#2024 Ballot Measures and Referendums

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Alex Samuels at Daily Kos:

Missouri Republicans moved on Wednesday to undo an abortion-rights amendment that the state’s voters backed just six months ago.  The GOP-led state Senate approved a new ballot referendum that would ban abortion, with few exceptions. Abortions for medical emergencies and fatal fetal abnormalities would be permitted, and survivors of rape and incest would be allowed to get an abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy as long as the assault is reported to the police within 48 hours. The Republican-led state House passed the referendum last month. That means the new ballot measure is expected to hit the ballot in November 2026, unless Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe calls a special election to speed things up. It wasn’t just voters that Republicans overrode, though. They also steamrolled their Democratic colleagues, using obscure procedural tricks to silence debate and ram the measure through without meaningful input from dissenting lawmakers. The power play didn’t stop there. With Democrats effectively muted, Republicans passed another measure gutting a separate voter-approved law that had guaranteed paid sick leave and minimum wage increases tied to the cost of living. That rollback doesn’t go to the voters—it becomes law as soon as the governor signs it. 

Then, with their work of dismantling voter-backed policies done, Republicans adjourned the legislative session early, bailing before the official deadline. They could’ve stayed and kept working for two more days. Instead, they ducked out, avoiding the public backlash they knew was coming.

[...] This kind of move sets a dangerous precedent. It suggests Missouri Republicans are willing to respect the will of the people only when they’re confident voters will choose what President Donald Trump and the GOP want. But when the public pushes back or reveals just how out-of-step Republican policies are, the party will rewrite the rules. 

The Missouri GOP doesn’t give a fuck about what the people want, as they approved a referendum to repeal their abortion rights law passed at the ballot box last November and to gut guaranteed paid sick leave.

Hope every last one of the elephant terrorists are voted out!

[probablyasocialecologist]

Americans in 10 US states voted on Tuesday on whether to enshrine the right to abortion into their state constitutions. In a major victory, Missouri voted to amend its state constitution to protect abortion rights – a move that sets the state up to become the first since the fall of Roe v Wade to overturn its near-total abortion ban. So too did voters in the swing state of Arizona, which approved a ballot measure that would establish a fundamental right to abortion and prohibit the state from restricting or banning abortion before 24 weeks – a victory for activists who sought to expand access beyond 15 weeks. Similar decisions in Montana – which enshrined a 1999 state supreme court ruling that said the constitutional right to privacy protects the right to a pre-viability abortion by a provider of the patient’s choice – and in Nevada, a presidential battleground state, added to the list of major wins for abortion rights supporters. Colorado, New York and Maryland also all passed measures to amend their state constitutions to protect abortion rights and cement the blue states’ status as abortion havens. However, in Florida, an effort to roll back a six-week ban fell short, as did another effort to expand protections in Nebraska. Before Tuesday, seven states had held abortion-related ballot referendums, and abortion rights supporters won all of them before Florida broke their streak. The results of Tuesday’s measures will not be the final word; states that vote to overturn bans will see litigation or legislation before those bans are repealed. But taken together, the results will indicate how potent the issue remains after two years without Roe. Results began rolling in with the announcement from Florida, but it could take days for a complete tally of all of the votes.

6 November 2024

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive (Daily updates!)

By Laura Weiss

The Biden administration cut pandemic-era health benefits, and the Harris campaign failed to present any comprehensive health care reform policies. This was not an inspiring message for voters

In a week of hand-wringing and finger-pointing over what Democrats might have done differently in this year’s presidential election, one big topic has been absent from the conversation: Health care reform and public health. It’s a surprising omission given how 2020 was largely a referendum on pandemic response—a referendum Trump failed. The issue remains highly salient: At least eight in 10 voters said it was “very important” for the 2024 presidential candidates to talk about the affordability of health care.

But beyond Harris’s promise to maintain the Affordable Care Act and introduce some moderate reforms to drug pricing and medical debt, the issue felt like an afterthought. As of October, two-thirds of U.S. adults said they didn’t think the presidential campaigns were paying enough attention to health care.

The issues of health care and the Covid-19 pandemic are still front of mind to large swaths of voters and, in some ways, inextricable. President Biden owed his 2020 win in part due to his promise that he would do better than his predecessor in handling the pandemic; that unlike Trump, he would “follow the science.” And at first, he did. But once it became clear that new variants would arise and vaccines would not prevent all Covid cases—though they did limit hospitalizations and deaths—the Biden administration went way off course. Rather than following the science and ramping up rapid-test production, covering testing and new vaccines, and upholding commonsense safety measures like masking in health care, his Covid czar, a corporate executive, chose to pretend Covid was a thing of the past.

As new variants surged, Biden followed directives from consultants, corporations, and vibes. The Democrats’ current Covid-19 prevention playbook barely differs from that of Republicans, even though the World Health Organization has said this year that we are still in a pandemic.

But the Biden administration did not just stumble in following the science, it also lost its way in terms of capitalizing on its own successful policies, which taught broad lessons in the value of breaking from a broken health care status quo. Since Biden declared the end of the state of emergency in May 2023, tens of millions have lost benefits that they had gained in 2020—including Medicaid expansion, paid sick leave, increased unemployment benefits, and coverage for Covid testing and vaccines. Losing these benefits while inflation soared, income stagnated, and poverty increased certainly played a role at the ballot box.

“Pandemic social programs enjoyed broad support,” said Dr. Lucky Tran, a public health and science communicator based in New York. “However, when countries like the U.S. declared the end of the public health emergency, these programs were allowed to expire, despite Covid continuing to surge throughout the year and the long-term impacts on people’s health and economic well-being.”

Both campaigns seemed to view discussing Covid-19 itself as a “toxic” political issue, as Tran put it, but the Biden administration’s public health failings certainly didn’t help the cause of the Democrats, who had come into office promising a different approach. Disabled and immunocompromised people—who constitute a quarter of the population—feel betrayed by an administration unwilling to protect them.

The expansion of the social safety net that came with the pandemic—which included Medicaid expansion, unemployment benefits, child tax credits, rent freezes, and paid sick leave—was undoubtedly popular. As it happened, voters cut across partisan assumptions in three red states (Alaska, Missouri, and Nebraska) to vote to increase sick leave benefits. Trump has promised not to cut Medicaid, though it never pays to trust him. During his last administration, he cut funding to programs that helped users navigate the complicated ACA system as well as ad spending.

During the state of emergency, some 23 million Americans gained health care coverage through Medicaid, thanks to a provision that halted Medicaid disenrollments. Typically, Medicaid enrollees have to prove their eligibility every year or their coverage will be removed; that means going through an onerous process involving forms, income verification, and bureaucracy in order to prove their income is low enough to grant them Medicaid. Medicaid eligibility was also expanded in several states during that time and its coverage was broadened to include things that made health care more accessible, like telehealth. The end of the state of emergency meant the end of the Medicaid disenrollment provision, and since then those tens of millions who gained coverage have lost it.

As Bryce Covert put it in The New York Times last March, “The message received is that the government could have done these things all along but had chosen not to—and has chosen once again to withdraw that kind of security.”

Jeff Reese, a bartender in Colorado, was one of the millions of people who lost Medicaid under Biden: “The Covid measures to help get us through, such as expanded Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, were critical in getting me through the early part of Covid,” he told me. “Having access to health care was really good since I’m now in my fifties. I did have some preexisting conditions diagnosed, and I started treating and monitoring them, adopted a plant-based diet, and generally was able to improve my health.”

When the Covid emergency was declared over, he lost his coverage. This February, Reese suffered a serious e-bike accident that put him in the hospital for weeks, and he had to turn to GoFundMe to pay for intensive physical therapy. He says now that he owes $100,000 in medical bills, which he negotiated down from almost half a million with the hospital. He hasn’t been able to find an ACA plan that works for him yet, so he remains uninsured.

Though he begrudgingly voted for Harris in the election, many of his peers did not. “I haven’t been too keen on [the Democrats’] ability to see to my interests for a while,” he said. Reese said that he would have felt more enthusiastic in his vote had the Democrats presented a more comprehensive plan on health care. He said it was Barack Obama mentioning single-payer health care during his campaign that led him to vote Democrat for the first time after voting third party since 1992. According to a Gallup poll, a majority of Americans think the government should ensure that everyone has health care coverage.

To the extent that Harris addressed health care, it was largely to voice support for abortion rights or highlight Trump’s threats to unravel the ACA. In October, Harris ran some ads on health care and talked up her efforts to lower prescription drug costs. In a town hall on Univision, Harris faced criticism when answering a question from a Latina voter, Martha, about her problems qualifying for disability despite her debilitating long-Covid symptoms. Harris responded by talking about her support for medical debt relief, sidestepping the crux of the question.

Meanwhile, disability claims jumped by over a million between 2020 and 2023, largely attributable to long Covid, according to the Center for American Progress. Martha, who was left homeless and uninsured due to her struggles with long Covid, and who referenced “Make America great again” in her question, did not seem satisfied by Harris’s response.

At the last minute, Harris added expanding Medicare to cover some home care and addressing the high costs of ambulance rides, into her platform. But it was too little, too late. (Notably, Harris backed Medicare for All during her 2020 campaign.)

“I think the result of elections around the world have shown that ‘back to normal’ messaging was ineffective, with many incumbent governments losing office in large part due to a failure in acknowledging people’s pain and providing real plans to help people in the long term,” said Tran.

Trump’s brand of economic populism appealed to voters who are hoping for something different. But if things were already bad when it comes to health care, public health agencies, and health research, they are bound to get worse over the next four years.

“A second Trump presidency will erode essential public health and health care infrastructure, increase distrust in science and public health, and will put many people at greater risk of death and serious illness,” Tran warned.

Though Trump is no longer saying he necessarily wants to repeal the ACA—and is in fact now taking credit for “saving” it (um, OK), he can still do a ton of damage to this important health insurance program. For example, Democrats are worried about a looming expiration to ACA deductible subsidies, which make coverage possible for many, and fewer protections for people with preexisting conditions (that is to say: most people) who could not get health care before Obamacare outside of employer-sponsored plans.

Beyond that, Trump says he’ll let Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “go wild on health” and plans to give him a high-level Cabinet role, perhaps leading the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy, who has zero health experience (and who once suffered from a literal brain worm) is a notorious anti-vaxxer—so much so that his views got him kicked off Facebook. An HHS under his watch would surely limit access to vaccines, leading to outbreaks of diseases we thought we left behind in the twentieth century. Even if he is unable to outright ban vaccines, his efforts would surely stigmatize and discourage them. In a time when we still need a durable, variant-proof Covid vaccine and bird flu threatens to become a new pandemic, the outcome will be devastating.

“All of the policies which make the U.S. more vulnerable to Covid will also make the U.S. less prepared for future pandemic threats like bird flu because to prevent them we need health agencies that are competent, objective, and transparent; wide access to prevention and treatment tools; and strong trust in science and public health information, all of which will be under attack by the new administration,” said Tran.

Kennedy has also pledged to cut funding to the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, and National Institutes of Health, which means more public health disruptions such as listeria outbreaks, as well as inaccurate or absent public messaging about current and future diseases, and less funding for biomedical research to help us understand and treat diseases affecting millions of Americans.

Some of the NIH’s biomedical research is going into things like long Covid, which affects some 20 million Americans and counting, as people are repeatedly reinfected. After a wobbly start, this research was finally showing promising signs under new NIH leadership and a $515 million grant, as I wrote a few weeks ago. We can probably wave goodbye to any further funding at the federal level.

Meighan Stone, who leads the Long Covid Campaign, says it’s critical to allocate NIH funding for Covid research as quickly as possible, before Trump takes office. “[Long Covid] is impacting force-readiness for the military, it is impacting the number of Americans who are having to apply for disability, it is affecting the economic strength of the United States,” she told me last month. “This is a significant public health issue, and it’s growing. We’re getting to the level of disease burden of other concerns like strokes, heart attacks, cancer,” she continued. “This is not a red state or blue state problem, this is a problem that’s impacting all Americans.”

It is clear that health care reform is urgently needed in this country, as numerous attempts in previous campaigns have attested. Democrats and Republicans alike take the blame for empowering insurance companies to call the shots and set the prices for this basic human right. As millions lost the pandemic-era health care benefits that provided much-needed immediate assistance, as well as pointing to the potential of a better future, the two parties—having staked out meaningful differences with one another—ended up reconverging on their approach to public health. We may never know how many decided to stay home this election because they felt disaffected at the sight of their presidential candidates abandoning following science and sensible policy. Now we will all witness what it looks like to go from bad to far, far worse.

[zuko-always-lies]

One more thing for those who haven't voted yet. Your state and local governments probably have some referendum measures on the ballot. Check your sample ballot and look up what they are. You don't want to be ambushed by a confusing referendum measure when you go to vote and have no idea what you are voting on. Ballotpedia is great place to find info on referendum measures, at least for state-level ones.

[tomorrowusa]

Bad news and good news out of Ron DeSantis's Florida.

The Florida Supreme Court will allow a new 6-week abortion ban to take effect in May. BUT the court also approved a ballot initiative for November which would restore reproductive freedom in the state.

Floridians will be able to vote on abortion protections this fall, the state’s Supreme Court ruled Monday—a win celebrated by the state’s Democrats despite the court, in a separate case, also paving the way for a law to take effect that will ban all abortions after six weeks. That six-week abortion ban, passed by Florida’s Republican-majority legislature and signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis last year, will go into effect on May 1. That measure can be undone by voters come November, however. The court’s decision is expected to reverberate across Florida and the southeast. A privacy protection clause in the Florida constitution had allowed the Sunshine State to enjoy abortion access up to 15 weeks despite DeSantis being at the helm—access that women relied upon in nearby states like Alabama and Mississippi, where abortion is outright banned, and in Georgia and South Carolina, which have laws similar to Florida’s soon-to-be-active six-week ban.

DeSantis appointed most of the Florida Supreme Court justices. Another reason why we should pay more attention to state government – regardless of state.

Florida’s Supreme Court, which had five of its seven justices appointed by DeSantis, ruled in favor of the state on Monday, 6-1. Now, Florida women will often be barred from having an abortion before many realize they’re even pregnant.

The court approval of the upcoming referendum, actually a Florida constitution amendment called Amendment 4 on the 2024 ballot, was narrow.

That amendment, if it received at least 60 percent of votes in favor of it, would significantly protect abortion access in Florida. Its text reads, in part, that “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before fetal viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” Viability is estimated to be around six months of pregnancy. The Florida Supreme Court voted 4-3 in favor of approving the amendment to reach the ballot—a tight victory for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood, which has championed the proposed amendment.

60% is a relatively high bar. But Kansas, arguably more conservative than Florida, had an abortion referendum in 2022 in which the reproductive freedom side got 59.16% of the vote; the Kansas election required just a simple majority but the final result exceeded that by almost 10%.

The necessary 60% for the Florida reproductive freedom amendment required in Florida won't be a cake walk but it is quite doable.

As many as 11 states could have reproductive freedom on the ballot as referendums this year.

Where abortion rights could be on the ballot this fall

^^^ Just to clarify: New York already offers strong reproductive legal protections. The upcoming referendum, if passed, would place freedom of choice into the NY constitution. It doesn't get more secure than that in state law.

[harriswalz4usabybr]

Monday, October 21, 2024 - Kamala Harris

The Vice President, Governor Kelly, and Secretary Haaland headed to the cornhusker state to do some campaigning. The 'official' schedule is below.

Omaha, NE (Event #1) Event Location: University of Nebraska Omaha Event Type: Get Out the Vote Event Time: 8:00 - 11:00 CT *The campaign launched a Get Out the Vote initiative on-campus at the University of Nebraska Omaha. Governor Laura Kelly met with some faculty members, while Deb Haaland and the Vice President met with various student groups. Some social media ambassadors were recruited to help us raise awareness for the down ballot races and ballot measures in the state of Nebraska. Our stance on the ballot initiatives are below.

Omaha, NE (Event #2) Event Location: Biaggi's Ristorante Italiano Event Type: Lunch with Local Democrats Event Time: 12:30 - 15:00 CT *We invited some local democrats from across the state to join the campaign for lunch. This was just a session for us to discuss the issues going on in Nebraska and how democratic policies are being discouraged due to republicans in the state.

Lincoln, NE Event Location: Pinnacle Bank Arena Event Type: Campaign Rally Event Time: 18:00 - 21:00 CT *Full-text of this speech will be released shortly.

Nebraska Initiative 434 Vote: No Reason: This amendment would place significant restrictions on abortion, limiting reproductive freedom in Nebraska. We urge a "no" vote to protect women’s health, privacy, and their right to make personal medical decisions free from government interference.

Nebraska Initiative 436 Vote: Yes Reason: Supporting earned sick leave is a basic step toward a healthier workforce and safer workplaces. Approving this initiative will help ensure that Nebraska employees are able to care for themselves or loved ones without risking their jobs or financial security.

Nebraska Initiative 437 Vote: Yes Reason: Legalizing medical marijuana is about providing relief to Nebraskans suffering from chronic conditions. This measure allows qualified patients access to safe, regulated medicinal marijuana under medical guidance, offering new hope to patients in need.

Nebraska Initiative 438 Vote: Yes Reason: Expanding medical marijuana through regulated legalization supports patients while ensuring safety standards. By establishing the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, this initiative would ensure that patients get safe, quality products while supporting responsible business practices.

Nebraska Initiative 439 Vote: Yes Reason: This amendment would safeguard reproductive rights by establishing a state constitutional right to abortion until fetal viability. A "yes" vote upholds a woman's right to make personal healthcare choices, aligning with our stance to protect and expand women’s rights. We urge you to make this "yes" vote!

Nebraska Referendum 435 Vote: No Reason: A "yes" vote would pull taxpayer money from the public school system of Nebraska. Please keep money in public schools by voting "no" on this referendum.

~BR~

[cogitoergofun]

Conservatives are testing new tactics to keep abortion off the ballot following a series of high-profile defeats.

In Arizona, Florida, Nevada and other states, several anti-abortion groups are buying TV and digital ads, knocking on doors and holding events to persuade people against signing petitions to put the issue before voters in November.

Republicans are also appealing to state courts to keep referendums off the ballot, while GOP lawmakers in states including Missouri and Oklahoma are pushing to raise the threshold for an amendment to pass or to make it to the ballot in the first place.

The emerging strategy aims to prevent abortion rights groups from notching their third, and largest, set of ballot measure victories since Roe v. Wade was overturned. And while conservatives celebrated the fall of Roe for returning the question of abortion rights to the people, these efforts are seen as an implicit admission that anti-abortion groups don’t believe they can win at the ballot box — even in red states — and that the best way to keep restrictions on the procedure is to keep voters from weighing in directly.

The actions follow abortion-rights victories in Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio, and underscore abortion opponents fears’ that their monumental victory overturning Roe v. Wade is being undone one state at a time.

[...]

“What we have learned from this growing drumbeat of opposition to citizen-initiated ballot measures from elected officials is that they continue to innovate, they continue to get more creative at how they want to deny voters the opportunity to vote on these questions,” said Kelly Hall, executive director of the progressive ballot measure group the Fairness Project. “It’s a game of trying to stay one step ahead.”

[...]

Should these efforts fail, conservatives have other methods to stop the measures from making it to the ballot.

In Arkansas, the state’s Republican attorney general recently rejected the name and ballot title of a proposed constitutional amendment to restore abortion rights in the state up to 18 weeks after conception, saying it was misleading, contradictory and possibly redundant. And in Missouri, GOP state officials spent months challenging the wording of multiple competing abortion-rights amendments. Conservatives also fought to change the ballot language in both Michigan and Ohio, and succeeded in the latter, but amendments there still passed overwhelmingly.

In Missouri, Republican state officials also argued this summer that legalizing the now-banned procedure would cost the state billions of dollars each year because future taxpayers would be aborted. They lost in court but the delays will make it hard for abortion-rights groups to fundraise and collect the signatures they need.

“The timeline has absolutely impacted the interest of investors because they see how much more of a challenge it is on a limited timeline,” said Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Abortion Action Missouri. “They have lost in court four times in the past month, and they don’t care because their goal was to run out the clock.”

[...]

Lawmakers in other red states are eyeing changes to how justices on the state’s highest court are selected. It’s part of an effort to ensure state supreme courts rule favorably on abortion-related challenges, which could include legal challenges over ballot measures.

Oklahoma state Sen. David Bullard, a Republican, said the state Supreme Court’s recent decision to temporarily block several laws restricting abortion access while the legal challenge against them proceeds is fueling desire on the right to change the judicial selection process. He supports a proposal that would allow the governor to make nominations instead of a state-level judicial nominating committee.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Rob Rogers, TinyView.com

* * * *

HOW DOBBS IS SHAPING THE 2024 ELECTION

I like going back a few months to see how the experts were looking to where we are now.

Some months back, I watched MSNBC's Steve Kornacke with his "board" comparing winning margins in certain districts, mostly state legislative and congressional, over time. What he was reporting was that Democrats were improving their performance across the board by 5-10 percent, whether they won or lost. You'll note that here as well. This article is a few months old.

But a president's party usually takes a hit in his first midterm. And Biden's approval rating has been underwater for a long while. What gives? Has there been some overlooked event that made Wisconsin's Supreme Court race a blowout for the Democrats. Wisconsin is supposed to be 50/50. What about that Supreme Court race in Pennsylvania 10 days ago? Democrat won handily. BOTH these newly elected justices said they were pro-choice. Is THAT what gives?

KY Gov. Andy Beshear won against an unpopular incumbent governor in 2019 by 0.4%. After Dobbs, he won against Mitch McConnel's choice by 5.0%., running explicitly on choice. Is that the 5% Kornacke surmised about? Who can say for sure?

What this article tells us is that, looking ahead to future elections, we can either listen to the noise (TV, polls, social media) or watch the signals (election results). Sometimes there are unclear signals. But this is not "sometimes". As noted by one Democratic strategist in this article, "the rules have been rewritten, we don't know what they are."

"We're using old benchmarks to try to forecast going forward. And I think what we need to look at is less of the noise and more of signal," he said. "Right now, the noise is [what] you see on cable news, and it's people tweeting all day. The signal, what we should be looking for, are election results. That's what ultimately is telling the story."

Florida's Trumplicans are doing their best to keep any abortion referendum off the ballot. Despite their triumphalism in the wake of DeSantis's big win last year, they know that his 6-week ban (signed without the usual fanfare) has 4 million women mighty anxious. My sense, based on what we've seen since Dobbs, is that whether the referendum is on the ballot or not, Biden should pick up votes in Florida. A switch of 1.7% from 2020 wins Florida for him. If the referendum DOES get on the ballot, we'll know exactly what impact abortion feelings played by comparing its yes votes to Biden votes. Even if the measure does not meet a 60% threshold, and it gets, let's say, 55%, I can't see those voters negating that vote by selecting Trump who himself bragged about ending Roe.

And something similar is happening in Arizona. And, in Nevada's effort to enshrine their right with a constitutional amendment. Just compare the Biden vote to the abortion referendum votes IF they get on the ballot. The major obstacle, it appears, will be whether the state courts put the kibosh on these efforts. Even if they do, Biden is likely to be their proxy vote. Still, especially in Florida, abortion advocates are hard at work, and if they get their chance to vote on the issue, the 60% threshold is likely to be less of an obstacle and more of a challenge to get women and their supporters out to vote. That's good news for Team Blue.

[ABC News via Steven Jennings]

[gornwen]

If you're only voting every two years you're doing it wrong.

Vote in every election every time. That's not the only thing you should be doing, but the bare minimum. That's where you start.

For example, we had a referendum here in Chicago to vote to raise taxes on property sales over 1 million dollars. Doing so would raise money to combat homelessness and decrease taxes on sales of property under 1 million. It was defeated by 15,398 votes. 297,217 people voted in the Democratic primary this past March, 2024. 554,421 people voted in the Democratic primary in 2020. That's a difference of 257,204 votes. If 53% percent of those people who stayed home voted in favor of the measure, it would have passed.

Instead, about half the people who voted in the 2020 Democratic primary chose to stay home because they thought like you. Because they are frustrated with the system, especially at the presidential level. (I mean, valid, but that is such a small part of the ballot.) Because they didn't see it worth their time. They didn't think it was punk.

I dunno, but personally, I think turning out to vote to raise taxes and bring your houseless neighbors home is pretty rebellious.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jason Rosenbaum at STLPR, via NPR:

ST. LOUIS — Five states have banned ranked choice voting in the last two months, bringing the total number of Republican-leaning states now prohibiting the voting method to 10. Missouri could soon join them. If approved by voters, a GOP-backed measure set for the state ballot this fall would amend Missouri’s constitution to ban ranked choice voting. Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank candidates and ensures the winner gains majority support, as compared to the vast majority of elections, where someone can win with a plurality of votes. “We believe in the one person, one vote system of elections that our country was founded upon,” Missouri state Sen. Ben Brown, the ballot measure’s sponsor, said in an interview. In the 2022 election cycle, a group of Republicans and Democrats unsuccessfully sought to advance a ranked choice voting proposal in Missouri. That would have instituted nonpartisan primaries for statewide, congressional and state legislative elections. The top four candidates would advance to the general election, where voters could then rank candidates from favorite to least favorite. If someone gets a majority of initial votes, they win. If no one gets a majority, the fourth place contender would be eliminated. And voters who ranked that candidate first would have their vote go to their second choice. This process would continue until a candidate gets a majority.

The Republican war on ranked-choice voting, including in Missouri, is an attack on democracy, as red states have passed preemption laws banning municipalities and counties from enacting RCV.

[reasonsforhope]

"For the first time in almost 60 years, a state has formally overturned a so-called “right to work” law, clearing the way for workers to organize new union locals, collectively bargain, and make their voices heard at election time.

This week, Michigan finalized the process of eliminating a decade-old “right to work” law, which began with the shift in control of the state legislature from anti-union Republicans to pro-union Democrats following the 2022 election. “This moment has been decades in the making,” declared Michigan AFL-CIO President Ron Bieber. “By standing up and taking their power back, at the ballot box and in the workplace, workers have made it clear Michigan is and always will be the beating heart of the modern American labor movement.”

[Note: The article doesn't actually explain it, so anyway, "right to work" laws are powerful and deceptively named pieces of anti-union legislation. What right to work laws do is ban "union shops," or companies where every worker that benefits from a union is required to pay dues to the union. Right-to-work laws really undermine the leverage and especially the funding of unions, by letting non-union members receive most of the benefits of a union without helping sustain them. Sources: x, x, x, x]

In addition to formally scrapping the anti-labor law on Tuesday [February 13, 2024], Michigan also restored prevailing-wage protections for construction workers, expanded collective bargaining rights for public school employees, and restored organizing rights for graduate student research assistants at the state’s public colleges and universities. But even amid all of these wins for labor, it was the overturning of the “right to work” law that caught the attention of unions nationwide...

Now, the tide has begun to turn—beginning in a state with a rich labor history. And that’s got the attention of union activists and working-class people nationwide...

At a time when the labor movement is showing renewed vigor—and notching a string of high-profile victories, including last year’s successful strike by the United Auto Workers union against the Big Three carmakers, the historic UPS contract victory by the Teamsters, the SAG-AFTRA strike win in a struggle over abuses of AI technology in particular and the future of work in general, and the explosion of grassroots union organizing at workplaces across the country—the overturning of Michigan’s “right to work” law and the implementation of a sweeping pro-union agenda provides tangible evidence of how much has changed in recent years for workers and their unions...

By the mid-2010s, 27 states had “right to work” laws on the books.

But then, as a new generation of workers embraced “Fight for 15” organizing to raise wages, and campaigns to sign up workers at Starbucks and Amazon began to take off, the corporate-sponsored crusade to enact “right to work” measures stalled. New Hampshire’s legislature blocked a proposed “right to work” law in 2017 (and again in 2021), despite the fact that the measure was promoted by Republican Governor Chris Sununu. And in 2018, Missouri voters rejected a “right to work” referendum by a 67-33 margin.

Preventing anti-union legislation from being enacted and implemented is one thing, however. Actually overturning an existing law is something else altogether.

But that’s what happened in Michigan after 2022 voting saw the reelection of Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a labor ally, and—thanks to the overturning of gerrymandered legislative district maps that had favored the GOP—the election of Democratic majorities in the state House and state Senate. For the first time in four decades, the Democrats controlled all the major levers of power in Michigan, and they used them to implement a sweeping pro-labor agenda. That was a significant shift for Michigan, to be sure. But it was also an indication of what could be done in other states across the Great Lakes region, and nationwide.

“Michigan Democrats took full control of the state government for the first time in 40 years. They used that power to repeal the state’s ‘right to work’ law,” explained a delighted former US secretary of labor Robert Reich, who added, “This is why we have to show up for our state and local elections.”"

-via The Nation, February 16, 2024

[passionate-yelling]

I suppose it's an even more terrifying thing to imagine that Joe Biden has done the most heroic thing he possibly can in every instance since taking office... And we're HERE.

Welcome to the best of all possible worlds, sorry that it still fucking sucks. See you in 2024.

...

For the record, there is a way out. Not out of Biden's second term, not out of 2024. But work is being done to change the way the game is played, and you could help.

If you hate having to choose the lesser of two evils, Ranked Choice Voting is the answer you've been searching for. Some states are introducing ballot measures for it, hopefully we can support them. Other states have banned its use, let's try and overturn that. Most states haven't really thought about it. Let's make them think about it.

Learn how to start a ballot measure or referendum in your state. Try to introduce an open primary with Ranked Choice Voting in your state.

[zuko-always-lies]

One thing to be aware of this election is that there are a lot of referendums relating to abortion rights on the ballot.

[dahlbrendan]

Voters in 25 U.S. states can't back abortion in citizen-led ballot measures https://www.axios.com/2024/06/24/abortion-ballot-initiatives-referendums-vote

[warningsine]

Speaking at a surprise address to the nation on Sunday evening, French president Emmanuel Macron told French citizens he had “decided to give [them] back the choice of our parliamentary future through the vote”. These words, pronounced in reaction to the historic surge of the far-right National Rally at the European elections, triggered the dissolution of France’s parliament and snap elections on 30 June and 7 July. Clea Chakraverty of The Conversation France spoke to the French parliament specialist, Julien Robin, to understand what the decision could mean for French politics.

Clea Chakraverty: How can European results have such an impact on the French parliament?

Julien Robin: For a long time, the European vote was considered to be of “second order” – a term coined by political scientists Karlheinz Reif and Hermann Schmitt to describe the first European elections in 1979. These were elections that were not national, and in which voter turnout was often lower than in “first-order” elections.

However, since the 2014 European elections, voter turnout has been on the rise, at 42.43% – that’s 1.8 points higher than in 2009. This trend is confirmed by the 2024 ballot, which will have galvanised more voters than in 2019 (+2.5 points compared to the turnout of 50.12% in 2019). Turnout is now at its highest since the 1994 European elections.

Another element to have strengthened European elections is the 2019 reform of the voting system. Whereas deputies for the European elections in France were previously divided in eight regional electoral constituencies (see figure 1), the voting system now only comprises a single national constituency. This has allowed voters to better identify candidates as well as the issues at stake.

Above all, these elections have now become a referendum on Macron and an electoral springboard for political forces (notably the National Rally, the left-wing politician Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s France Unbowed, and even centrist Renaissance).

In recent days, we have been able to see the election take on a further national character through the format of television debates. Take, for example, the two-way debate between the far-right candidate Jordan Bardella and Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, on 24 May, or Macron’s proposal to debate Marine Le Pen as part of the European elections campaign. These events echo the presidential election of 2022, or even give a possible foretaste of that of 2027.

When was the last time the French parliament was dissolved, and what does it tell us about the current state of French politics?

The last dissolution dates back to 1997 and was triggered by President Jacques Chirac. His intention was to breathe new life into the presidential majority in the National Assembly, which had been weakened by the mass demonstrations against the 1995 pension reform and the 1997 deficit reduction plans. At the time, the majority in the National Assembly was not strictly that of President Chirac. It had emerged from the 1993 elections, two years before he was elected head of state. By attempting to galvanise voters at the ballot box, Chirac’s decision would ultimately lead to the advent of the plural left, with a government led by Lionel Jospin.

Politically, the context was thorny for Macron, with a minority government in the National Assembly. To force through unpopular measures, the government has therefore had to increasingly rely on bypassing parliament by invoking article 49.3. Meanwhile, there have been increasing rumours of no confidence votes. Not to mention the explosion in the number of political groups in the National Assembly, of which there are now ten, which make it tricky for the government to obtain stable majorities for the vote on bills.

We can see Macron’s decision to dissolve the national assembly as true to form. The president, after all, loves disruption. The move can be interpreted as a show of power, giving back the voice to voters in the form of legislative elections.

What’s at stake now at the National Assembly?

One issue observers will be watching will be whether parliament comes out of the June 2024 elections as fragmented as in June 2022. Back then, the parliament’s resulting division in ten parliamentary groups was unprecedented for the Fifth Republic. The new structure will have a real impact on work flow at the Assembly.

For the political groupings, there are several issues at stake:

on the left: these elections will determine the new balance of power between the various stakeholders in the New Ecological and Social People’s Union (NUPES), France’s left-wing electoral alliance created in 2022 including France Unbowed (LFI), the Socialist Party (PS), the Communist Party (PCF), the Greens and other small parties. Clouds have been hanging over the alliance after France Unbowed refused to qualify Hamas as a terrorist group in October 2023. The European elections have now shifted power from France Unbowed to the social democrats, which have been boosted to third place. The Greens, on the other hand, have lost considerable support. As soon as the results were announced, their candidate, Marie Toussaint, as well as other leftwing figures called for discussions on a joint list.

for the RN: while in a secret poll commissioned by the Republicans in December 2023, the RN was predicted to have a majority in the event of early general elections, the real issue is whether the RN will succeed in coming to power by obtaining a real majority in the National Assembly, which is necessary to obtain the government’s confidence. The RN’s exceptional result in the European elections (16 points ahead of the current majority) is a real springboard for these early elections.

for Renaissance: at a time when the question of the post-Macron era has arisen as soon as he is re-elected in 2022, Renaissance will have to consider its political positioning and, above all, the possibility of forming electoral alliances with Les Républicains at local level. This could be a foregone conclusion, since Stéphane Séjourné, as SG of Renaissance, announced this evening to AFP that the majority “will not present a candidate” against outgoing MPs “who are part of the Republican field”.

The issue is that in seven years, the presidential party has gone from having the largest majority in the National Assembly under the Vᵉ Republic in 2017, to a relative majority in 2022, and then a possible move into opposition.

In addition, the challenge for the Republicans is to see whether the party will still remain a real national political force, knowing that it has just achieved its worst score in a European election, and above all what position will be adopted in the event of the RN’s success in the next legislative elections.

Can the President’s decision to dissolve the National Assembly be seen as an admission of weakness? What could be the presidential party’s strategy?

Macron is both admitting his weakness and anticipating a likely no confidence vote – something that has been announced for months by certain groups in the Assembly. It is also a sign that President Macron will have experienced all the unprecedented situations under the Fifth Parliament: the largest majority, then a minority government and now a dissolution.

Is a cohabitation with the National Rally conceivable? Or could we even imagine a radical change to the French party system?

A cohabitation with the RN is conceivable, but we’ll have to see what happens after these early general elections. According to political scientists Bruno Jérome, Philippe Mongrain and Richard Nadeau, the French party system was in the process of quadripolarisation. The four blocs are the traditional left and right, as well as Macronian centrism and the RN. From now on, the European elections will settle the internal tensions within each bloc:

RN: Should it pursue a strategy of “normalisation” even if it means losing votes to Reconquête?

The right: With whom should it form a coalition (or at least come to an agreement), not only to survive politically, but also to maximise its influence in parliament?

The Macronist centre: How can it reinvent itself in a second term which sounds like the end of its reign?

The left (overall): Will the social-democratic (PS) or the radical (LFI) line dominate? Is there a third way with the emergence of the increasingly popular François Ruffin?

Never have the European elections had such an impact on French politics.

[harriswalz4usabybr]

Thursday, October 24, 2024

The Vice President and the Governor met up in Augusta, Georgia this morning with 3 campaign surrogates. Those surrogates were Stacey Abrams, Senator Rev. Raphael Warnock, and Senator Jon Ossify. This group spent their day in Augusta and Savannah hosting Meet and Greet events during meals and door knocking in various neighborhoods. Please see below the restaurants where meet and greet events were hosted and what areas were canvassed.

Meals: Breakfast -> New Moon Cafe Lunch -> Los Cabos Dinner -> Savannah Taphouse

Towns and Wichita Areas Canvased: Downtown Augusta Laney Walker Bethlehem Sand Hills Murray Hill Historic District Thomas Square Chatham Crescent *When the campaign was canvassing we were invested in raising awareness not just about the Harris-Walz campaign, but also down ballot races and ballot initiatives. See below for the Harris-Walz stance on the Georgia Ballot measures.

Georgia Amendment 1 Vote: Yes Reason: This amendment offers homeowners the option to lessen their property tax burden through a local homestead exemption, providing needed relief at the community level.

Georgia Amendment 2 Vote: Yes Reason: Creating a Georgia Tax Court enhances the judiciary by specializing tax dispute resolutions, making the judicial process more efficient for tax-related cases.

Georgia Referendum A Vote: Yes Reason: Increasing the personal property tax exemption for middle-class families from $7,500 to $20,000 reduces tax burdens and provides essential financial relief.

~BR~