Proposals and Ballot Initiatives (Catch All)

So other than the president, and congressional races, election time means ballot initiatives and proposals. Something I am not sure how I feel about is the targeted Youtube and Hulu ads I get based on my IP and registration info for these proposals.

What is going on in that great land on your ballots this week?

Unions and collective bargaining initiatives seem to be in vogue in many states.

My state has some interesting ones.

A ballot initiative to change the present Emergency Financial Manager laws, that are very contentious but have shown promising results.

We have 5 proposed amendments to the state constitution- Prop 2 is about giving unions more power to organize, bargain, Prop 3 is about establishing standards and goals in state for renewable and greener energies, Prop 4 would create a new union for home care workers and a new review board for them (in essence making then a state professionally accredited group), Prop 5 would force the state legislators to have a 2/3 majority for increasing taxes or imposing new taxes, Prop 6 would amend the constitution to require voter approval in the state and in the municipalities where international bridges, tunnels would be located prior to their opening.

Prop 6 above all has my irish up. Much of the funding is federal and Canadian, it is creating jobs and will create permanent jobs. The current bridge system to Canada is crumbling. The current bridge is privately owned, and very poorly maintained. Having an additional bridge would ease cross border traffic (waits can be hours long). But opponents are characterizing it as taking money from state general funds that might otherwise go to teachers and police budgets. That is a lie at worse, or a gross misrepresentation of tax allocation at best.

The one taking up the most ad space in Maryland is an expansion of gambling laws.

My eye is on Colorado, where I spent the past decade living, to see if they give a giant middle finger to the Fed and make marijuana legal. I hope they do as our drug laws are absurd.

We only have a few state ones (WA) and I have two city ones, but there are only two that are really important. Gay marriage and legalizing

Initiative Measure 1185

This Tim Eyman measure would "restate"—as if it hasn't been stated, and stated, and restated a million times already—that the Washington State Legislature must somehow come up with an impossible-to-achieve two-thirds majority vote in order to raise taxes. Ever. Right now, our supreme court is considering whether these Eyman turdlets run afoul of our state constitution's rules for defining legislative majorities, and maybe the high court will rule on the question before the election. But then again, since the high court's justices are elected by a popular vote every six years, they probably won't rule before the election.

Initiative Measure 1240

Funding for 40 charter schools statewide over the next five years pulling funding from public schools.

Referendum Measure 74

The Stranger Newspaper wrote:

Thanks to a perversion in our democracy, the rights of gay and lesbian couples that want to marry—a fundamental civil right—will be decided by popular vote. But let us not dwell on how icky that is, how starkly unjust it is that some schmuck in Ritzville, who argues "them parts don't fit," gets to decide whom you can and cannot marry. And don't obsess on the roundly debunked claims that equality for gay people, through some sort of funhouse mirror, will result in discrimination against straight people. Sure, the ads from Preserve Marriage Washington claim that business owners will face lawsuits or schools will be required to teach about gay marriage, but there's no evidence of it. Let's instead focus on the positive: your vote to approve this referendum! As you fill in this all-important "Approved" bubble for R-74, thereby upholding a law passed by the legislature earlier this year, we want you to think about November 7—the day after this sh*t passes. Envision all the smiling, crying, rejoicing couples that will be counting down to December 6, when they can finally, legally wed. Picture Jesus tap-dancing in heaven to a looping soundtrack of "It's Raining Men" and "We Are Family." Imagine the deluge of impeccably tasteful weddings you'll be attending next summer with open bars serving high-end vodka. Oh yeah, and think about how right it feels to support the rights of others. Then, when you've bled a pen dry on that motherf*cking "Approved" bubble, go celebrate—light a joint, eat a steak, drink a pitcher of wine, have a burrito, and then treat yourself to an orgasm. You're one fine motherf*cking human being. Be proud.

Initiative Measure 502

Passing Initiative 502 would make Washington the first state to legalize the possession of up to an ounce of pot. Meanwhile, it would license farmers to grow it, companies to distribute it, and stores to sell it.

The Stranger Newspaper wrote:

In doing so, I-502 would stop roughly 10,000 marijuana arrests a year in Washington State, freeing up law-enforcement resources while at the same time putting a stop to the pot-law-enabled harassment of racial minorities. According to a study released last week by three New York academics, blacks and Latinos in Washington use marijuana at a lower rate than white people, but they are arrested for pot at 2.9 times the rate of white people.

You're going to hear plenty of half-baked reasons to vote against I-502. Just last Monday, a pack of former drug czars and DEA agents argued that we shouldn't legalize pot because it will lead to a federal legal challenge. But challenging federal law is the whole damn point. And if all these former drug czars are so confident that I-502 would be overturned by the Feds, why are they campaigning so hard to stop it from passing in the first place?

Some medical marijuana industry profiteers are also opposing I-502. They dislike the prospect of new taxes and regulations on dispensaries, and they complain that the initiative's DUI law is too strict. It stipulates that people with more than five nanograms of active THC (the psychoactive compound in marijuana) per milliliter of blood would be automatically guilty of DUI. That's like the .08 blood alcohol limit for drunk driving. They claim that stoners will test positive for driving high the next day—or a week—after they last smoked pot, when they're no longer impaired.

PROPOSALS FROM THE LEGISLATURE

Senate Joint Resolution 8221 would limit the amount of money the state can borrow for construction projects at a time when we need more construction projects to fix broken sh*t and boost the economy.

Senate Joint Resolution 8223 would allow state schools like the University of Washington to gamble some of their savings in investments in private companies and the stock market, but only after legislative approval. Risky! However: What choice do they have if we're going to systematically underfund our schools? As long as you're already voting to reject I-1185 (for the school-underfunding reasons stated above), then you can hold your nose, cross your fingers, blow on the dice you're shaking in your hand.

Advisory Vote 1, Senate Bill 6635 asks us to affirm the legislature's decision to close a tax loophole benefiting out-of-state banks. This is purely a symbolic vote, and some deals were made to get this stupid loophole closed that you probably won't like. You don't want to know.

Advisory Vote 2, House Bill 2590 is another symbolic vote, this one to support the legislature's decision to keep strong underground fuel tank safety standards going.

It's looking like legalization will pass in WA, it's polling at 55% for, at this point. Oregon doesn't look like it'll pass it this time, but if WA passes, i bet there'll be a domino effect throughout the NW when the states see how much revenue they're generating. The plan is to tax sales at 25% at every point. Grower to wholesaler, wholesaler to retailer, retailer to customer. They're projecting 4 Billion in revenue over 5 years. With a B. Half of that money would go to the state health plan.

Edwin - that clip from The Stranger on Referendum 74 is brilliant.

In Maine, the big question on the Ballot is Question 1, which would allow same-sex marriage in the state of Maine. I've been seeing so many "No on 1" placards (anti gay-marriage) lining the roads that I can't drive anywhere without seeing an easy two-dozen. It's sorta gross.

The remaining four ballot initiatives involve spending money on such-and-such, and it's interesting that all the opposition I've seen comes in two forms: we can spend the money on other things (just not schools, public services, forest and farmland protection, and the like) or it'll add to the debt (true, but if you want debt reduction, cutting funding to vital services like education, farming, and public waste-works isn't sensible).

We've got two constitutional amendments. An anti-gay marriage amendment and a voter ID amendment. Polling last month had 'no' slightly ahead on the marriage amendment. Last I saw, the ID amendment was still ahead but support has been falling like a stone pretty steadily (I presume as people find out what the actual purpose is).

Wow. It only requires a simple majority in both the legislature and the popular vote for amendments in Minnesota? O_O (I guess, scanning over things, that's not all that unusual. I figured 2/3 majority either in the legislature or in the populace was more common.)

Simple majorities are the most common when it comes to constitutional ballot initiatives in the country. Super Majority rules are the exception.

garion333 wrote:

The one taking up the most ad space in Maryland is an expansion of gambling laws.

It was fascinating. I thought, "Wow, these Question 7 opponents sure are dedicated. But these flyers and ads can't be cheap..." Follow the money, as always: the opposition to another casino in Maryland is a competing casino interest run by Penn National in West Virginia.

By contrast, Question 6 on gay marriage has gotten much less green spent on it.

Edwin wrote:

Referendum Measure 74

The Stranger Newspaper wrote:

Thanks to a perversion in our democracy, the rights of gay and lesbian couples that want to marry—a fundamental civil right—will be decided by popular vote. But let us not dwell on how icky that is, how starkly unjust it is that some schmuck in Ritzville, who argues "them parts don't fit," gets to decide whom you can and cannot marry.

That's a damn fine argument, and applicable to a lot more than just state-licensed marriage. Bravo for them.

The big push in Iowa has been to vote out those "evil" judges who defended marriage equality as part of citizens' guaranteed rights.

Ugh. I hate the idea of judges being up for vote if they make decisions you don't like. That seems like a breakdown of the three branches principle of our government to me.

There are nine (9) ballot initiatives or referendums on the Arizona ballot. Four stand out:

1. Prop. 114 - Gives civil suit immunity to victims of crime of the perpetrator is injured or dies during the commission of the crime. The only concern people are talking about is what happens if someone breaks into your house, steals your laptop, is fleeing and you shoot him or her in the back. That does give some pause.

2. Prop. 120 - Would grant sovereignty to the State of Arizona over all federal "natural resources." The means the State of Arizona would take over the Grand Canyon national park. The U.S. has already said if the voters approve it on Tuesday, they will sue on Wednesday. A completely ludicrous proposition which will cost the state millions of dollars in litigation because the "states rights" crown want to shake their fists at Washington.

3. Prop. 121 - Would follow California in turning the primary system into a two top-tier system. This popped up on the scene after the independent Arizona redistricting commission redid the maps and the GOP will lose seats in the state house and may even lose control of the senate.

4. Prop. 204 - Would continue the 1% sales tax the voters approved in 2010 to balance the state budget, but would earmark the money for education and infrastructure. My favorite ad so far was the radio ad with the woman claiming that the 1% sales tax has been such a burden to her and her family that her son had to delay college. Yes, of course he did.

One proposition that did not make the ballot was a referendum by the AZ Legislature to withdraw the voter approved minimum wage law. A local, reputable polling agency said the measure only had 9% support, so the Legislature decided not to pursue it. Thank God. The minimum wage law in Arizona is more generous than the federal wage and is indexed for inflation. The stories of how this would destroy Arizona were unfounded and was approved by voters by a 2-1 margin in 2008. But, leave it to our Legislature to swear up and down that the economy would be robust and we would all be driving a Lexus by Christmas if we just got rid of that damn minimum wage. (insert huge eyeroll here).

Phoenix Rev wrote:

4. Prop. 204 - Would continue the 1% sales tax the voters approved in 2010 to balance the state budget, but would earmark the money for education and infrastructure. My favorite ad so far was the radio ad with the woman claiming that the 1% sales tax has been such a burden to her and her family that her son had to delay college. Yes, of course he did.

Just out of curiosity, do you guys have sales tax on necessities like food and clothing? I know some place do tax those things but if you don't then that argument is even more ridiculous.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

4. Prop. 204 - Would continue the 1% sales tax the voters approved in 2010 to balance the state budget, but would earmark the money for education and infrastructure. My favorite ad so far was the radio ad with the woman claiming that the 1% sales tax has been such a burden to her and her family that her son had to delay college. Yes, of course he did.

Just out of curiosity, do you guys have sales tax on necessities like food and clothing? I know some place do tax those things but if you don't then that argument is even more ridiculous.

It is a mix.

For some time, there was no tax on food, but there was on clothing. When the economy collapsed in 2008/2009, Phoenix instituted a 1% tax on food to offset the budget shortfall. Some of the other municipalities around the state did not or did a smaller amount (I think Scottsdale added a 0.3% food tax). Clothing has always been taxed in Arizona.

Does Arizona allow for deadly force to be used in the protection of property? That Prop 114 makes me wonder about dual perpetrator crimes like say a fist fight in a bar, about the use of traps on private residences (spring guns, animal traps), and also about disproportionate force shooting a guy who is shoplifting.

KG,

I don't know the answer to your question. I will try to find out, however.

KingGorilla wrote:

Prop 6 above all has my irish up. Much of the funding is federal and Canadian, it is creating jobs and will create permanent jobs. The current bridge system to Canada is crumbling. The current bridge is privately owned, and very poorly maintained. Having an additional bridge would ease cross border traffic (waits can be hours long). But opponents are characterizing it as taking money from state general funds that might otherwise go to teachers and police budgets. That is a lie at worse, or a gross misrepresentation of tax allocation at best.

From what I understand, all of the funding for the bridge would be Canadian, and the current owner is outright lying about it costing Michigan anything in an effort to maintain his monopoly.

I think a philosophical argument could be made about whether a government should have the right to encroach on a private enterprise's business - ostensibly, the existing bridge would be less profitable - but I would counter that infrastructure like bridges fit squarely into the role that government should be providing. Either way, the arguments currently being made by the anti-bridge folks seem to be squarely designed to maintain Moroun's monopoly.

Edwin wrote:
The Stranger Newspaper wrote:

You're going to hear plenty of half-baked reasons to vote against I-502.

Cue the Beavis and Butthead laugh.

I find is sad that to this day Alabama citizens can't get it inside their heads to remove all the racist references in their State Constitution...why any minority sets foot in that state is a completely mystery.. more so the hypocrisy of their football program..

One proposal for amendment to the Illinois constitution:

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 1970
ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION
Explanation of Amendment
Upon approval by the voters, the proposed amendment, which
takes effect on January 9, 2013, adds a new section to the
General Provisions Article of the Illinois Constitution. The new
section would require a three-fifths majority vote of each
chamber of the General Assembly, or the governing body of a
unit of local government, school district, or pension or
retirement system, in order to increase a benefit under any
public pension or retirement system. At the general election to
be held on November 6, 2012, you will be called upon to
decide whether the proposed amendment should become part
of the Illinois Constitution.

There are a lot of complaints about the expense of pensions in Illinois. Some of it valid, some of it not. Before anyone jumps on the idea that this is a blame the teachers and firefighters amendment, remember that this is Illinois. There are plenty of well-publicized individual cases of people getting fat pensions that a rational third party would say are in no way deserved because of cronyism and corruption. I haven't researched this enough yet.

There is another that probably isn't state-wide. There were people at my library gathering signatures for something just like it to get on the ballot.

ADVISORY PUBLIC QUESTION
Should the United States Constitution be amended to limit the
use of corporate, special interest, and private money in any
political activity, including influencing the election of any
candidate for public office?

TheGameguru wrote:

I find is sad that to this day Alabama citizens can't get it inside their heads to remove all the racist references in their State Constitution...why any minority sets foot in that state is a completely mystery.. more so the hypocrisy of their football program..

Here's the tricky part.

On Tuesday, Alabama voters will decide whether to strip language from the state's governing document that calls for poll taxes and separate schools for "white and colored."

...
The problem with the amendment, Reed says, is that it would reinstate language added just after Brown v. Board of Education that was later struck down by the courts.

That language, added as Amendment 111, declares "nothing in this constitution shall be construed as creating or recognizing any right to education or training at public expense." At the time, it was intended to supersede the Alabama Constitution's original guarantee that the "legislature shall establish, organize and maintain a liberal system of public schools."

...

The dispute underscores Alabama's complicated and unwieldy constitution. With more than 850 amendments, it's among the longest in the world. The charter was created in 1901 to disenfranchise blacks and poor whites, centralize power and make it really hard to raise taxes.

This latest amendment has split constitutional reform advocates. One, historian Wayne Flynt, a professor emeritus at Auburn University, says the focus in Alabama should not be on outdated racist words but on the underlying policy. He doesn't buy the argument that the language is a "horrible embarrassment" to the state.

"I am just astounded at everybody getting all exercised over the wording of the original document in 1901, that we have a segregated school system and poll taxes and all that," Flynt says.

It would be a much greater embarrassment, he says, to have to tell foreign investors, "Oh, by the way, we don't guarantee your children a right to a public education in Alabama."

So, basically, I can either vote to leave racist language in the state constitution or I can vote to eliminate the stated right to an education. Yay for bad choices!

Phoenix Rev wrote:

One proposition that did not make the ballot was a referendum by the AZ Legislature to withdraw the voter approved minimum wage law. A local, reputable polling agency said the measure only had 9% support, so the Legislature decided not to pursue it. Thank God. The minimum wage law in Arizona is more generous than the federal wage and is indexed for inflation. The stories of how this would destroy Arizona were unfounded and was approved by voters by a 2-1 margin in 2008.

Sometimes I think the people proposing the removal of minimum wage laws actually don't want them gone, because their "support" is so detrimental and ignorant of the real issues. I guess Arizona teens will continue to be unemployed at staggeringly high rates.

Kehama wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

I find is sad that to this day Alabama citizens can't get it inside their heads to remove all the racist references in their State Constitution...why any minority sets foot in that state is a completely mystery.. more so the hypocrisy of their football program..

Here's the tricky part.

On Tuesday, Alabama voters will decide whether to strip language from the state's governing document that calls for poll taxes and separate schools for "white and colored."

...
The problem with the amendment, Reed says, is that it would reinstate language added just after Brown v. Board of Education that was later struck down by the courts.

That language, added as Amendment 111, declares "nothing in this constitution shall be construed as creating or recognizing any right to education or training at public expense." At the time, it was intended to supersede the Alabama Constitution's original guarantee that the "legislature shall establish, organize and maintain a liberal system of public schools."

...

The dispute underscores Alabama's complicated and unwieldy constitution. With more than 850 amendments, it's among the longest in the world. The charter was created in 1901 to disenfranchise blacks and poor whites, centralize power and make it really hard to raise taxes.

This latest amendment has split constitutional reform advocates. One, historian Wayne Flynt, a professor emeritus at Auburn University, says the focus in Alabama should not be on outdated racist words but on the underlying policy. He doesn't buy the argument that the language is a "horrible embarrassment" to the state.

"I am just astounded at everybody getting all exercised over the wording of the original document in 1901, that we have a segregated school system and poll taxes and all that," Flynt says.

It would be a much greater embarrassment, he says, to have to tell foreign investors, "Oh, by the way, we don't guarantee your children a right to a public education in Alabama."

So, basically, I can either vote to leave racist language in the state constitution or I can vote to eliminate the stated right to an education. Yay for bad choices!

I'm pretty sure that if there was a will they could fix this whole thing.. I mean really? claiming thats the reason is exactly what I would expect from this state and their citizens.

The way it's set up, the amendment in question is not currently active because the segregationist language in it was ruled unconstitutional. If the language is stripped out, the amendment is no longer unconstitutional, so the remaining parts could become active. The lack of a guarantee for education would hopefully be addressed if a situation came up, but until it's addressed it could cause some pretty major problems. The new amendment is taking out the segregation language references to poll taxes, so why didn't they fix the education rights language while they were at it? It would have been much better if they had anticipated it and had the new amendment completely re-write the old one, instead of just taking out specific parts.

As messed up as it is. Long term I see Alabama doing this as a good thing. As more and more states and municipalities demonstrate that they are unable or unfit to educate their citizens, it lends power to a more sweeping national education program. We need such a program in order to become competitive internationally on education again.

TheGameguru wrote:
Kehama wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

I find is sad that to this day Alabama citizens can't get it inside their heads to remove all the racist references in their State Constitution...why any minority sets foot in that state is a completely mystery.. more so the hypocrisy of their football program..

Here's the tricky part.

On Tuesday, Alabama voters will decide whether to strip language from the state's governing document that calls for poll taxes and separate schools for "white and colored."

...
The problem with the amendment, Reed says, is that it would reinstate language added just after Brown v. Board of Education that was later struck down by the courts.

That language, added as Amendment 111, declares "nothing in this constitution shall be construed as creating or recognizing any right to education or training at public expense." At the time, it was intended to supersede the Alabama Constitution's original guarantee that the "legislature shall establish, organize and maintain a liberal system of public schools."

...

The dispute underscores Alabama's complicated and unwieldy constitution. With more than 850 amendments, it's among the longest in the world. The charter was created in 1901 to disenfranchise blacks and poor whites, centralize power and make it really hard to raise taxes.

This latest amendment has split constitutional reform advocates. One, historian Wayne Flynt, a professor emeritus at Auburn University, says the focus in Alabama should not be on outdated racist words but on the underlying policy. He doesn't buy the argument that the language is a "horrible embarrassment" to the state.

"I am just astounded at everybody getting all exercised over the wording of the original document in 1901, that we have a segregated school system and poll taxes and all that," Flynt says.

It would be a much greater embarrassment, he says, to have to tell foreign investors, "Oh, by the way, we don't guarantee your children a right to a public education in Alabama."

So, basically, I can either vote to leave racist language in the state constitution or I can vote to eliminate the stated right to an education. Yay for bad choices!

I'm pretty sure that if there was a will they could fix this whole thing.. I mean really? claiming thats the reason is exactly what I would expect from this state and their citizens.

One of my complaints about the South is that the sense of community often doesn't seem to extend outside of neighborhood or church groups. People will be the warmest most giving group of people as long as they see you on a regular basis. But somebody who lives in a city ten miles down the road might as well live in Warnambool when it comes to legislation. This usually leads to a sense of disinterest and fatalism when it comes to statewide affairs. Maybe it gets a little better in Alabama in the next few years since the state government has revealed to everyone what a Katamari Damancy of idiots it actually is, but I won't hold my breath.

KingGorilla wrote:

As more and more states and municipalities demonstrate that they are unable or unfit to educate their citizens, it lends power to a more sweeping national education program. We need such a program in order to become competitive internationally on education again.

No we don't. National anything tends to over spend and under deliver for what it costs. Besides, what we need to compete internationally in education is parents who care and you can't legislate that.

Kehama wrote:

So, basically, I can either vote to leave racist language in the state constitution or I can vote to eliminate the stated right to an education. Yay for bad choices!

Or - and this is a radical idea - there could be a third option.

Seriously, I love it when people try to act like a piece of paper's sacred nature somehow trumps obvious avenues of logic and decency.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Kehama wrote:

So, basically, I can either vote to leave racist language in the state constitution or I can vote to eliminate the stated right to an education. Yay for bad choices!

Or - and this is a radical idea - there could be a third option.

Seriously, I love it when people try to act like a piece of paper's sacred nature somehow trumps obvious avenues of logic and decency.

It's a yes/no vote. I suppose not voting could be considered a third option, but it's effectively the same as a "no" vote.

kazooka wrote:

Maybe it gets a little better in Alabama in the next few years since the state government has revealed to everyone what a Katamari Damancy of idiots it actually is, but I won't hold my breath.

I can almost guarantee that's not going to happen. Even when the state government goes completely off the rails most people around here don't seem to care. At least not to the point of doing something about it. As long as they like the governor and he's a "good Christian man" then everything can be forgiven. I mean, heck, Jefferson county had the largest municipal bankruptcy in history due to mismanagement on an epic scale and most people that live in that county tended to just shrug and go on about their business with the occasional grumble about having to pay a few bucks more on their utility bills.

Kehama wrote:
kazooka wrote:

Maybe it gets a little better in Alabama in the next few years since the state government has revealed to everyone what a Katamari Damancy of idiots it actually is, but I won't hold my breath.

I can almost guarantee that's not going to happen. Even when the state government goes completely off the rails most people around here don't seem to care. At least not to the point of doing something about it. As long as they like the governor and he's a "good Christian man" then everything can be forgiven. I mean, heck, Jefferson county had the largest municipal bankruptcy in history due to mismanagement on an epic scale and most people that live in that county tended to just shrug and go on about their business with the occasional grumble about having to pay a few bucks more on their utility bills.

As long as the federal guvmint isn't trying to steal my hard-earned wages with their tax-and-spend policies?