MAGA votes by state

November 3rd MAGA Voting Guide by State:

Alabama:
Amendment 1: YES. This states that only a United States citizen 18 years or older can vote in Alabama. (While noncitizens cannot vote in AL, it was formerly allowed by state law; this new amendment removes the state government's ability to grant foreigners the right to vote.)
Amendment 2: No. Intended to target Roy Moore's old seat and prevent him from returning to his former prominence in the state judiciary, it also reduces the power of the Lieutenant Governor and removes the power to impeach and remove judges and justices of state courts.
Amendment 3: No. Intended to lengthen the terms of newly-appointed judges, this would postpone elections to judicial positions when vacancies occur.
Amendment 4: No. This is purely because there's virtue signalling in the proposal, including "removal of all racist language." I've heard "home rule" (e.g. by counties) being raised as a reason to support this amendment, but it doesn't seem like this will actually allow the legislature to add that to the new proposal, unless interpreted as a blank cheque to reform the state's constitution. Instead, it would reorganize locally-specific portions to be in their own section.
Amendments 5 and 6: YES. These are local state-your-ground laws. I'd say they should just go statewide with this.

Alaska:
B.M. 1: No. This increases taxes on oil production, so it would harm local jobs. Also, Obama-esque "Make big oil pay their fair share!" doesn't sound very MAGA.
B.M. 2: NO. This proposal is about making Alaska's election system more like that of California. The only difference is that it attempts to hybridize it with the systems of Maine. Further complicating this new system, a modified version of the California primary system would be used. The Maine system was used to remove Representative Poliquin in 2018, and the entire referendum may be an attempt to bring back Bill Walker as Governor. It's also very difficult to understand and a lot of voters might not understand how four-person runoffs work or how you can have a runoff with four people. It's like, "Wait so is there another runoff after the runoff? How do you have four people in a runoff?" honestly.

Arizona:
Weed/207: NO. The simple reason is that current rules for funding the DEA state that it cannot enforce marijuana law in states with legal weed. As a consequence, the DEA would be unable to enforce marijuana law in Arizona, which is also a border state. It isn't a good idea given the circumstances.
Rich tax/208: NO. Again, this is a tax on "the rich" and something Obama would love. The funds would be used to pay for increased salaries for teachers, and the unions would send the new due money to Democrat causes.

Arkansas:
Issue 1: No. This continues a tax which was levied to pay a state debt incurred when paying for new infrastructure programs in the aftermath of the 2008 recession. It isn't necessary now.
Issue 2: Yes. It shortens term limits but allows legislators to return to politics after they expire. Feel free to disagree, honestly. It's rather unimportant.
Issue 3: YES. This makes requirements for ballot measures more strict and generally favors Republican/rural interests by changing the requirements for geographic makeup of the voters.

California:
This state has numerous issues with misleading wording. Please be advised you should read the full text yourself and then look up how other people are interpreting it before you make a decision.
Prop 14: NO. This proposition would borrow billions to pay for stem cell research at a new, dedicated state institute of stem cell research.
Prop 15: No. This proposition would exempt businesses from current California restrictions on property taxes.
Prop 16: NO. This is the reintroduction of affirmative action in California.
Prop 17: NO. Expanded voting rights for convicted felons.
Prop 18: NO. In theory, this is supposed to extend the right to vote to 17 year old minors in limited circumstances. In particular, they have to be 18 by the time of the next general election. Besides the usual arguments against allowing 17-year-old children to vote in primaries, which are even stronger in a CA situation where primaries are just general elections which occur before a November runoff and can result in a political party being locked out of the November race, this amendment to California's Constitution would also permit minors to vote in special elections, provided that the next general election is within one year.
Prop 19: No. This would reform deductions etc. by directly amending the state Constitution and openly states that it would raise revenue for wildfire suppression. California needs to get real forest management and stop trying to tax and spend their way out of this.
Prop 20: YES. This amendment would bring greater law and order to California by restricting early parole, require DNA collection for some misdemeanors, and more.
Prop 21: NO. This would expand rent control.
Prop 22: No. Honestly, this is just a middle finger to Silicon Valley. It requires the ridiculous $15 minimum wage for Uber drivers. Have fun with your Democrat government, California.
Prop 23: No. Expands healthcare regulations and restricts businesses' ability to close, thus forcing them to take out loans to comply with regulations prohibiting business closure, without any reimbursement for unprofitable businesses. This would harshly discourage the opening of businesses in the healthcare industry and consequently reduce availability of healthcare services.
Prop 24: No. The bill in question, variously nicknamed CCPA, CPRA, CPPA, etc. by different sources, would establish a new state agency to enforce state privacy laws. As this would have interstate effects, and I do not live in California, I do not want the online services I use subjected to the whims of some unelected bureaucracy. If you plan on leaving, this would have consequences for you as well, and quite importantly even California voters will have limited oversight over the new CPPA agency.
Prop 25: NO. This is the worst one. Explicitly condemned by Trump himself, this referendum would end cash bail in favor of mass prisoner release for all prisoners who are eligible for bail.
Further advice: Sign the petition to recall Gavin Newsom. https://recallgavin2020.com

Colorado:
Amendment B: No. This would repeal existing limits on property taxes.
Amendment C: Yes. This would loosen rules for charitable bingo & raffles.
Amendment 76: YES! This would require citizenship for voting.
Amendment 77: No. This would allow localities which already permit gambling to expand gambling in their areas. Feel free to disagree on this one.
Proposition EE: No. This would increase taxes on tobacco and introduce a new vaping tax. The text says that revenues would be dedicated to education and health; clearly, teachers' unions aren't a good destination for this money to start. However, it's more dishonest than that. Revenues would be divided among various state funds, including the "housing development grant fund," and more importantly the general fund that isn't dedicated to anything.
Prop 113: NO. This would join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to pledge electors to the winner of the popular vote, i.e. a Democrat with tons of stuffed California ballots.
Prop 114: NO. This reintroduces wolves on public lands, endangering livestock and restricting the right to hunt. El Paso County, where many wolves would be released, has requested that voters turn down the offer to reintroduce wolves, as they would endanger people and livestock in their area. Spending increases and other problems also make this a bad idea.
Prop 115: YES. A ban on third trimester abortion is necessary to protect the right to life.
Prop 116: Yes. This is just a small decrease in state income taxes.
Prop 117: Yes. This would increase voter oversight over "state enterprises," including toll roads, the new enterprise which will collect fines when people accidentally endanger the lives of newly-reintroduced wolves, etc.
Prop 118: No. This is an unnecessary increase in state funding to cover something Trump has promised to do at the federal level through a new state tax. Given it would complicate Trump's efforts to implement paid maternity leave nationwide, it isn't a good idea.

Florida:
Amendment 1: YES. This is another citizenship requirement.
Amendment 2: NO. This is the $15 minimum wage.
Amendment 3: NO. This is a straight-up clone of the California primary system.
Amendment 4: Yes. This is a sensible proposal to make it harder to pass a ballot initiative, considering how many awful ones passed in 2018 and even this year.
Amendments 5 and 6: Yes. These decrease state taxes, so they're good.

Georgia:
Revenue Dedication: Yes. This makes sense and would allow state taxes to be dedicated to a specific purpose.
Declaratory Relief: No. This would increase state legal fees and spending by allowing citizens to obtain financial relief for potential violations of the Constitution of Georgia, rather than just violations of federal rights.
501(c)(3) exemption: Yes. This would exempt 501(c)(3) organizations with federal tax exemptions from paying state property taxes in some cases.
US Senate primary: Doug Collins. The race is split, with the incumbent Republican Kelly Loeffler and non-incumbent Republican Doug Collins competing for #1 and #2 in the polls, which would lock out the Democrats if they actually win the top two spots. Mr. Collins is a great, right-wing man who wants to make America great again.

Idaho: Whatever. The referendum is so pointless that the opposition was mainly based on the idea that putting it on a ballot would be a waste of money. Do you want to ban the state from reducing its number of legislative districts? If yes, vote yes. If no, vote no.

Illinois: No. This would raise state income taxes.

Iowa: No, I don't see why you would want to implement a new Constitution. There's no real argument in favor of this.

Kentucky:
Marcy's Law: Yes. This would increase restitutions, fines, bails, and jail and prison sentences in Kentucky.
Terms of Judicial Offices: No. This is a pretty pointless amendment and primarily supports Democrats.

Louisiana:
Amendment 1: YES! Explicitly declares no right to abortion in the Constitution of Louisiana.
Amendment 2: Yes. This is just an amendment to allow oil & gas value to be counted when assessing property values for state tax purposes.
Amendment 3: Yes. This would expand the State's authority to use its disaster stabilization fund.
Amendment 4: No. This is just a way to get around the spending limit so JBE can get more welfare passed.
Amendment 5: Yes. This would allow a new property tax exemption to encourage new/expanded manufacturing businesses in the state.
Amendment 6: Yes. The income limit for the homestead exemption special assessment level would be increased.
Amendment 7: Yes. This is a compromise between Democrat Governor Edwards and Republican Treasurer Schroder to raise revenues by using revenues generated by assets of the Unclaimed Property Permanent Trust Fund rather than confiscating its assets and selling them.
Sports Betting: No. This is a parish-by-parish referendum and there will be numerous parishes undoubtedly adopting sports betting, but it doesn't need to be everywhere.
US Senate primary: Dustin Murphy. While Senator Cassidy is pretty good, he's Graham-like, and he voted in favor of the awful NDAA bill earlier this year which Trump said he would veto. Cassidy is expected to win, so consider it a protest vote.

Maryland:
Question 1: No. The objective of this proposal is to reduce the power of the current Governor, who is a Republican.
Question 2: No. Expansion of commercial gambling is bad, but funding teachers' unions with it is even worse.

Massachusetts:
Question 1: No. This is a vague, badly-written regulation which expands existing "right to repair" laws in Massachusetts by requiring manufacturers to adopt a single standard method of handling data which would allow "open access" to "mobile phones." This really sounds like they're trying to not only force every manufacturer to adopt a single operating system for cars, which would violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, but also allow all of this data to be accessed by any mobile phone, thus rendering cars easy to hack. I've seen some people argue that mobile phone access isn't necessarily wireless, but it isn't explicitly stated that the car manufacturers would be permitted to allow wired-only access. Without greater clarity on the meaning of this, it is not something I can support.
Question 2: This would bring Maine's electoral reform, which removed Representative Poliquin, to Massachusetts. It sounds like a scheme to remove what little Republican political representation remains in this state.

Michigan:
Use of State and Local Park Funds Amendment: Yes. This would allow state park funds to be used on park maintenance and renovations. It would also remove the cap on the size of one of the trust funds which funds state parks.
Search Warrant for Electronic Data Amendment: No. The Supreme Court of the United States has already clarified that electronic data is protected as an "effect" by the Federal Constitution. As a consequence, this amendment would simply allow state courts to make overbroad expansions of the state's independent definition of electronic data, which needn't be based on federal judicial decisions in the context of the Constitution of Michigan being a state law.

Mississippi:
65/65A: Neither. However, this is a two-part referendum. Even if you vote neither, you still get to vote on your preference of measure. I recommend 65A, which restricts medical marijuana to terminally ill patients.
State Flag Referendum: NO! The original flag of Mississippi should be restored.
Remove Electoral Vote Requirement and Establish Runoffs for Gubernatorial and State Office Elections: No. This abolishes the state electoral vote requirement, similar to the electoral college but at the state level, used for statewide elections.

Missouri:
Amendment 1: No endorsement, leaning no. This sets term limits for a large number of state officials, five of whom are Republicans, while one is a Democrat.
Amendment 3: Yes. This repeals a bad idea the state passed in 2018.

Montana:
LR-130: YES. This bans local gun control.
C-46 and C-47: No endorsement. These are relatively minor changes to the Constitution of Montana.
CI-118: No. This is a complement referendum to I-190 which allows the state legislature and citizen initiaitves to change the marijuana age.
I-190: No. This is more legal weed BS and it reduces DEA enforcement via current federal budget law.

Nebraska:
Amendment 1: NO! This referendum removes the current exception to the Nebraska Constitution's ban on slavery which allows slavery as a punishment for a crime. It's obviously about prison labor, so removing it is a bad idea.
Amendment 2: No. At first, one might think this is a tax deduction, but it actually means that local governments would borrow more.
Init. 428: No. This is basically a weird pilpul trick with words. Loan interest rates on loans that mature in less than one year will be regulated based on annualized interest rates. As such, the interest rate of a 3.1% loan which is supposed to be repaid within one month would be multiplied by twelve, and consequently surpass the 36% interest rate limit. Big banks with longer loan periods, e.g. 30-year mortgages, would be exempt. As a consequence, they would be able to charge 9001% interest per year even when a loan that matures in less than a year would not be permitted to charge even a thousandth of that rate.
Inits. 429, 430, and 431: No to all. These are all about racetrack gambling. The State pointed out that the language is misleading and would permit off-track betting, so no.

Nevada:
Question 1: No. Transferring the authority of the unelected Board of Regents to the Democrat trifecta ruling the state would be bad.
Question 2: NO. This repeals the state Defense of Marriage Amendment as a means to virtue signal for homos.
Question 3: No. This effectively increases the number of pardons issued to convicted criminals.
Question 4: No. This seems unnecessary.
Question 6: No. This is basically a state-level Green New Deal.

New Jersey:
PQ1: NO. Again, this hinders DEA enforcement under current federal budget restrictions and NJ has a very large population of illegal aliens, including MS-13.
PQ2: Yes. This is a tax deduction for veterans.
PQ3: No. The local GOP has officially condemned this proposal to delay redistricting.

New Mexico:
CA1: No. This transfers power over the Public Regulation Commission (PRC) of New Mexico from the voters to the Governor. It's essentially a power grab by the current Democrat trifecta.
CA2: No. This gives the Democrat trifecta authority to change the election date.
Bond Questions A, B, and C: No. None of these sufficiently demonstrate that they're worth a debt, and more importantly the bulk of the money is borrowed by C, which is about sending money to teachers' unions.

North Dakota:
SCR 4001: Yes. This will require double-passage of initiated constitutional amendments.
SCR 4016: Yes. This should improve the Board of Higher Education and restrict the influence of teachers' unions over the body.

Oklahoma:
SQ 805: NO. Banning the criminal history of an offender from being used to consider how such offender should be punished is absurd.
SQ 814: Yes. This reduces current state spending to pay for gibsmedat Obamacare implementation rather than raising taxes. Make sure you get out there and vote against Obamacare, by the way, because Obamacare is awful.

Oregon:
Measure 107: NO. The Oregon Constitution would be amended to enable the Democrat trifecta to pass new campaign finance laws intended to suppress the GOP.
Measure 108: No. Taxes on tobacco would be dramatically increased.
Measure 109: No. Shrooms are subject to federal prohibition and shouldn't be legal anyway. Also, there would be a state program for their use as part of the Oregon Health Authority. The American Psychiatric Association has denounced this proposal, and Trump probably isn't supportive.
Measure 110: NO. This is one of the worst proposals of the year. It would decriminalize cocaine, heroin, and all other controlled substances and dedicate state marijuana tax revenue to treating the addicts.

Rhode Island:
Name Change: No. Removing "and Providence Plantations" is a really stupid PC move and it's also a means to get rid of the acknowledgement of divine providence in the name of the state.

South Dakota:
I.M. 26: No. Legal weed is not a good idea.
C.A. A: No. Again, legal weed is not a good idea, and the restrictions on DEA funding in states with legal weed in the federal budget will mean less enforcement against transnational drug trafficking, even though this isn't a border state.
C.A. B: No. Expanding legal gambling isn't a good thing, even though it's not as bad as weed.

Utah:
A: No. Gender-neutral virtue signalling is stupid.
B: Yes. This makes the requirements for state office stricter.
C: NO. The Constitution of Utah currently allows "slavery" if it is a "punishment for crime" and this is something the Constitution should retain, rather than repeal. It's pretty much just prison labor, after all.
D: Yes. This allows municipalities to share water, which may be necessary at times in a state with a lot of deserts and a huge lake full of saltwater.
E: Yes. This adds hunting and fishing rights to the Constitution of Utah.
F: No. This is an unnecessary change to the state Constitution.
G: No. This is a stupid spending increase.

Washington (state):
Ref. 90: NO. This would mandate all public schools in Washington to provide "comprehensive sex education," including "LGBTQ empowerment education," indoctrination in favor of slut shit and pleasure killing, and other degenerate propaganda. The official stance of the Republican Party is to oppose this referendum; furthermore, it restricts the rights of local governments to decide what they teach in schools, and a number of school districts have officially disavowed the referendum as a consequence. The Roman Catholic Church has also officially condemned this Democrat proposal and many other religious groups agree.
SJR 8212: Yes. This allows the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Account and the Long-Term Care Services and Supports Trust Account to diversify its investment portfolio.
AV32-35: Repeal. These four advisory votes are about increasing taxes.

Wyoming:
Constitutional Amendment A: No. Removing the debt limit on local sewage is not a good idea.

Washington, D.C.:
Initiative 81: NO. Washington, D.C. should, regardless of your opinion of the federal law in question, enforce all federal laws. It should not vaguely proclaim certain federal laws "among the district's lowest law enforcement priorities" or otherwise de-enforce federal law. Furthermore, psychedelic plants and fungi should remain illegal.

Puerto Rico:
Statehood: NO. Puerto Rican statehood is arguably unconstitutional, adds a state which does not speak English to the Union, etc. Two more Democrat Senators are unwelcome in the U.S. Senate.

United States Virgin Islands:
Constitutional Convention: No endorsement, leaning towards no. USVI is doing well without this.

More information:
1. While stated at various points that the GOP or Trump has officially taken a stance on a referendum, this doesn't imply that they don't endorse more than I've said or that they disavow anything else in here. In some cases, there are situations where the GOP is divided; for instance, the New Mexico Senate GOP is NO on CA2, while the New Mexico House GOP is YES. This can make things complicated, and at times there's no real information to show which side the GOP has taken on an issue.

2. If you can't find your state, chances are it isn't having a referendum in November. Notably, Wisconsin had one referendum in March; this is not included, and Wisconsin has no referendum in November.

3. So far, this guide has information on referenda, including ballot measures and other issue-based votes, but very little information on politicians. While some states, including Louisiana and Georgia, are actually holding primaries on the federal election day, this guide only has United States Senate primary candidates. Regardless, please vote Republican in November.