Direct Democracy at Work
Friday October 31, 2008
Related: List of Ballot Initiatives Dealing with Civil Liberties Issues
Ballot initiatives give citizens a rare opportunity to make policy decisions themselves, but the fact that a policy is popular doesn't mean that it protects civil liberties. Quite often popular initiatives are the worst kind.
Consider, for example, the popularity of segregation laws among whites in the South during the civil rights era. If the civil rights movement had been decided by referendum rather than by "activist judges" and "big government," there would probably still be segregated restrooms in Mississippi and Alabama to this day.
Here are a few of the more prominent ballot initiatives voters will decide on Tuesday, along with my endorsements.
Arizona Proposition 100: Vote NO. Would approve a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, giving homophobes an opportunity to avenge the defeat of a similar amendment in 2006.
California Proposition 4: Vote NO. Would impose a 48-hour waiting period and parental notification requirements on minors seeking abortions. While the law claims to include exceptions for incest and abuse, there is no viable way to put these exceptions into practice.
California Proposition 5: Vote YES. Would reduce penalties, and increase treatment, for nonviolent drug offenders.
California Proposition 6: Vote NO. Would reduce civil rights protections for any undocumented immigrants arrested on felony charges, including revocation of bail. Mean-spirited and pointless.
California Proposition 8: Vote NO. Would amend the California state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Although early polls indicated that the amendment probably would not pass, it is now polling well thanks to a well-funded anti-gay smear campaign.
Colorado Amendment 48: Vote NO. Would amend the state constitution to say that life begins at the moment of conception (even before the blastocyst is implanted in the uterus), which would define abortion, emergency contraception, most birth control pills, intrauterine devices, and the rhythm method as instruments of homicide.
Connecticut Referendum on Constitutional Conventions: Vote NO. Every 20 years, under the terms of the state constitution, the State of Connecticut votes on whether to hold a constitutional convention. This was a good idea in 1968, when a convention was used to add a civil rights plank to the state constitution, but voters rejected the idea in 1988. This year, the referendum has political ramifications due to a recent decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage. While it's unlikely that the liberal state legislature would use a constitutional convention as an opportunity to ban same-sex marriage, homophobes are voting yes on this referendum in hopes of achieving that outcome.
Florida Amendment 2: Vote NO. Would amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and some private domestic partnership benefit plans in the state. Florida has already banned same-sex marriage four times, but homophobes in the home state of Anita Bryant are notoriously hard to please.
Louisiana SB 295: Vote NO. Would eliminate prohibitions on eminent domain seizure of private property deemed "blighted" (a subjective term usually applied to the homes and businesses of low-income residents), allowing the state government to socialize the private property of those who are not wealthy and transfer it into the hands of those who are.
Massachusetts Question 3: Vote YES. Would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Michigan Medical Marijuana Referendum: Vote YES. Would legalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Missouri Constitutional Amendment 1: Vote NO. Would ban the use of languages other than English in government meetings. If consistently enforced, this would essentially prohibit any serious discussion of law, which relies heavily on Latin terms and phrases (habeas corpus, quid pro quo, et. al.). But it won't be--in practice, the bill is a symbolic gesture of exclusion towards the state's Latino population.
Nevada Eminent Domain Amendment: Vote YES. Would limit the use of eminent domain in cases where ownership of property is merely transferred from one citizen or group to another, helping to protect the property rights of private citizens from wealthy corporations. Already passed (with 69%) in 2006, but constitutional amendments must pass two consecutive times in order to become law in Nevada.
Oregon Measures 57 and 61: Vote YES and NO, respectively. Would expand mandatory sentences for repeat offenders, including nonviolent offenders. Both measures are likely to pass, but the measure with the highest number of votes will become law, and Measure 61 is by far the worse of the two; as a practical matter, it makes sense to support Measure 57.
Oregon Measure 58: Would limit all students to two years of bilingual education, a not-so-subtle jab at the state's growing Latino population.
South Dakota Abortion Amendment: Vote NO. Would ban abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother; any doctor violating the law would face up to 10 years in prison.
Washington I-1000: Vote YES. Would legalize assisted suicide for the terminally ill.
Ballot initiatives give citizens a rare opportunity to make policy decisions themselves, but the fact that a policy is popular doesn't mean that it protects civil liberties. Quite often popular initiatives are the worst kind.
Consider, for example, the popularity of segregation laws among whites in the South during the civil rights era. If the civil rights movement had been decided by referendum rather than by "activist judges" and "big government," there would probably still be segregated restrooms in Mississippi and Alabama to this day.
Here are a few of the more prominent ballot initiatives voters will decide on Tuesday, along with my endorsements.
Arizona Proposition 100: Vote NO. Would approve a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, giving homophobes an opportunity to avenge the defeat of a similar amendment in 2006.
California Proposition 4: Vote NO. Would impose a 48-hour waiting period and parental notification requirements on minors seeking abortions. While the law claims to include exceptions for incest and abuse, there is no viable way to put these exceptions into practice.
California Proposition 5: Vote YES. Would reduce penalties, and increase treatment, for nonviolent drug offenders.
California Proposition 6: Vote NO. Would reduce civil rights protections for any undocumented immigrants arrested on felony charges, including revocation of bail. Mean-spirited and pointless.
California Proposition 8: Vote NO. Would amend the California state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Although early polls indicated that the amendment probably would not pass, it is now polling well thanks to a well-funded anti-gay smear campaign.
Colorado Amendment 48: Vote NO. Would amend the state constitution to say that life begins at the moment of conception (even before the blastocyst is implanted in the uterus), which would define abortion, emergency contraception, most birth control pills, intrauterine devices, and the rhythm method as instruments of homicide.
Connecticut Referendum on Constitutional Conventions: Vote NO. Every 20 years, under the terms of the state constitution, the State of Connecticut votes on whether to hold a constitutional convention. This was a good idea in 1968, when a convention was used to add a civil rights plank to the state constitution, but voters rejected the idea in 1988. This year, the referendum has political ramifications due to a recent decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage. While it's unlikely that the liberal state legislature would use a constitutional convention as an opportunity to ban same-sex marriage, homophobes are voting yes on this referendum in hopes of achieving that outcome.
Florida Amendment 2: Vote NO. Would amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and some private domestic partnership benefit plans in the state. Florida has already banned same-sex marriage four times, but homophobes in the home state of Anita Bryant are notoriously hard to please.
Louisiana SB 295: Vote NO. Would eliminate prohibitions on eminent domain seizure of private property deemed "blighted" (a subjective term usually applied to the homes and businesses of low-income residents), allowing the state government to socialize the private property of those who are not wealthy and transfer it into the hands of those who are.
Massachusetts Question 3: Vote YES. Would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Michigan Medical Marijuana Referendum: Vote YES. Would legalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Missouri Constitutional Amendment 1: Vote NO. Would ban the use of languages other than English in government meetings. If consistently enforced, this would essentially prohibit any serious discussion of law, which relies heavily on Latin terms and phrases (habeas corpus, quid pro quo, et. al.). But it won't be--in practice, the bill is a symbolic gesture of exclusion towards the state's Latino population.
Nevada Eminent Domain Amendment: Vote YES. Would limit the use of eminent domain in cases where ownership of property is merely transferred from one citizen or group to another, helping to protect the property rights of private citizens from wealthy corporations. Already passed (with 69%) in 2006, but constitutional amendments must pass two consecutive times in order to become law in Nevada.
Oregon Measures 57 and 61: Vote YES and NO, respectively. Would expand mandatory sentences for repeat offenders, including nonviolent offenders. Both measures are likely to pass, but the measure with the highest number of votes will become law, and Measure 61 is by far the worse of the two; as a practical matter, it makes sense to support Measure 57.
Oregon Measure 58: Would limit all students to two years of bilingual education, a not-so-subtle jab at the state's growing Latino population.
South Dakota Abortion Amendment: Vote NO. Would ban abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother; any doctor violating the law would face up to 10 years in prison.
Washington I-1000: Vote YES. Would legalize assisted suicide for the terminally ill.
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment