo aviso straight, Fort Bend sets them curly — and in where lines break; the words are identical.

Houston City Council voted on 2026-08-12 to order the election. The campaign states that it filed 22,800 valid signatures against the 20,000 required, out of about 40,000 collected before verification; the 40,000 figure is a collected-before-verification count, not a validated one. The signature numbers come from the campaign's own page, not from a city record. The Harris County Clerk holds two notices of this election filed by the city, File No. 11260102 (2026-09-04) and File No. 11260175 (2026-10-13). Both print the full Article X and the same ballot language; they are scanned images, so we read them by eye and do not quote them. The October notice changes only the fiscal-impact paragraph, which in September described an unrelated proposition and now says the city expects no or negligible fiscal impact.

Still unread by us: the ordinance of 2026-08-12 ordering the election, and the City Secretary's certification of the petition. We searched the one City of Houston host that permits automated reading, the open-data portal at data.houstontx.gov, and found no ordinances and no City Secretary certifications there. The city's main site and the City Secretary's pages (houstontx.gov and its other subdomains) and the council agenda system at houston.granicus.com all refuse automated reading, so we did not check them — that is unchecked, not checked and empty. Harris County, which contains most of Houston, publishes its own bilingual sample ballot, but the file sits on a storage host whose robots.txt answers HTTP 400, which our gate treats as no consent, so we did not read it (re-checked 2026-10-17).

A person with a browser can open it from the sample-ballot link on harrisvotes.com. The full charter text summarised under a yes vote matches, on every point summarised, the text printed in the city's notices and published by the campaign (Ground Game Texas). Press summaries describe the measure as barring the smell of marijuana alone as probable cause for a search. The words "odor" and "smell" appear nowhere in the charter text as the campaign publishes it and nowhere in the certified ballot caption, so this guide does not state it. No lawsuit against the measure has been reported, and the Supreme Court of Texas's orders from 2026-08-12 to 2026-10-16 show none; a case filed but not yet ruled on would not show there.

Sources: elections.mctx.org, elections.mctx.org, fortbendcountytx.gov, sampleballots.fortbendcountytx.gov, ethics.harrisvotes.com, ethics.harrisvotes.com, groundgametexas.org, houstonpublicmedia.org, norml.org, houstonpublicmedia.org, marijuanamoment.net, web.archive.org

Question 8

An Act to restore a sensible marijuana policy

A yes vote

The Attorney General’s official summary of the measure, in the state’s own words: "The proposed law would change the type and amount of marijuana that may legally be possessed in Massachusetts by repealing the laws that legalize, regulate, and tax the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana in Massachusetts. The proposed law would also permit persons 21 years of age and older to possess 1 ounce or less of marijuana including no more than 5 grams in the form of concentrate, and to gift or transfer to another person 21 years of age and older 1 ounce or less of marijuana including no more than 5 grams in the form of concentrate. The proposed law would also impose a civil penalty of $100 and forfeiture of the marijuana for the possession of marijuana between the weight of 1 and 2 ounces."

The same summary says that for people under 21 the law "would make the possession of 2 ounces or less of marijuana a civil infraction subject to a $100 fine, forfeiture of the marijuana, completion of a drug awareness program and community service, and notification to their parents or legal guardian of the offense and penalties"; that it "would allow currently licensed adult recreational marijuana businesses to apply on an expedited basis to become a licensed medical marijuana dispensary and to sell their remaining inventory of adult recreational marijuana to medical marijuana dispensaries"; that it "would retain the Cannabis Control Commission but modify its authority so it would regulate only the medical marijuana market"; and that it "would take effect on January 1, 2028".

In our words, from the petition text itself: Section 6 repeals Chapter 94G, the chapter that legalizes and licenses non-medical marijuana, and Section 3 repeals Chapter 64N, the marijuana tax chapter, so licensed retail sales and commercial growing end. The medical programme under Chapter 94I continues, and Section 7 keeps the Cannabis Control Commission and directs it to issue guidance on "the cultivating of marijuana within a person’s primary residence" for medical patients. Non-medical home growing is not protected anywhere in the measure: the chapter that authorises it today is repealed, and the replacement possession section covers only possessing and giving away marijuana, not growing it.

⚠️That last reading is ours — the Attorney General’s summary does not mention home cultivation at all. The state’s own one-sentence statement of what a yes vote does, as printed on the official ballot: "A YES VOTE would prohibit the legalization, regulation, and taxation of the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana, and change the penalties for possession of marijuana."

A no vote

A no vote leaves the current law in place: Chapters 94G and 64N stay on the books, so licensed retail sales, commercial cultivation, the marijuana taxes and non-medical home growing all continue, and the Cannabis Control Commission keeps regulating both the medical and the non-medical market. Nothing in the measure takes effect. The state’s own one-sentence statement of what a no vote does, as printed on the official ballot: "A NO VOTE would make no change to the law relative to marijuana." The sentences before it are ours.

Massachusetts voters legalized retail sales in 2016. This is the first time voters in a state with an operating retail market will be asked to shut it down. Because the repeal would not take effect until 2028-01-01, a yes vote would start a two-year wind-down rather than an immediate closure.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

Certified for the November ballot. The Attorney General certified the petition on 2025-09-03 as Initiative Petition No. 25-10, which the certificate titles "Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Regulating Marijuana - Version B". The Secretary of the Commonwealth transmitted it to the House on 2026-01-07, writing that it had been "filed with this department on or before December 3, 2025, together with additional signatures of qualified voters in the number of 78,301, being a sufficient number to comply with the provisions of said Article". The Legislature did not pass it: the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions reported no action taken and the petition was placed on file on 2026-05-07, which is what sends it to the voters.

Two challenges then failed — the Supreme Judicial Court decided Pineau v. Attorney General, SJC-13927, on 2026-06-12, and a signature objection was rejected by the State Ballot Law Commission, reported on 2026-07-21. ⚠️We cannot read any Massachusetts State election website. The Secretary of the Commonwealth’s site answers automated requests with a bot challenge, so our robots gate denies it, and we do not read a denied site through a mirror of it. Everything above comes instead from the Legislature’s own printed copy of the petition, House No. 5002, which contains the Secretary’s transmittal letter, the Attorney General’s certificate and the Attorney General’s official summary. The municipal ballots close both of the gaps that used to sit here.

Massachusetts town clerks print the state’s ballot themselves and publish it, and town websites do permit us. We read two, in different counties — the Town of Milford (Worcester County) and the Town of Reading (Middlesex County) — and on the marijuana question they are character-identical. First, the number. Each is headed "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts", dated "Tuesday, November 3, 2026", and prints the marijuana measure as question 8, a "LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION". That is an official ballot issued under state law, not a list somebody else compiled. Second, the YES/NO statements. Massachusetts has the Attorney General and the Secretary write one sentence each on what a yes and a no vote would do, and those sentences are printed on the ballot itself, directly beneath the summary: "A YES VOTE would prohibit the legalization, regulation, and taxation of the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana, and change the penalties for possession of marijuana."

and "A NO VOTE would make no change to the law relative to marijuana." The fiscal statement of 100 words or fewer is not printed on the ballot, so we still do not quote it.

Sources: malegislature.gov, malegislature.gov, malegislature.gov, malegislature.gov, statecourtreport.org, norml.org, milfordma.gov, readingma.gov

House Joint Resolution 4

Amendment to Idaho Constitution — House Joint Resolution 4

A yes vote

In the state’s own words, from the Secretary of State’s voter pamphlet: "A YES vote would give the Legislature exclusive authority to legalize marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances in the State of Idaho." What the enrolled text actually does, in our words: a joint resolution is not a law — it is a measure both chambers pass to propose a change to the state constitution, which happens only if voters approve it. Article III, Section 26 of the Idaho Constitution today is a provision about alcohol, dating from 1934. This amendment leaves that sentence untouched, renumbers it as subsection (1), retitles the section, and adds a new subsection (2) reserving to the Legislature alone the power to legalize the growing, producing, manufacturing, transporting, selling, delivering, dispensing, administering, prescribing, distributing, possessing or using of marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances, effective immediately on adoption by the voters.

⚠️This is not a ban on Cannabis and it does not change what is legal in Idaho today. Cannabis is already illegal there by statute, and this measure amends no statute — the sponsors’ own fiscal note says it "proposes no changes to existing statutes". It does not repeal Idaho’s citizen initiative, which stays available for every other subject. What it does is make a future citizen initiative that legalized one of these substances unconstitutional, leaving the Legislature as the only body that could. Two limits in the text are ours to point out rather than the state’s: it restricts only the power to "legalize", a word the amendment does not define, so whether it reaches an initiative that reduced penalties without legalizing is unsettled; and it restricts the initiative, not the Legislature. It also covers narcotics and other psychoactive substances, not only marijuana.

A no vote

In the state’s own words: "A NO vote would make no change to Idaho’s Constitution, which currently allows changes to Idaho’s controlled substances laws using the initiative process."

Idaho is one of the few states where cannabis is illegal for every use, medical included, and the citizen initiative is how voters in several neighbouring states legalized it. This amendment would close that route for marijuana, narcotics and other psychoactive substances, leaving the Legislature as the only body that could legalize any of them. Both cannabis initiatives Idaho campaigners tried to put on this same ballot failed: the Secretary of State lists the "Idaho Medical Cannabis Act" and the "Decriminalize Cannabis Now Initiative" as having "did not qualify for the November ballot after failing to submit the required number of valid petition signatures, both in total number of signatures and required legislative districts."

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

Certified for the November ballot and printed in the Secretary of State’s 2026 Voter Pamphlet, which asks: "Shall Section 26, Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended to provide that only the Idaho 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?" It is a legislature-referred constitutional amendment, not a numbered proposition. The Legislature adopted HJR 4 in the 2025 session, the House 58-10-2 on 2025-03-05 and the Senate 29-6-0 on 2025-03-11; it was enrolled, signed by the Speaker and the President, and delivered to the Secretary of State on 2025-03-14.

There is no official fiscal impact statement for this measure; the only fiscal figure in the record sits in the statement of purpose attached by the resolution’s sponsors, which puts the ballot cost at "not more than $200,000.00" and which carries its own disclaimer that it was "prepared by a proponent of the bill". One snag worth recording: the Legislature’s web page about the proposed amendments drops a word, printing "only the legislature shall the power and authority to legalize"; the enrolled resolution and the voter pamphlet both read "shall have power and authority", and we follow the enrolled text.

Sources: legislature.idaho.gov, legislature.idaho.gov, legislature.idaho.gov, legislature.idaho.gov, archive.voteidaho.gov, voteidaho.gov

City of Menominee Proposed Ordinance Amendment

Raise the cap on marihuana retail establishments to thirteen

A yes vote

Amends Section 11.3 of the city ordinance so Menominee allows up to thirteen marihuana retail establishments. The ballot states only the new number; the current cap is reported as nine, which we have not confirmed against the ordinance itself.

A no vote

Leaves Section 11.3 as it stands, keeping the existing cap.

Michigan legalised adult use statewide in 2018 but left each municipality to decide whether to permit retail and how much of it. Questions like this are where most American cannabis voting actually happens, and no national tracker lists them — the text above comes from the county clerk’s own printed ballot.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

A citizen-initiated ordinance under the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act. The question is printed on the Menominee County Clerk’s certified ballot for all four City of Menominee precincts, which reads in full: "Initiation of an ordinance pursuant to the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act to amend Section 11.3 of the Menominee Code of Ordinances to provide for no more than thirteen (13) marihuana retail establishments to be allowed within the city limits. Should the proposal be adopted?" ⚠️The challenge to the petitions was rejected, and we still have no Court document for it. This row previously recorded a ruling on 2026-09-21 and could cite nothing at all for it.

A trade report now gives an account we are willing to attribute: that the Menominee County Circuit Court heard argument on 2026-09-16, and that the judge kept the question on the 2026-11-03 ballot, concluding that the petitions “satisfied the applicable statutory requirements and were consistent with the petition format recommended by the Michigan Bureau of Elections”, and holding separately that the challengers had waited too long, filing on 2026-08-28 after the petitions were certified on 2026-08-06 and after ballots had been printed. That is a published report and not a court record: Michigan’s court record site asks automated tools not to read it, so no order or opinion has been fetched.

The date argument was heard and the date a ruling issued are two different facts, and this guide has a document for neither. What we can show from a document is the thing that matters: the question is printed on the county clerk’s certified ballot for the November 3, 2026 election, which we re-read on 2026-10-06, and on the Michigan Secretary of State’s public sample ballot for Precinct 1, word for word (read 2026-10-16).

Sources: menomineecountymi.gov, menomineecountymi.gov, themarijuanaherald.com, mvic.sos.state.mi.us

Measure C-26

Arroyo Grande Cannabis Business Tax Measure

A yes vote

Authorises a tax of up to 10% of gross receipts on cannabis businesses operating in the city, if such businesses are permitted. The city states the measure does not itself authorise any cannabis business — it lets the council tax them if they are allowed later.

A no vote

No cannabis business tax is authorised.

A tax measure is not a vote on whether cannabis is legal, and this one is written to apply only if the city later permits cannabis businesses at all. It is recorded here because it is on the ballot and concerns cannabis, not because it expands or restricts access — which is why it carries no direction. It is also a tax on something Arroyo Grande does not have: the city still prohibits commercial cannabis sales, so the measure would raise nothing at all unless a future council first allowed those businesses in.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

Placed on the ballot by the Arroyo Grande City Council. The city publishes the ballot language in full: "Shall the measure to maintain Arroyo Grande City services, including public safety, road maintenance, infrastructure repair, recreational programs, and other general City services by enacting a tax of up to 10% of gross receipts on cannabis businesses operating in the city if such businesses are permitted, estimated to generate approximately $500,000 annually, with spending oversight and until ended by voters, be adopted?" The letter is confirmed at county level: the San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder’s own list of measures for this election carries the line "City of Arroyo Grande, Measure C-26".

⚠️The tax would fall on businesses the city does not currently permit, which is why the ballot language says "if such businesses are permitted". The city says so itself: "While Arroyo Grande remains one of the last cities in San Luis Obispo County to prohibit commercial cannabis sales, neighboring cities use cannabis tax revenue to fund local City services." and "If passed, and the City Council chooses to permit these operations, this tax will only impact businesses that sell cannabis."

Sources: arroyogrande.org, arroyogrande.org, slocounty.ca.gov

Measure CR

Baldwin Park Good Government Cannabis Reform Measure

A yes vote

Extends the city’s existing 4% cannabis retail tax rate to non-retail cannabis businesses — cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, testing and wholesaling — so all cannabis businesses in the city are taxed at the same rate.

A no vote

Non-retail cannabis businesses continue to be taxed as they are now.

Baldwin Park already permits cannabis businesses. This equalises how they are taxed rather than changing whether cannabis is allowed, so it carries no direction here.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

Placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of the Baldwin Park City Council. The city describes it in its own words: "Measure CR simply applies the same 4% tax rate currently levied on retail cannabis businesses, to non-retail cannabis businesses as well, so all Baldwin Park cannabis businesses are treated the same." The city also states it "is not a tax on residents or homeowners." The certified question is in the city council’s Resolution No. 2026-023, which submits the measure to the electorate; its Section 3, "Ballot Question", sets out the words the ballot will carry. The resolution’s first four pages are scanned images with no text layer, and we read them by extracting the images embedded in the PDF.

The city’s own Notice to Voters prints the same question in machine-readable text, broken where the yes and NO boxes sit, and the two agree: "Good Government Cannabis Reform Measure To fund general city services in Baldwin Park, such as cleaning trash/graffiti, fixing streets/potholes, crime" — then — "prevention, 911 emergency response, and providing afterschool/youth employment programs, shall the measure applying the City of Baldwin Park's existing 4% cannabis retailing tax rate to non-retail cannabis businesses, providing a projected $1,000,000 annually in additional locally-controlled" — then — "funding until ended by voters, that can't be taken by the state, with public independent audits be adopted?"

⚠️The letter is the city’s, not the county’s. Resolution No. 2026-023 nowhere states the letter "CR". In California the county elections official assigns measure letters, and Los Angeles County publishes that list on content.lavote.gov, whose robots.txt answers our request with HTTP 400 — our gate fails closed on an answer it cannot read as permission, so we do not read the county list and we do not read it through a mirror either. The letter on this row therefore rests on the City of Baldwin Park’s own pages, which call it Measure CR throughout, and not on a county document.

Sources: baldwinpark.com, baldwinpark.com, baldwinpark.com

Measure 3-638

Prohibit new marijuana production, processing and wholesaling businesses

A yes vote

Adopts the city ordinance barring new marijuana production, processing and wholesaling businesses in Estacada. The city states that existing businesses may keep operating and that retail dispensaries are not affected, and that a companion ordinance creating a licensing path for businesses already there takes effect only if this one does.

A no vote

The prohibition does not take effect, and new marijuana production, processing and wholesaling businesses may be established under the city code as it stands.

Oregon has had legal adult-use cannabis since 2014, and the live local question there is no longer whether cannabis is legal but which parts of the supply chain a town will host. This one reaches growing and wholesaling rather than shops.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

Referred to the voters by the Estacada City Council. Clackamas County’s own measure-filing list prints the caption as: "3-638 City of Estacada — Title: Prohibits new marijuana production, processing, and wholesaling businesses in Estacada." Oregon ballot titles also carry a Question and a 175-word Summary. Those are on the county’s filing form — the City Recorder’s Notice of Measure Election (Oregon form SEL 802), dated 2026-08-03 and stamped received by Clackamas County Elections on 2026-08-04 — whose pages are scanned images with no text layer; we read them by extracting the image embedded in the PDF. Clackamas County’s own Voters’ Pamphlet prints the same ballot title in machine-readable text, and the two agree word for word.

Question: "Shall the City of Estacada prohibit new marijuana production, processing, and wholesaling businesses from being established within the City?" Summary: "This measure will prohibit new marijuana production, processing, and wholesaling businesses from being established within the City of Estacada. Existing businesses will be allowed to continue operating. There will be no effect on marijuana retail businesses or dispensaries. If the measure is approved, the prohibition will begin on the date the election results are certified. If the measure is not approved, new marijuana production, processing, and wholesaling businesses will be allowed to operate within the City, as authorized under the Estacada Municipal Code. This measure was referred to the voters by the Estacada City Council."

Sources: clackamas.us, cityofestacada.org, docs.clackamas.us, docs.clackamas.us

Measure 4-248

City of Warrenton Marijuana Tax

A yes vote

Sets the city’s tax on marijuana sales at 3%. Warrenton’s code still carries a 10% rate adopted in 2014, which state law no longer permits: Oregon caps a local marijuana tax at 3%. So a yes vote LOWERS the rate the city charges, to the maximum the state now allows.

A no vote

The 10% rate stays in the municipal code, although state law caps a local marijuana tax at 3%.

This is a rate cut dressed as a tax measure, and reading the title alone would leave you with the wrong impression of what a yes vote does. We went looking for more of them, on the theory that Oregon’s 3% cap would be sending every city with a pre-cap rate back to its voters. It is not. This is the only local marijuana tax measure in the state this cycle: the Taxpayers Association of Oregon’s round-up dated 2026-08-26 lists five local tax measures on the 2026 ballot statewide and 4-248 is the only cannabis one, and no other Oregon county measure list we could read carries a marijuana question.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

Referred to the voters by the Warrenton City Commission. Clatsop County’s own measure list prints it as "Measure 4-248 City of Warrenton Marijuana Tax". The certified ballot title is on the county’s filing form — the City Recorder’s Notice of Measure Election (Oregon form SEL 802), dated 2026-08-12 — whose page is a scanned image with no text layer; we read it by extracting the image embedded in the PDF. Clatsop County’s own Voters’ Pamphlet prints the same ballot title in machine-readable text, and the two agree word for word. Caption: "Amend City Code Chapter 3.10.030(C) to Impose 3% Marijuana Tax". Question: "Shall WMC Chapter 3.10.030(C) be amended to impose a 3% tax on the sale of marijuana items within the City?"

Summary: "State law (ORS 475C.453) permits cities to impose a local tax on the sale of marijuana items within their jurisdiction. These taxes must not exceed 3% and must not be imposed on the sale of marijuana items purchased by a medical marijuana registry identification cardholder or by the designated primary caregiver who is purchasing a marijuana item for a medical marijuana registry identification cardholder. ORS 475C.453 requires that the City's voters approve a local tax on the sale of marijuana items." "Chapter 3.10.030(C) of the Warrenton Municipal Code currently establishes a 10% tax on the sale of marijuana items. While this 10% tax was lawful when it was adopted in 2014, ORS 475C.453 no longer allows the City to impose a 10% tax. If approved, this measure would amend Chapter 3.10.030(C) of the Warrenton Municipal Code to impose a 3% tax on the sale of marijuana items within the City of Warrenton, in compliance with state law." "This measure was referred to the voters by the City Commission."

Sources: clatsopcounty.gov, clatsopcounty.gov, oregoncatalyst.com, clatsopcounty.gov

Measure G2026

City of Guadalupe Cannabis Business Tax

A yes vote

Establishes a tax on the gross receipts of cannabis businesses operating in Guadalupe, and authorises the City Council to impose rates up to a maximum of 8% on retail cannabis businesses and up to 4% on all other cannabis businesses. The Council keeps discretion to set lower rates than those maximums. The tax runs until voters end it, and the City estimates about $78,000 a year, which stays with the City for general services.

A no vote

No cannabis business tax is established, and the City Council gains no authority to impose one.

This is a rate-setting question, not a question about whether cannabis is legal in Guadalupe, so it carries no direction here. It is worth recording for two reasons: the maximums are tiered, so a yes vote authorises a materially higher ceiling on retail than on cultivation, manufacturing and distribution; and no national tracker lists it — Ballotpedia's California 2026 local list omits it entirely. The text above is the City Clerk's own.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

Placed on the ballot by the Guadalupe City Council, which adopted Resolution No. 2026-28 on 2026-06-23 approving a measure establishing a tax on cannabis business activities within the City. The City Clerk publishes it under the caption "MEASURE G2026 – CANNABIS BUSINESS TAX" and prints the ballot question in full: "Shall the measure be adopted, to establish a local tax on gross receipts of cannabis businesses operating in Guadalupe, until ended by voters, authorizing the City Council to impose maximum tax rates up to 8% on retail, and up to 4% on all other, cannabis businesses, allowing the Council discretion to set lower rates, with all revenue estimated at approximately $78,000 annually, remaining in the City to support essential City services, be adopted?"

Guadalupe is in Santa Barbara County. ⚠️Guadalupe's companion question, measure J2026, is not cannabis: it is a transient occupancy (lodging) tax increase from 6% to 12% extended to RV parks and campgrounds, adopted by Resolution No. 2026-31. The two are frequently merged; they are separate measures and only G2026 belongs here.

Sources: cityofguadalupe.org, cityofguadalupe.org, cityofguadalupe.org

Measure K

City of Willows Cannabis Business Tax Measure

A yes vote

Authorises the City of Willows to impose a general business tax on cannabis business activities in the city, at rates the City Council sets up to a maximum of 10% of gross receipts. The City estimates about $260,000 a year, which goes into the General Fund and may be spent on any lawful purpose. The tax stays in place until it is repealed by the voters or by the City Council.

A no vote

No cannabis business tax is authorised, and the City Council gains no authority to impose one.

This is a tax question, not a question about whether cannabis is legal in Willows, so it carries no direction here. Two details are worth knowing: the revenue is unrestricted general revenue rather than money set aside for a named purpose, and the ballot question itself says the tax can be ended by the City Council as well as by the voters.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

Placed on the ballot by the Willows City Council. Its minutes for 2026-06-23 record that, by 4-0 with the mayor absent, the council adopted a cannabis business tax ordinance subject to voter approval at the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election, and an election resolution putting the tax to the voters. The City Clerk’s Measure K page names it "a proposed Cannabis Business Tax Measure" and prints the official ballot question: "Shall the City of Willows adopt a business tax on cannabis business activities of up to 10% of gross receipts, to fund unrestricted general revenue purposes such as police, fire, roads, and recreation; which is expected to generate approximately $260,000 annually and will be levied until repealed by the voters or City Council?"

Willows is in Glenn County. ⚠️We have not seen the County’s copy of this question: the Glenn County website answers our robots.txt request with HTTP 403, so its sample ballot was not read, and the text above is the city’s own. Found on 2026-10-15; no national tracker we read lists it.

Sources: cityofwillows.org, cityofwillows.org

Big Prairie Township Proposed Ordinance Amendment

Allow one adult-use marijuana designated consumption establishment in the township

A yes vote

Amends the township's Recreational Marijuana Establishments Licensing Ordinance (No. 2022-004, adopted 2022-06-14) so that Big Prairie Township may additionally host one adult-use designated consumption establishment — a licensed venue where cannabis may be consumed on the premises — with no more than one operating in the township at any one time, and only if the state Cannabis Regulatory Agency licenses it. ⚠️This is an addition, not a ceiling on everything: the text authorises this one consumption establishment "in addition to the other marijuana establishments authorized under that ordinance". We have not read Ordinance No. 2022-004, so we do not state how many establishments of other kinds the township already allows, and the ballot text does not say.

A no vote

Leaves Ordinance No. 2022-004 as it stands. Whatever marijuana establishments that ordinance already authorises remain authorised, and no designated consumption establishment is added.

A designated consumption establishment is the licence type that decides whether there is anywhere lawful to consume cannabis outside a private residence — the gap renters, tourists and people in public housing actually run into in a state where adult use has been legal since 2018. Michigan left that choice to each municipality, so it is settled township by township, in questions no national tracker lists. This one is a township of a few thousand people in Newaygo County, and the text above is the county clerk's own publication, not a tracker's summary.

Status: Not confirmed as certified. The county clerk publishes this question, but we found no certified ballot or notice of election for it, so treat it as possible, not settled.

⚠️Not certified, and this is the County clerk's own characterisation. The Newaygo County Clerk publishes this question in full under the heading "UNOFFICIAL CANDIDATE AND PROPOSAL LISTING" with the line "Last Updated 9/9/2026, Website Will Be Updated as Info is Received". It is the certifying authority's own publication and it carries the complete text, but the clerk does not style it as certified, and we did not find a Notice of Election or a certified precinct ballot for November 3, 2026 to upgrade it (checked 2026-10-05). A citizen-initiated amendment under the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act. The clerk's heading and text read, verbatim: "PROPOSAL TO INITIATE AN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ADULT-USE MARIJUANA DESIGNATED CONSUMPTION ESTABLISHMENT IN THE TOWNSHIP / This proposal, if approved, would amend the Big Prairie Township Recreational Marijuana Establishments Licensing Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2022-004, adopted June 14, 2022, to authorize, in addition to the other marijuana establishments authorized under that ordinance, not more than one (1) adult-use designated marijuana consumption establishment to operate within the Township at any one time, provided the establishment is licensed by the Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency, or its successor, in accordance with the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act and relevant municipal regulations. / Shall the proposal be adopted?"

The same clerk's listing shows Big Prairie Township also has a separate, unrelated Park Commission dissolution proposal on the same ballot; the two are different questions. Corroborated 2026-10-08 by the Michigan Secretary of State’s public sample ballot for Big Prairie Township, Precinct 1, which prints the same question under the same heading. The status word stays as the clerk left it: neither document calls this question certified.

Sources: newaygocountymi.gov, mvic.sos.state.mi.us

Mottville Township Proposal

Prohibit all marihuana establishments in the township

A yes vote

Adopts a township ordinance prohibiting marihuana establishments — as that term is defined by MCL 333.27953(l), which is the definition covering licensed growers, processors, retailers, secure transporters, safety compliance facilities and microbusinesses — anywhere within Mottville Township's boundaries. The ordinance text is two sections long and states no exceptions, no phase-in and no grandfathering.

A no vote

The ordinance is not adopted, and the township's treatment of marihuana establishments is left as it already stands. ⚠️We have not read Mottville Township's existing ordinances, so we do not state what that current position is; the ballot text does not say, and a township may already prohibit some or all establishment types by other means.

Michigan's 2018 adult-use law lets any municipality shut licensed cannabis businesses out of its boundaries completely, and a two-sentence township ordinance is all it takes. Mottville Township sits on the Indiana line in St. Joseph County, where neighbouring municipalities do license retailers — so the practical question is which side of a township line a shop may stand on. No national tracker lists it; the text above is from the county clerk's own official list.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

A citizen-initiated ordinance — the text itself says "IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE PEOPLE OF MOTTVILLE TOWNSHIP". The question is printed in full on the St. Joseph County Clerk's "OFFICIAL CANDIDATE LIST", timestamped 9/21/2026 4:40:05 PM and headed "11/03/2026 - STATE GENERAL / ST JOSEPH (75)", under the heading "MOTTVILLE TOWNSHIP PROPOSAL", where it reads verbatim: "Mottville Township Prohibition of Marihuana Establishments Ordinance / IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE PEOPLE OF MOTTVILLE TOWNSHIP THAT: / Section 1. The title of this ordinance shall be the "Mottville Township Prohibition of Marihuana Establishments Ordinance." / Section 2. Marihuana Establishments Prohibited. Marihuana establishments, as defined by MCL 333.27953(l), are prohibited within the boundaries of Mottville Township. / Shall the "The Mottville Township Prohibition of Marihuana Establishments Ordinance" be approved?"

(The doubled "the" in the final line is the clerk's, and is reproduced as published.) The same text also appears on the clerk's earlier list of 8/26/2026, which is marked "UNOFFICIAL CANDIDATE LIST"; the 9/21/2026 list is the one marked official, so the question survived to certification unchanged. The Michigan Secretary of State’s public sample ballot for Mottville Township Precinct 1 prints the same text (read 2026-10-16). Both county lists have since been taken down: each answered HTTP 404 on 2026-10-16.

Sources: mvic.sos.state.mi.us, stjosephcountymi.gov, stjosephcountymi.gov, stjosephcountymi.gov

Proposed Initiated Ordinance Regarding Marihuana Establishments

Repeal the 2019 prohibition and allow up to two marihuana establishments in the city

A yes vote

Repeals Ordinance No. 2019-3, the city’s standing ban, and lets as many as two marihuana establishments operate inside the Bad Axe city limits under the state licensing law.

A no vote

Leaves Ordinance No. 2019-3 in place, so no marihuana establishment may operate in the city.

Michigan legalised adult use statewide in 2018 and then left every municipality to decide whether to allow businesses at all. Bad Axe said no in 2019; this is its voters, not its council, being asked to say otherwise. Questions like it are where most American cannabis voting actually happens, and no national tracker lists them.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

The certified ballot question reads in full: "Shall the City of Bad Axe repeal Ordinance No. 2019-3 which prohibits marihuana establishments and instead allow up to two such establishments to operate in the City in accordance with the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act." The text is the question as the Michigan Secretary of State prints it on the public sample ballot for this precinct, read on 2026-10-08: the state’s own publication of the certified ballot, open without a login, on a host whose robots.txt permits the path cited. The route was controlled first: asked for the City of Menominee it returns that city’s retail-cap question word for word as the county clerk’s printed ballot gives it, which this file already held.

A route that could not show a cannabis question we had already read would prove nothing about one we had not. It got there by petition: the Council minutes of 2026-08-03 record Resolution 2026-13 acknowledging the clerk’s certificate of sufficiency, directing submission to the electors and approving the ballot language, carried six ayes to none. Until today this sat in the unquotable list, because the city and the county published the fact of it and neither published the words; Huron County’s elections page still carries no notice of election and no sample ballot for 2026-11-03.

Sources: mvic.sos.state.mi.us, cityofbadaxe.com, cityofbadaxe.com, co.huron.mi.us

Niles Charter Township Marihuana Retail Establishments Ordinance

Allow four adult-use marihuana retail establishments in the township

A yes vote

Adopts the ordinance, so four adult-use marihuana retail shops may operate in Niles Charter Township at any one time, and the township’s existing prohibition ordinance gives way as far as is needed to let that happen.

A no vote

Leaves the township’s prohibition ordinance untouched, so no adult-use retailer may operate there.

Niles Charter Township sits on the Indiana line, where Michigan retailers draw customers from a state with no adult-use market at all, and the township has so far kept them out while the City of Niles next door has not. This is the township’s voters deciding that, question by question, which is how nearly all of Michigan’s cannabis map has been drawn.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

The certified ballot prints the proposed ordinance in full, under the heading "Niles Charter Township Marihuana Retail Establishments Ordinance", in four parts. It opens "NILES CHARTER TOWNSHIP ORDAINS:". Then: "Section 1. Effective Date and Scope. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after certification of the election at which it is approved by the electors. The scope of this ordinance is limited to providing for the number of Marijuana Establishments allowed to operate in the township at any one time." Then: "Section 2. Amendment or Repeal. On and after the effective date of the Local Marijuana Control Ordinance, any existing ordinances, resolutions, parts of ordinances or sections in conflict with provisions of this ordinance, and specifically the “Niles Charter Township Prohibition of Marijuana Establishment Ordinance” would be amended or repealed only to the extent necessary to give this proposed ordinance full force and effect."

Then the operative part: "Section 3. Four Marijuana Retail Establishments Allowed. Four (4) Adult Use retail marihuana establishments are allowed to operate within the township at any one time." And the question itself: "Shall this Ordinance be approved?" That text is the Michigan Secretary of State’s public sample ballot for this precinct, read on 2026-10-08 — the same state publication, controlled the same way, as the Bad Axe card above. Until then this sat in the unquotable list: Berrien County answered HTTP 403 at its elections page, berrienvotes.org and the township’s domains serve no robots.txt we can fetch, and the newspapers that reported it ask automated tools to stay out. On 2026-10-17 Berrien County’s own site answered again, and the County Clerk’s unofficial list of November proposals prints the same ordinance, word for word, under "NILES CHARTER TOWNSHIP PROPOSAL".

Sources: mvic.sos.state.mi.us, berriencounty.org, berriencounty.org

Proposal to Limit the Number of Marihuana Retailers in the City of Niles

Cap marihuana retailers in the city at five

A yes vote

Adds a subsection to Section 54-534 of the city code that sets a maximum of five marihuana retailers in Niles, and makes that limit apply notwithstanding subsection (a)(1)a, the clause that now caps licensed microbusinesses and retail/provisioning licenses at eight combined. ABC57 reported in July 2026 that five retailers are currently licensed, which would make five a ceiling at today’s count; we have not seen the city’s license list, so that number is the station’s, not ours.

A no vote

Section 54-534 stays as it is, including the clause that caps licensed microbusinesses and retail/provisioning licenses at eight combined. No separate five-retailer limit is added.

Niles already licenses adult-use cannabis businesses; this asks whether to fix a hard limit on how many retail shops the city may have. It sits on the Indiana line, beside Niles Charter Township, whose voters are deciding the opposite kind of question: whether to allow four shops at all. No national tracker lists either one.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

The question is printed on the Michigan Secretary of State’s public sample ballot for all four City of Niles precincts, read on 2026-10-15, under the heading "PROPOSAL TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF MARIHUANA RETAILERS IN THE CITY OF NILES". It reads in full: "It is proposed that the City of Niles Code of Ordinances, Section 54-534(a)(1) be amended to add the following the language: (b) Notwithstanding 54-534(a)(1)(a), a maximum of five marihuana retailers as defined in MCL 333.27953(q) are permitted in the city. Should this proposed amendment be adopted?" (The doubled "the" is on the ballot and is reproduced as printed.) This is a different question from the Niles Charter Township card: the city and the township are separate governments with separate ballots.

How it reached the ballot is less well documented than its text. ABC57 (WBND, South Bend) reported on 2026-07-27 that every member of the City Council voted that day to put a limit on marijuana retailers on the November ballot. We have no council resolution or agenda to confirm that: the city website’s own search finds nothing for marijuana. Berrien County’s unofficial list of November proposals, readable again on 2026-10-17, prints the same question word for word but does not say how it was placed. Found by a sweep of every precinct sample ballot the Secretary of State publishes for this election, after the same route had reproduced, word for word, two Michigan questions this file already held from county clerks’ own documents.

Sources: mvic.sos.state.mi.us, berriencounty.org, library.municode.com, abc57.com

Village of Boyne Falls Prohibition of Marihuana Establishments Ordinance

Prohibit all marihuana establishments in the village

A yes vote

Adopts a village ordinance prohibiting marihuana establishments anywhere within the Village of Boyne Falls. The village allows them now: Ordinance No. 64, adopted 2025-10-14 and effective 2025-11-14, authorises two retailers and zero of every other licence type, and on 2026-04-14 the Council approved licences for two retailers, The Woods and The Canna Club. The ordinance on the ballot is two sections long and states no exception for businesses already licensed and no phase-in; we do not say how it would apply to them, because its text does not.

A no vote

The prohibition is not adopted and Ordinance No. 64 stays in force, so the village continues to authorise two marihuana retailers.

Boyne Falls prohibited marihuana establishments by council ordinance in 2019 (Ordinance No. 63) and reversed course in 2025 to allow two shops. This question puts that choice to the village’s voters. It surfaced only because the state’s sample ballot prints village questions on the precincts inside the village: a search of city and township questions alone would never have found it.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

An initiated ordinance. It is printed in the Village section of the Michigan Secretary of State’s public sample ballot for Boyne Valley Township, the township the village lies in, read on 2026-10-15, and only voters inside the village decide it. It reads in full: "IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE VILLAGE OF BOYNE FALLS THAT: Section 1. The title of this ordinance shall be the “Village of Boyne Falls Prohibition of Marihuana Establishments Ordinance.” Section 2. Marihuana Establishments Prohibited. Marihuana establishments, as defined by MCL 333.27953(1), are prohibited within the boundaries of the Village of Boyne Falls. Shall the “The Village of Boyne Falls Prohibition of Marihuana Establishments Ordinance” be approved?"

Two details are reproduced exactly as printed: the doubled "The" in the last line, and "27953(1)" with the digit one, where Mottville Township’s ballot cites the same definition as (l). ⚠️How it reached the ballot is not documented. The Village Council minutes of 2026-04-14 record, under public comment, that a resident had started a petition to repeal Marijuana Ordinance No. 64, and that once the signatures were verified the question would go to the village’s voters in November. (The minutes are a scanned image; we read them by eye and do not quote them.) The question on the ballot is a prohibition ordinance, not a repeal, and no document we have read links the two or records a petition being certified.

Sources: mvic.sos.state.mi.us, storage.googleapis.com, storage.googleapis.com, storage.googleapis.com, boynefallsvillage.com, boynefallsvillage.com

Ballot Issue 2C

Town of De Beque Ballot Issue 2C — occupational tax of up to $5 a pound on medical marijuana businesses

A yes vote

Lets the town charge an occupational tax — a tax on the privilege of doing business, charged by weight rather than on the price — of “UP TO $5 FOR EACH POUND OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS” sold or transferred, “EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2027”. On the face of the certified text it reaches three kinds of business, all medical-licensed: a medical marijuana center, which the text itself glosses as a dispensary; a medical marijuana cultivation operation; and a medical marijuana-infused products manufacturer. The $5 is a ceiling, not a set rate. The town also gets to keep and spend the money despite the revenue limits in the state constitution. The town’s own estimate is $40,000 in the first full year.

A no vote

The town levies no such tax, and nothing changes for those businesses.

This is a tax question, not a question about whether cannabis is legal in De Beque, so it carries no direction here. Two things are worth reading closely. It is charged by weight rather than by price, which is unusual and means it does not fall when cannabis prices fall. And it reaches medical-licensed businesses only — which is not what the statewide summary of it says, so a voter reading a round-up rather than their ballot would understand a different measure. De Beque is a town of a few hundred people on Interstate 70.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

A referred measure, meaning the town council put it on the ballot rather than voters doing so by petition. The certified text is printed in full by the Mesa County Clerk and Recorder in the county’s own 2026 General Election booklet of local tax questions, under the heading “NOTICE OF ELECTION TO INCREASE TAXES ON A REFERRED MEASURE / TOWN OF DE BEQUE”, with an election date of Tuesday, November 3, 2026. Colorado requires this booklet: under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, the part of the state constitution that makes voters approve tax rises, every county clerk must mail voters the full text of each local tax question. It is the only marijuana question in Mesa County’s booklet. The booklet puts the first-year figure at $40,000 and records that nobody filed a written comment for or against.

⚠️The statewide round-up of this measure is wrong about its scope: the Colorado Municipal League’s election preview describes it as a tax on marijuana products generally, but the certified text reaches only businesses licensed on the medical side. We checked the ballot text rather than the summary. ⚠️How we read this: the county’s web server answers our named crawler with “not found” while serving the same document to every other agent, even though its own robots.txt permits us. We did not disguise ourselves as a person’s browser; we asked again identifying as weedvoter.com and the county served the document. The text above is quoted from that document.

Sources: mesacounty.us, cml.org

Ballot Issue 2A

Town of Paonia Ballot Issue 2A — drop the $5-per-sale tax and adopt a 5% sales tax on marijuana

A yes vote

Swaps one tax for another. It removes the town’s existing “OCCUPATIONAL TAX OF $5.00 PER SALES TRANSACTION” — a flat charge on each sale, whatever its size — and in its place adopts a sales tax of “FIVE PERCENT (5%) OF THE PRICE PAID BY THE PURCHASER” on retail and medical marijuana, marijuana products and marijuana accessories. The town frames the net effect as a cut, putting it as taxes “DECREASED UP TO $40,000.00 ANNUALLY” in 2027. ⚠️Two limits are on the face of the text. The new tax has no fixed start date — it commences “UPON THE ADOPTION OF LOCAL REGULATIONS BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES”, so when it begins is for the town board to decide, not the ballot. And the question does not say whether the old tax ends on the same day the new one starts; from the text alone that sequence is genuinely unclear, and this guide does not resolve it.

A no vote

The $5.00-per-sale tax stays and no 5% marijuana sales tax is adopted.

A tax question rather than an access question, so it carries no direction here — but it is the rare cannabis tax measure that the town itself describes as a cut, and the arithmetic is real: a flat $5 on every sale weighs more heavily on a small purchase than 5% of the price does. It also shows the limit of a ballot title, because nothing in the question says when the swap takes effect. No national tracker lists it; the text is the county clerk’s own.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

The certified text is printed in full by the Delta County Clerk and Recorder in the county’s own sample ballot content for the November 3, 2026 general election, published on the county’s elections page. The question appears there as “Town of Paonia Ballot Issue 2A”. The same document carries three other local tax questions, none of them about cannabis. Note for anyone re-checking: the county serves this as a Word document, not a web page or a PDF. The Town of Paonia’s own website refuses automated reading, so the town resolution that referred the measure is unchecked rather than checked and empty. ⚠️How we read this: the county’s web server answers our named crawler with “not found” while serving the same document to every other agent, even though its own robots.txt permits us. We did not disguise ourselves as a person’s browser; we asked again identifying as weedvoter.com and the county served the document. The text above is quoted from that document.

Sources: deltacountyco.gov, deltacountyco.gov

Ballot Issue 304

Proposed Municipality of Niwot Ballot Issue 304 — permission to levy a 3% marijuana sales tax

A yes vote

Authorises a special sales tax on marijuana “IMPOSED AT THE RATE OF THREE PERCENT (3.0%), COMMENCING ON JANUARY 1, 2028”, on top of any other Niwot sales tax, on the sale of “RETAIL MARIJUANA AND RETAIL MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO CONSUMERS”, to retail marijuana stores and to retail marijuana product manufacturers. It is only a permission: the rate still has to be set by ordinance of the new town’s governing body, and the question caps it at 3%. The estimate is about $60,000 a year. ⚠️It does not decide Whether a cannabis shop May operate in Niwot. Whether a retail marijuana business may trade in a place is decided by whichever government holds land-use and licensing power over it, which for Niwot today is Boulder County; this measure does not change who decides.

A no vote

No marijuana tax is authorised. Those sales would be taxed at the general rate only, and the state and Boulder County would go on taxing them as they do now. A no vote would not close a shop, prevent a future one, or change anyone’s licence.

A tax permission rather than an access question, so it carries no direction here — but it is the most unusual cannabis question on any ballot in the country this year, because the town that would charge the tax does not exist yet. Niwot is an unincorporated part of Boulder County voting on whether to become a town, and Issue 304 is the tax that town would be allowed to charge on the one licensed marijuana shop already trading there under a county licence. That is also the argument against it, which the county’s own notice prints: the whole $60,000 rides on one business. No national tracker lists it.

Status: On the ballot — certified by the election authority.

A citizen-petition measure. The Boulder County Clerk and Recorder prints the full certified text in the county’s own 2026 booklet of local tax questions, under “NOTICE OF ELECTION TO INCREASE TAXES ON A CITIZEN PETITION”, headed “PROPOSED MUNICIPALITY OF NIWOT BALLOT ISSUE 304 / AUTHORIZATION TO LEVY A MARIJUANA SPECIAL SALES TAX”, with an election date of Tuesday, November 3, 2026. The notice records every past year, 2022 through 2026, as $0, because Niwot is not yet a town, and puts the first full year at $60,000. Issue 304 is one of five Niwot money questions in the notice (302, 303, 304, 305 and 306), and it is the only marijuana question anywhere in Boulder County’s notice. ⚠️The incorporation question itself — whether Niwot becomes a town at all — is not a tax question, so it is not in this notice and we have not read its certified text. We therefore do not give its number or its wording, and we do not say what happens to Issue 304 if incorporation fails.

Sources: assets.bouldercounty.gov, bouldercounty.gov