Tuesday’s Midterm elections carry significant consequences for colleges and universities, with voters choosing governors and legislators and deciding on ballot measures involving campus construction, research funding, academic policies and transgender athletes’ participation in sports.
At the federal level, Democrats would need to gain four seats in both the House and Senate to take control of each chamber. Democratic control could bring greater congressional scrutiny of the Trump administration’s use of federal grants, treatment of international students and transfer of Department of Education programs to other agencies. Democrats could also seek to revise student loan limits established in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and raise the minimum Pell Grant.
A Republican president would retain veto power, however, making broad policy changes difficult unless they were combined with priorities supported by Republicans. Higher education advocates said congressional control would nonetheless influence funding, student aid, research and oversight.
State elections could have more immediate effects on university budgets and governance. Governors and legislatures determine public higher education funding, while governors appoint members of university governing boards. Legislative changes could also affect whether parties hold veto-proof supermajorities.
Thirty-nine states currently have a political trifecta, meaning one party controls the governorship and both legislative chambers. That arrangement can speed the adoption of higher education policies, including requirements for general education courses and the creation of civics centers. National advocacy groups can also help similar policies spread across states.
The elections come as public higher education operating appropriations per student fell 1 percent in fiscal year 2025 after 12 years of increases. Several public institutions have announced mass layoffs and program reductions this year, making state decisions about funding especially consequential for tuition, financial aid, academic programs and student services.
Voters in several states will also decide higher education-related ballot measures. Arizona’s Proposition 142 would amend the state constitution to prohibit certain diversity statements and restrict public funding for positions promoting race-based preferential treatment or discrimination. It would also limit public universities’ ability to require or request statements concerning race-based diversity, equity and inclusion.
Supporters argue the measure would address discriminatory DEI practices, while opponents say it could restrict speech and punish students and faculty for their viewpoints.
California’s Proposition 38 would authorize $8.4 billion in borrowing for immunology and immunotherapy research. Half the money would go to a University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute, with the remainder distributed through research grants. Repayment is estimated at $500 million to $600 million annually for approximately 20 years, although the ballot measure says research-generated revenue could offset some or all of the cost.
Reporting cited in the measure’s debate has identified the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy as the organization likely to meet the stated criteria for the first half of the funds. The campaign supporting Proposition 38 says it would help compensate for federal research cuts and support work on diseases including cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s.
Colorado’s Proposition 134 would bar transgender athletes from competing on K–12 or college teams corresponding to their gender identity. It would allow female athletes to compete on men’s teams when no women’s team exists. Nebraska’s Initiative Measure 442 would prohibit transgender girls and women from competing on girls’ and women’s teams at K–12 schools and higher education institutions, including private institutions that compete against public schools.
Other measures focus on campus infrastructure and university governance. New Mexico’s Bond Question 3 would authorize $352.2 million for capital improvements and acquisitions at higher education, special and tribal schools. A separate constitutional amendment would change how nonstudent members of university boards of regents are nominated and require student members to be selected from lists supplied by student governing bodies.
Rhode Island’s Question 1 would authorize $275 million in borrowing. The proposal includes $165 million for a University of Rhode Island Integrated Health Building, $60 million for a Community College of Rhode Island Workforce Innovation Center and $50 million to renovate Rhode Island College’s Adams Library.
Sources: Inside Higher Ed.