From the East Coast across the Midwest and into the West, unions are celebrating.
Hidden amid the rush of headlines and the endless chatter about the midterms lies the truth that Tuesday marked a substantial victory for labor unions across the board. With both major parties increasingly inclined to embrace organized labor, the 2026 elections hint at a potential turning point in our contemporary labor politics.
Momentum on the ground began on the East Coast with two proposed state constitutional amendments appearing on ballots in Vermont and Maryland. In Vermont, voters approved—by a near 3-to-1 margin—Proposal 3, which establishes a state constitutional right to collectively bargain, while simultaneously blocking any future laws that could undermine this right. The amendment also prohibits the Legislature from enacting a right-to-work law going forward.
In Maryland, voters approved—again, by about a three-to-one margin—their own constitutional amendment that requires the governor’s proposed budget to fully fund all collective bargaining agreements for state employees (it remains unclear whether the state Legislature would be required to mirror and fully fund those agreements). If government employees and the state fail to reach agreement during bargaining, the amendment grants an arbitrator the power to dictate terms to both sides through binding interest arbitration.
Under current Maryland law, the governor is required to present a balanced budget proposal to the state Legislature. The new amendment could create scenarios in which collective bargaining agreements or binding interest arbitration lock in high wages and fringe benefits—while constraining the governor and the Legislature from making key fiscal decisions in the state budget. In theory, this could force the governor and Legislature to enact drastic cuts in other essential government services to balance the books.
In the Midwest, Wisconsin voters delivered a Democratic trifecta, granting the party full control of both the legislative and executive branches. Democratic Gov.-elect David Crowley explicitly campaigned on reversing former Gov. Scott Walker’s famous 2011 collective bargaining reforms. Democrats had not controlled the state Legislature in Madison since 2010, but they now do, which should provide Crowley with the votes needed to advance. (Even if Walker’s reforms are not repealed legislatively, they may soon be struck down by the state’s left-leaning Supreme Court).
Out West, Colorado elected Democrat Phil Weiser as its new governor, a result that could foreshadow a broader shift in the state’s labor laws. Colorado has long operated under a hybrid right-to-work framework known as the Labor Peace Act. Traditional right-to-work statutes bar the so-called union security clauses in collective bargaining agreements, which require employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment.
Under Colorado’s model, a union can be certified with a bare majority of worker support, but the inclusion of union security clauses in a bargaining agreement demands supermajority backing from workers. Colorado’s Democratic Legislature has twice sent bills to the governor to repeal the Labor Peace Act’s second-vote requirement, only to be vetoed each time by moderate Democrat Gov. Jared Polis. Unlike Polis, Weiser supports the repeal of the second vote, so state lawmakers can simply wait out Polis’ term.
Finally, Nevada witnessed its own Democratic trifecta taking office. Gov.-elect Aaron Ford has publicly stated his desire to repeal the state’s right-to-work law. With Democrats holding unanimous control of the state government, Nevada’s right-to-work regime appears to be on borrowed time.
Perhaps the most far-reaching developments are at the federal level. Before the election, a bill named the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA) began to gain traction in Congress. The legislation is championed by pro-union Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) and counts several Republican supporters on Capitol Hill. The FLCA passed the House but has stalled in the Senate for lack of enough votes.
However, depending on how the remaining uncalled Senate races resolve, the FLCA could be within striking distance of President Donald Trump’s desk. If Democrats secure 56 seats in the Senate, the theoretical backing for the FLCA could reach 58 votes once Republican support is included (in addition to Hawley, Sen. Bernie Moreno (R–Ohio) is also a co-sponsor of the FLCA).
That would mean only two more GOP votes would be needed to clear the Senate’s 60-vote cloture threshold and send the bill to the White House. Given the GOP’s ongoing outreach to organized labor—both in Congress and in the White House—the FLCA now has a plausible path to passage.
The FLCA would establish a binding interest arbitration system similar to the Maryland model, but this version would apply to the private sector workforce—an unprecedented development in American labor law. America’s legal tradition has long treated labor contracts as voluntary agreements between employers and employees. If the FLCA passes, a government-backed arbitration panel could impose binding terms on the parties—a longstanding goal of labor unions.
It might be tempting to dismiss labor’s big night on Tuesday as simply a byproduct of a Democratic wave. Yet, as the FLCA demonstrates, political math has grown more intricate. In fact, the FLCA could become one of the most consequential bipartisan laws to emerge from Washington after 2026.
When taken together with the state-level shifts, Tuesday night could mark a major milestone in the history of modern labor politics.
Hawley’s Pro-Union Bill Would Let Washington Write Your Contract
