When Washington Fails, the States Can Lead on Labor

Introduction

Since the civil rights era of the 1950s and 1960s, Americans have looked to Washington, DC, as the primary source of rights expansion and protection. That assumption is harder to sustain today. As federal courts narrow constitutional protections and major labor reform remains stalled at the national level, advocates increasingly have to look to the states for new paths forward. Labor policy is an especially important area for this shift because statutory protections are often vulnerable to repeal and federal law leaves major gaps in coverage and organizing power.

State constitutions can help protect labor rights, especially when federal reform is stalled. Illinois’s 2022 Workers’ Rights Amendment offers one of the clearest recent examples of this approach. Rather than relying on ordinary legislation, it places labor rights in the state constitution. However, constitutional change alone is not enough. To build lasting worker power, pro-worker campaigns should be designed around material outcomes rather than abstract appeals. By using ballot initiatives strategically where political conditions make them viable and pairing constitutional amendments with immediate legislation, newly recognized rights become enforceable in practice.

The Problem

In the last decade, a series of Supreme Court rulings has narrowed federal protections for progressive priorities like reproductive autonomy, equal access to higher education, and voting rights. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the court held that the Due Process Clause does not protect a right to abortion, overturning Roe and Casey (Dobbs 2022). In 2023, Students for Fair Admissions (2023) ended race-conscious admissions at most colleges and universities, reinterpreting the Equal Protection Clause, and 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023) expanded compelled-speech limits in ways that allow certain vendors to refuse services for same-sex weddings, notwithstanding state civil rights laws. Voting rights protections have also contracted: Shelby County v. Holder (2013) disabled the VRA’s preclearance regime, and Brnovich v. DNC (2021) narrowed Section 2’s results test.

At the same time, federal executive policy has moved sharply rightward, with direct implications for civil rights enforcement and marginalized communities. On day one of the current Trump administration, the White House issued orders to phase out federal DEI infrastructure—terminating equity-related programs, grants, and contracts—and to “restore” merit-based policies, reversing prior directives (Executive Order No. 14151 2025). Immigration enforcement has also been significantly expanded, with new executive actions prioritizing interior enforcement: DHS revived and scaled the 287(g) program, surpassing 1,000 state and local partnerships and offering reimbursement incentives while seeking larger detention budgets that would flow largely to private contractors (Executive Order No. 14151 2025; US Department of Homeland Security 2025; American Immigration Council 2025). Federal agencies have also tested leverage over funding streams by, for example, reattaching immigration-cooperation conditions to FEMA grants, a move one federal judge has rebuked as unlawful (Raymond 2025).

In this environment, advocates seeking durable protections cannot rely on the federal government alone. They must look at the state and local level—specifically at state constitutions—as sites where rights can be articulated and defended. That shift is particularly relevant for labor policy, where federal reform remains stalled and where ordinary legislation is often vulnerable to repeal. Illinois’s 2022 Workers’ Rights Amendment offers one of the clearest contemporary examples of this strategy by showing how states can respond by placing labor rights in the constitution, making them harder to weaken and more durable over time.

Background and Context

Increasingly, the most durable gains are made possible through amending state constitutions, which can both entrench core freedoms and set policy floors that are hard to unwind. American federalism has long empowered states to innovate. Nearly a century ago, Justice Louis Brandeis described states as “laboratories of democracy,” meaning that a state could experiment with new social and economic policies without requiring the entire nation to adopt them at once. Today, that framework is newly important as state constitutions, courts, and ballot processes are delivering many of the most durable policy gains, including on labor (New State Ice Co. 1932, 311). Two intellectual turns anchor this shift. First, Justice William Brennan’s 1977 call for an “independent protective force” in state bills of rights urged advocates to build rights arguments under state charters, not just the federal Constitution (Brennan 1977, 491). Second, modern federalism scholarship has reframed subnational power as a site for dissent, experimentation, and progressive policymaking (Shapiro and Gonnerman 2021). Together, these traditions legitimate using state constitutions to set higher floors for worker protections than federal law.

These ideas are not new. In the Progressive Era (roughly 1890s–1920s), reformers sought new levers to restrain corporate power and democratize governance. One major innovation was direct democracy—initiative, referendum, and recall—built into many state constitutions so that citizens could bypass entrenched legislatures (Smith and Lubinski 2002, 349). Those tools mattered not only because they shaped elections, but because they allowed reformers to embed policy gains directly into state law. Through constitutional amendments, statutes, and ballot measures, states could protect minimum wages, labor rights, and working-hour limits.

Meanwhile, the “Wisconsin Idea,” that universities, experts, and public institutions should help craft progressive regulation and social policy, spurred state-level innovations especially around labor and social insurance (Morgridge Center for Public Service n.d.). In Ohio’s 1912 constitutional convention, delegates went further, rewriting the state charter to expand the bill of rights, create initiative and referendum, and give the legislature authority to regulate hours of labor, establish minimum wage laws, and institute workers’ compensation (DeWitt 2023).

In 1977, Justice Brennan published “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights,” encouraging litigants and scholars to look to state courts and constitutions as independent sources of rights. Brennan argued that state constitutional law should not merely replicate Supreme Court doctrine, but serve as an “independent protective force” for individual liberties (Brennan 1977). In Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980), the Supreme Court recognized that states can use their own constitutions to protect more rights than the federal Constitution does. The case was about free speech, not labor, but it shows the same basic point: State constitutions can go further than federal law.

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, state constitutionalism began to yield high-stakes victories on issues like reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, and healthcare—often ahead of, or even against, national trends. Some states, via constitutional amendments or judicial interpretation, preserved abortion protections after Dobbs, enshrined equality and nondiscrimination rules, or reaffirmed privacy rights (Smith and Wolfkot 2024).

We are seeing some states use this tradition to support greater labor freedoms. In November 2022, Illinois voters approved the Workers’ Rights Amendment, which guarantees a right to organize and bans state-level “right to work,” using the constitution to assert baseline labor rights. Importantly, constitutionalizing labor rights reshapes expectations: It converts what many see as legislative, discretionary policy into rights obligations, entangling courts, state agencies, and budgets in defending pro-worker standards. It also raises the political cost of repeal or rollback, because constitutional reversal requires more than legislative votes (Manzo and Bruno 2023).

Illinois also demonstrates that labor constitutionalism can succeed electorally. On the ballot question itself, the amendment passed with 58.7 percent support to 41.3 percent opposition, a margin of more than 17 points (Manzo and Bruno 2023). The amendment received especially strong support from union members, with 9 in 10 union members backing it, including more than 6 in 10 conservative-leaning or Republican union members (Bruno, Finkin, and Amerson 2024). County level analysis further suggests that union density mattered. A 10 percentage point increase in the county share of union members was associated with roughly a 6 point increase in the amendment’s yes vote. Working-class counties, counties with more households with children, and counties with more military veterans were also more likely to support it.

To achieve this level of success, proponents framed the amendment not as an abstract, vague institutional reform, but as a concrete protection for workers’ lives and livelihoods. Campaign messaging emphasized safety, essential workers, first responders, and “good-paying jobs.” They also framed the amendment as a backstop against future judicial or legislative attacks on existing labor standards (Manzo and Bruno 2023). In other words, supporters tied constitutional design to material outcomes. They argued that embedding bargaining rights in the constitution would protect workers against political whiplash and keep labor standards “above politics” (Manzo and Bruno 2023). This is one reason the Illinois case matters beyond Illinois: It suggests that rights-based constitutional arguments can be electorally persuasive when linked to wages, benefits, workplace conditions, and economic security rather than framed in purely legal terms.

Policy Analysis

The Illinois Workers’ Rights Amendment should be read as both a breakthrough for labor rights and a warning to advocates. It is a breakthrough because it moved labor rights into a state constitution, creating arguably the strongest constitutional protection for collective bargaining in the country. But it is also a warning because constitutional text, by itself, does not automatically produce new organizing. Since Illinois voters approved the amendment, there has been relatively little visible organizational movement, which means the on-the-ground reality remains unsettled (Manzo and Bruno 2023). One reason the amendment’s downstream effects remain unclear is that some of its most important language is still underdefined. The provision protects bargaining over workers’ “economic welfare and safety at work,” but “economic welfare” is not defined (Manzo and Bruno 2023). That ambiguity may have been valuable in the amendment’s passage, as broad language can be politically useful when trying to form strong coalitions. However, vague language leaves unresolved who is covered, what subjects are bargainable, and how aggressively courts or agencies read the provision. For example, it is unclear whether farmworkers, rideshare drivers, legislative staff, and independent contractors can now claim organizing and bargaining rights under the amendment. There is a live interpretative dispute over whether the amendment has independent legal force or merely operates as a preface to the amendment’s ban on right-to-work laws (Manzo and Bruno 2023). In practice, then, Illinois shows how constitutionalization can raise the floor for labor standards, but not eliminate the need for post-enactment mobilization and sustained advocacy.

Federal law might further explain why a state constitutional victory may not immediately generate a surge in organizing. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) structures private-sector labor relations through a majoritarian, exclusive representation model, and federal preemption limits how far states may go for workers already within the NLRA’s core (Manzo and Bruno 2023). That limitation suggests a central policy lesson for other states that constitutional amendments should not be treated as self-executing. If states want constitutional labor rights to build worker power rather than merely signal pro-labor values, they need implementing statutes that define covered workers, specify enforcement pathways, and address sectors excluded from federal law. In Illinois, that means the amendment could be improved by clarifying the meaning of “economic welfare,” expressly addressing categories such as farmworkers, domestic workers, app-based workers, and legislative staff, and creating a state-level framework for workers excluded from federal bargaining protections.

States should also look at Illinois as a model for coalition-building. Support for Amendment 1 was not confined to traditional Democratic urban strongholds. The amendment won 58.7 percent of the vote among those voting on the ballot question, received 64.1 percent support in the Chicago area, and still carried 50.2 percent support in downstate Illinois (Manzo and Bruno 2023). The amendment also outperformed Governor JB Pritzker outside the Chicago area and ran especially well relative to him in the least diverse counties, including counties that were more than 90 percent white (Manzo and Bruno 2023). Those results matter because they show that elevating labor into a state’s constitution can travel farther than a generic Democratic message when it is framed around material interests rather than partisan identity alone.

Proponents of the amendment emphasized safety, essential workers, higher pay, and good jobs, while presenting the amendment as a backstop against future attacks by courts, Congress, or state legislatures. Their coalition included major organized labor actors such as AFSCME Council 31, the Chicago Teachers Union, the Illinois AFL-CIO, the Illinois Federation of Teachers, the Illinois Pipe Trades Association, SEIU Healthcare Illinois-Indiana, and Teamsters Joint Council 25. Opposition, by contrast, came largely from business and employer-side organizations such as the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, the Illinois Municipal League, the National Federation of Independent Business, and Associated Builders & Contractors (Divounguy and Hill 2022). Advocates should be aware of these potential challengers and target their messaging to blue-collar, conservative-leaning union members to create large coalitions capable of undermining corporate interests. Studies show that Republicans became more supportive of the Illinois amendment when exposed to rights-based arguments emphasizing pay, benefits, and working conditions (Waterbury, Wade, and Simmons 2026).

That is the strongest strategic lesson for other states: Pro-worker coalitions are most likely to succeed when they are built around concrete material gains rather than abstract ideological appeals. The Illinois results are indicative of a broader pattern in which pro-worker ballot measures can succeed even in places not typically coded as progressive strongholds. For example, recent victories in Florida and Nebraska on minimum wage ballots and Medicaid expansion victories through ballot measures in states such as South Dakota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah suggest that voters can be mobilized around class-inflected claims even where partisan elites are resistant (Waterbury, Wade, and Simmons 2026). For states considering an Illinois-style measure, the implication is straightforward: lead with wages, benefits, workplace safety, and family economic security; describe labor rights as a protection for ordinary working people rather than as an institutional prize for unions alone; and use ballot politics to bypass legislative veto points where necessary.

Policy Proposals

If Illinois demonstrates that labor rights can be elevated into constitutional law, it also shows that constitutional reform alone is insufficient. The central policy challenge is not simply winning a ballot measure: It is converting constitutional recognition into durable worker power. That requires statutory clarification, coalition maintenance, sector-specific organizing pathways, and institutional mechanisms capable of enforcing new rights. Put differently, states that want to follow Illinois should not copy only the amendment. They should copy the amendment plus the implementation strategy outlined above.

1. Design pro-worker campaigns around material outcomes, not abstract ideas.

Illinois’s campaign offers a clear messaging lesson for other states: lead with pay, benefits, safety, and economic dignity. The amendment passed not because voters were deeply invested in labor-law architecture, but because proponents framed it as a way to protect essential workers, improve wages, safeguard workplace safety, and prevent future attacks on labor standards. That framing helped the amendment outperform Governor Pritzker outside the Chicago area and perform relatively well in whiter, less diverse, and more working-class counties. It also helped persuade some Republican and conservative-leaning voters, particularly when the amendment was presented in rights-based language tied to concrete improvements in workers’ material conditions. Other states should adopt the same approach. Campaigns should describe labor rights as protections for ordinary working people, not as institutional gains for unions alone.

2. Use ballot initiatives strategically.

Pro-worker ballot measures can succeed even where partisan control is not reliably progressive. That is consistent with other recent ballot outcomes, including minimum wage increases in Florida and Nebraska and Medicaid expansion wins in states with Republican-controlled legislatures. The broader implication is that ballot campaigns can sometimes reorganize political conflict around class and material well-being rather than party identification alone. States should therefore think strategically about where an Illinois-style measure is most viable. The strongest candidates may be states with some union density, some constitutional amendment pathway, and an electorate responsive to worker-centered economic appeals even if state institutions are divided. Illinois’s own results suggest that states resembling it—those with substantial middle- and working-class electorates and at least some labor infrastructure—may be especially promising. The lesson is not that every state is ready for labor constitutionalism, but that advocates should not assume such campaigns are limited to the bluest jurisdictions.

3. Pair constitutional amendments with immediate implementing legislation.

States should draft implementing legislation alongside the amendment campaign itself and move it quickly after passage. That legislation should define key terms such as “economic welfare,” specify the subjects over which workers may bargain, create enforcement mechanisms, and identify which public bodies will administer disputes. Illinois’s experience makes this need especially clear. The amendment’s broad promise has been politically powerful, but uncertainty about its concrete meaning has also limited its immediate downstream effects. Where constitutional text remains underdefined, opponents can use ambiguity to narrow the provision’s reach, delay enforcement, or recast the amendment as symbolic rather than operative.

Conclusion

Illinois’s Workers’ Rights Amendment shows both the promise and the limits of labor constitutionalism. By placing the right to organize and collectively bargain in the state constitution, Illinois turned labor protections into a more durable public commitment instead of a policy choice that could be more easily reversed through ordinary politics. At a time when federal reform remains stalled and statutory protections can shift with changing political majorities, the amendment suggests one way states can create a firmer foundation for labor rights. It also showed that labor protections can succeed at the ballot box when they are tied to questions of wages, dignity, safety, and economic security.

At the same time, Illinois also reveals the limits of constitutional text on its own. The amendment’s broad language leaves important questions unanswered, like how far its protections can apply. For that reason, constitutional reform should not be treated as the endpoint of labor policy: It should be treated as a foundation. States that want to follow Illinois must pair constitutional recognition with implementing legislation, clear enforcement pathways, and organizing strategies that strengthen worker power in practice as well as in principle.