Despite national election results that have left environmentalists and their allies wary of what’s to come in the next four years, ballot initiatives related to climate policies fared well across the country on election day. 

At least five of six ballot measures related to climate change resulted in what most environmentalists consider wins. But state legislative races across the country that could impact climate policy had more uneven results.

Washington

Washington voters on Tuesday firmly rejected a measure to overturn the state’s signature climate law.

Ballot Initiative 2117, or I-2117, would have repealed the Climate Commitment Act, which authorized a market-based “cap and invest” program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 95 percent by 2050. I-2117 would also have prohibited all state agencies from implementing any type of carbon trading. The initiative would also have decreased funding for investments in transportation, clean air, renewable energy, conservation and emissions reduction. 

I-2117 was backed by Let’s Go Washington, a political action committee led by Republican State Rep. Jim Walsh and conservative hedge fund manager and donor Brian Heywood. Heywood spent millions on the measure to eliminate the carbon market, the Seattle Times reported.

A diverse coalition of more than 575 organizations and tribal nations opposed the effort to repeal the state’s landmark climate law, including Democratic Gov. James Inslee, a vocal champion of climate action and clean-energy policies, along with companies, labor unions, environmental leaders, firefighters and medical professionals.

“I-2117 puts a lot of promise for the future in peril,” Inslee, often called the nation’s greenest governor, posted on social media. “While we’re trying to build something better for our kids and grandkids, some hedge fund manager is trying to use his money to drag us backwards. But we’re united. Together, we’re going to defeat this thing. Let’s go get ’em.”

The measure lost with more than 60 percent of voters casting their ballot against it.

“This wasn’t just a beating of these people, it was a thrashing,” Inslee told a crowd of No on 2117 supporters Tuesday night, as the results rolled in. “This was a great victory for the people of the state of Washington.”

The results of another Washington ballot measure, I-2066, were not complete as of Wednesday afternoon. If passed, I-2066 would repeal a state law requiring state officials to make formal plans for the transition from the use of natural gas to electricity. 

California

California voters also voiced their support for strong action on climate, approving a $10 billion bond measure to boost climate resilience across a state battered by alternating climate disasters, from unprecedented drought and heat waves to catastrophic wildfires and floods. 

Proposition 4 authorizes borrowing to build resilience to a warming planet, respond to climate-related disasters and help ensure residents, particularly in disadvantaged communities, have access to safe and reliable sources of drinking water.

California law requires voters to approve “general obligation” bonds, which are typically repaid with interest from a general fund that’s supported by taxes. The state Legislature outlined all the priorities for funding in the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024, which passed and was signed by the governor in July. Voters gave state officials the green light on the $10 billion borrowing by a 58-42 percent margin.

Repaying the bonds is likely to cost taxpayers $400 million a year over 40 years, the nonpartisan state Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated, ultimately costing $16 billion. But that investment will pay huge dividends, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which estimated that every dollar spent on climate preparedness saves $6 on disaster relief. 

“Californians have made it clear that they’re eager for the urgent, transformative action needed to address the climate crisis,” Mike Young, senior political and organizing director of California Environmental Voters, a nonprofit focused on building political power to solve the climate crisis, said in a statement. 

The passage of Prop 4 reflects voters’ desire to not just pass but fund strong measures to secure clean water, protect against extreme wildfires and access clean energy, Young said. “We’re excited to see these investments drive tangible change, especially in frontline communities.”

A key provision of Prop 4 ensures that at least 40 percent of funds go to projects that benefit vulnerable and disadvantaged communities.

“Californians have made it clear that they’re eager for the urgent, transformative action needed to address the climate crisis.”

— Mike Young, California Environmental Voters senior political and organizing director

Now, state officials can immediately start allocating funds to prepare for ongoing climate upheaval. The largest share, $3.8 billion, will go to safeguarding drinking water, restoring dwindling groundwater supplies and protecting rivers and streams from toxic pollution; $1.95 billion goes to wildfire prevention and extreme heat mitigation; $1.9 billion to protecting natural lands, parks and wildlife; $1.2 billion for coastal lands, bays and oceans; $850 million to support a clean energy transition, and $300 million to expand climate-smart agriculture.

Environmental and climate advocates say the measure will make a historic shift from disaster response to disaster prevention—a shift that will be especially critical as the country faces an uncertain future under a second Trump term.

Honolulu, Hawaii

A ballot initiative in Honolulu, Hawaii, creating a climate resiliency fund passed, according to initial results as reported by the Honolulu Civil Beat. 

Nearly 52 percent of voters cast their ballots in favor of establishing the resiliency fund, with money for the project coming from existing property tax revenue.

Local leaders have said that Honolulu already spends millions of dollars each year on climate-related expenses but emphasized the importance of solidifying that funding stream for future residents. 

“We need to maintain this for the future generations, given that we’re only here for a moment in time in office,” Honolulu council member Matt Weyer said in October. 

Money allocated to the fund, which is expected to amount to around $8.5 million annually, will be spent in alignment with plans outlined in the O’ahu Resilience Strategy, a 2019 document that outlines 44 actions government officials can take to improve resilience to the impacts of climate change. 

“Implementing this strategy will make us economically more self-sufficient and safer as island dwellers,” the plan says. 

Louisiana

On Tuesday, Louisiana voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment that requires any revenue received by the state from renewable energy production to be deposited into Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund. 

More than 73 percent of voters cast ballots to approve the amendment, according to the Associated Press. 

Louisiana companies are in the early stages of building the infrastructure necessary to begin offshore wind energy production on the state’s Outer Continental Shelf, which is under waters up to three nautical miles from the state’s coastline

Two companies—a Danish firm called Vestas, operating in Louisiana as Cajun Wind, and Diamond Wind, a subsidiary of Mitsubishi, were both granted leases for offshore wind production in December, according to WWNO. 

Federal revenue from offshore oil and gas production already flows into the Coastal Restoration and Protection Fund, according to experts. The constitutional amendment passed Tuesday would ensure similar revenue from renewable production would be funneled there, too. 

Had voters rejected the amendment, such revenue would have been dumped in the state’s general fund, which can be used for whatever purposes state lawmakers deem fit. 

Still, it’s almost certain that any revenue from renewables would be slow to flow into the state’s coastal recovery fund, as federal revenues for renewables are not currently shared with states, a reality some lawmakers are aiming to change. 

South Dakota

A ballot measure in South Dakota aimed at easing the construction of carbon dioxide pipelines was squarely rejected by the state’s voters on Tuesday. 

Dubbed the “Landowner Bill of Rights” by its advocates, around 60 percent of voters cast ballots to reject Referred Law 21. The law had been passed by state legislators earlier this year, but a grassroots group of South Dakotans amassed 31,000 signatures to force the issue to a ballot measure, effectively overriding lawmakers. 

Proponents of the law framed the legislation as a compromise between industry and landowners that would provide some reasonable requirements around pipeline construction while getting rid of what they characterized as unnecessary impediments to development. 

Opponents argued the law “advantages private, for-profit, carbon dioxide pipeline companies and their foreign investors at the expense of South Dakotans” and called the “Landowner Bill of Rights” moniker misleading. 

“Referred Law 21 was passed to uniquely benefit the carbon pipeline industry,” Jim Eschenbaum, chairman of the South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance, wrote in a “con statement” published by the secretary of state. “‘Economic Development’ should never be blindly pursued at the expense of individual property rights and equal treatment under the law. The Legislature got it wrong. South Dakota may be open for business, but we are not for sale.”

North Carolina

In a record turnout, North Carolina voters elected Republican Donald Trump as president, but at least some split their ticket and chose Democrat Josh Stein as their new governor. 

Stein, the former attorney general, defeated Republican Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, whose history of racist, sexist and anti-LGBT remarks, as well as financial scandals, tanked his campaign. A close ally of outgoing Gov. Roy Cooper, Stein is expected to maintain his predecessor’s executive orders on clean energy, climate change and environmental justice. 

In his eight years as governor, Cooper signed executive orders to encourage offshore wind power, require state agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a clean energy plan.

Since executive orders are not legally binding, had Robinson won the governor’s race, he could have revoked them. Robinson denies that climate change is the result of burning fossil fuels and called it “junk science.” Four years ago, he spoke at a GOP forum and remarked that “if we’re going to have success in energy and industry in this state and in this country, what we’re going to have to do is protect ourselves against the globalist climate change cabal.”

As lieutenant governor, Robinson presided over the state’s Energy Policy Council. However, he attended only a quarter of the meetings during his four-year term.

In the contest for state attorney general, Democrat Jeff Jackson defeated Republican Dan Bishop. Both men had served in the U.S. House before returning to state politics.

North Carolina hasn’t elected a Republican attorney general since the late 1800s, although two have been appointed to short terms.

The attorney general’s office can play a key role in environmental issues. In 2020, Stein successfully sued DuPont in state business court, which found that the original company was still liable for PFAS contamination in North Carolina, even after it spun off several companies.

Early returns also indicate Democrats have broken the GOP supermajority in the legislature. However, at least one contest is close enough to trigger a recount and provisional ballots haven’t yet been counted. 

If Democrats succeed in overcoming a supermajority in North Carolina’s legislature, it would give Gov.-elect Stein veto power. Republicans have used their supermajority to ram through several bills that have weakened environmental regulations, including air permitting and building codes that would make homes more energy efficient and resilient to climate change, 

Texas

In Texas, another climate—the business climate—was the emphasis in at least one state race with environmental implications. 

There, Republican Christi Craddick was elected to a term third on the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates the oil and gas industry. Craddick captured 55.7 percent of the vote, over Democratic challenger Katherine Culbert, who received 38.9 percent. 

“Texas reaffirmed their commitment to a sound, prosperous business climate that enables Texas energy to grow,” Craddick wrote on her social media accounts after the results came in. 

Craddick will continue to serve alongside Republicans Wayne Christian and Jim Wright. The agency issues permits for oil and gas drilling, regulates methane flaring and manages funds to plug orphaned and abandoned wells. 

Criticism of the Railroad Commission for recent well blow-outs in the Permian Basin did not appear to make a significant dent in Craddick’s support. The Midland Republican raised more than $10 million for her campaign. Republicans will hold strong majorities in the Texas House and Senate, which set the Railroad Commission’s budget and adopt energy and environmental policies. 

Even as Texas oil production hit record highs during the Biden administration, Craddick and other Texas Republicans have relentlessly criticized the sitting president’s environmental and energy policies. With Donald Trump returning to the White House, expect Texas Republican leadership to align with his pro-fossil fuels energy platform and rollbacks of environmental regulation.

Commissioner Wayne Christian posted on Wednesday, “First order of business: Repeal the methane tax!” in reference to the methane rules in the Inflation Reduction Act. 

The Midwest

Republicans ended the Democratic trifectas in the governments of Minnesota and Michigan, delivering a decisive blow to progressives in their effort to combat climate change.

For the last two years, Minnesota and Michigan Democrats have held complete control of their state governments, using their thin majorities to pass sweeping legislation that mandated the rapid buildout of renewable energy and allocated billions of dollars toward initiatives aimed at mitigating the effects of global warming and slowing its progression.

But as vote tallies continued to emerge Wednesday morning, it became clear that Michigan Republicans were poised to flip the two seats necessary to give them a 56-seat majority in the state House. 

In Minnesota, Democrats held onto the one-seat majority in the state Senate, after Democratic candidate Ann Johnson Stewart won her race over Republican Kathleen Fowke. 

Republicans, however, managed to flip three of the four seats necessary to give the party control of the Minnesota House, resulting in a 67-67 tie that is sure to hamstring any Democratic efforts over the next two years.

“Tonight, House Republicans broke the Democrat trifecta and restored balance to Minnesota,” Minnesota GOP House Leader Lisa Demuth said in a Tuesday night statement. “The voters have spoken, and we’ve held all of our seats and picked up a minimum of three more, flipping Democrat-held seats in the Iron Range, Winona, and St. Peter.”

The election outcomes dealt a blow to climate and clean energy advocates who had predicted Democratic victories in Minnesota and Michigan, saying that voters would show their confidence in progressive climate policies by re-electing the incumbents who helped pass them. 

Both Minnesota and Michigan passed laws in recent years to require utilities to generate all of their electricity from carbon-free sources by 2040. Minnesota lawmakers also passed legislation that dedicates $2 billion to clean energy and climate initiatives, as well as streamlines the permitting process for clean energy projects.

Reversing any legislation is difficult and unlikely. But the divided governments in the two states could prove to be a roadblock for Democrats as they work to carry out the laws. Environmental laws often require support from state budgets, for example, when it comes to enforcing and implementing regulations. 

“State governments have long played a key role when it comes to climate policy: three-quarters of the country’s Paris Climate commitments can be achieved by state and local policy.”

— Caroline Spears, Climate Cabinet executive director

Caroline Spears, executive director of Climate Cabinet, called the election outcomes “a dark moment for the climate movement,” but noted that “pro-climate state legislative candidates broke Republican supermajorities in North Carolina and Wisconsin and overperformed federal races, despite Democratic rout.”

President Donald Trump’s victory, she said, will ultimately put more pressure on states to carry out U.S. climate action. Trump has vowed to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, as well as claw back money dedicated to fighting climate change under the Inflation Reduction Act.

“State governments have long played a key role when it comes to climate policy: three-quarters of the country’s Paris Climate commitments can be achieved by state and local policy,” Spears said. “Now, they’re more important than ever.”

Arizona

Local races that could decide Arizona’s climate future remained too early to call on Wednesday, as were nearly every election on the ballot in this battleground state.

In recent years, extreme heat and water shortages have captured the attention of Arizonans, as have rising electric bills in the face of record-hot summers. But action has been limited. 

Though the state elected a Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, in 2022, Republicans have had one-vote majorities in both chambers of the state legislature, leading to gridlock over bills related to key climate issues, like addressing groundwater shortages across Arizona. At the same time, Republicans had a 4-1 majority on the Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates the state’s utilities, which experts and climate advocates say is crucial to how the state responds to climate change, as the Republican majority has allowed for the expansion of natural gas plants and killed renewable energy mandates in recent years. 

Democrats mounted a campaign to take control of both the state legislature and the Corporation Commission, but the races remained too tight to call, with votes to be finalized over the course of the coming days, though results so far indicate it’s likely Republicans will maintain control of at least one chambers and the Corporation Commission. In the race for three open seats on the commission, all three Republican candidates narrowly led so far. If they win, it would give Republicans all five seats on the commission.

Alabama

In Alabama, Twinkle Cavanaugh, head of the state’s utility regulator, the Public Service Commission, sailed to victory without opposition. 

Cavanaugh, a Republican, has continued to blame Democratic policies and EPA “overreach” for high utility prices in the state. 

A 2023 survey of energy prices across the country found that Alabamians spend more on electricity each month than residents in any other state in the country, reflecting both relatively high energy costs and high energy consumption in the Deep South state. 

The state’s public service commission has garnered significant criticism in recent years for its lack of formal rate hearings over prices set by Alabama Power, the state’s largest electricity provider. 

Despite her victory, Cavanaugh received more write-in votes against her—41,880, or 2.66 percent of all votes cast—than any other statewide candidate on Alabama’s ballot, according to unofficial results from the Alabama Secretary of State.