Propositions, Initiatives, Amendments, Referendums

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to remove certain provisions governing the Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education and its administration of the State University and certain federal land grant funds and to provide additional legislative oversight of public institutions of higher education through regular independent audits, without repealing the current statutory election process or other existing statutory provisions relating to the Board of Regents?

Reviewing the information provided by NV SoS, I think this has all the earmarks of an internal fight that has spilled into public view. That said, the question boils down to: do you want to amend the state constitution to remove language establishing a state university and how it is administered, devolving that power to the legislature?

Removing language from the constitution to give the power back to the legislature is something I would normally support. Yet, in this case, it involves the Board of Regents and the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE), which makes this difficult to judge. The arguments included by the NV SoS strongly suggest that funding and auditing of funding is part of the reason behind this question appearing on the ballot. The For argument also alludes to times when the Board has used its constitutional status to shield itself from the Legislature, even in court. Removing that status has to come from a ballot initiative, so, here we are.

The Against argument comes down to: we know there were problems with how the funds were managed because the legislature audited NSHE, so we don’t need to do this to get an audit. The Legislature has the power to shape the Board already, we know this because they changed both the size of the board and the length of the term members server. Moving this all the way to the Legislature opens up the possibility of no more elected boards, but appointed boards, injecting partisan politics deep into NSHE.

The Nevada Independent’s explanation of Question 1 offers insight into the history behind the measure. More importantly, it also explains that the incidents of the Board using its unique status against the Legislature refer to court cases in 1948 and 1981 – not exactly recent history. It also highlights something I missed in my initial review: the For argument never states why the current legislative oversight is insufficient.

I lean NO on all ballot questions by default. While I think the For argument makes a strong case in general, it’s not strong enough to make up for not being able to explain why 1) current Legislative oversight is insufficient and 2) how removing the Board of Regents entirely from the state constitution will resolve that. I will be voting NO on Question 1.

Question 2:

Shall Section 1 of Article 13 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to: (1) revise the description
of the persons who benefit from institutions that the State is required to foster and support;
(2) replace the term “institutions” with “entities”; and (3) add entities for the benefit of persons
with intellectual or developmental disabilities to the types of entities that the State is required to
foster and support?

Nevada became a state in 1864. If the most objectionable terms remaining in our oft-amended state constitution are “insane,” “blind,” and “deaf and dumb,” I’d be pleasantly surprised. Yet, none of the changes in this amendment will materially alter the care and services available for Nevadans. Revising these terms with their currently acceptable synonyms is a feel-good surface fix—one that will need to be revisited when the term “intellectual or developmental disabilities” becomes objectionable. Therefore, I will be voting NO on Question 2.

Question 3:

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow all Nevada voters the right to participate in
open primary elections to choose candidates for the general election in which all voters may then
rank the remaining candidates by preference for the offices of U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives,
Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Controller, Attorney
General, and State Legislators?

This is the same question that was on the ballot in 2022. Since this is a repeat, so is my response:

When the Nevada Democratic primary in 2020 allowed ranked choice voting, I found it easy to do and fairly intuitive. I also found it required me to think more about who I preferred and why, requiring me to dig more into candidates and their policies to help me make those choices. I do wonder, though, how easily others will adapt – ranked-choice voting hasn’t been as easy in practice as its supporters say, nor are the results quick enough to satisfy a 24-hour news cycle. And I do worry that the delay in reporting final results will spur Nevada’s homegrown MAGA contingent. What I don’t worry about is the argument that ranked-choice voting will lead to disenfranchisement. If someone votes, their vote will be counted. If they choose not to rank their choices and their preferred candidate doesn’t win, that doesn’t mean that they were disenfranchised, nor does it mean others got to vote multiple times. It means they left a section of the ballot blank.

On the other hand, the open primary proposal has me deeply concerned. I do not like the outcomes I’ve seen in the jurisdictions that opt for this system. It seems to lead to otherwise good candidates being excluded from the general (independent and third-party candidates), a lack of choices as the primary leads to multiple contenders from the same party (all-Democratic or all-Republican candidates), and little change to voter participation. I am not persuaded by the argument that closed primaries disenfranchise independent and third-party voters (the term “purity dildo” may or may not have been used concerning this), though I am absolutely willing to concede that closed-party primaries should not run by the state and local election authorities without compensation from the parties.

In the end, I’m voting NO on this question. I would love ranked choice voting, even at the loss of my beloved “None of the Above” option, and if this was separated from the open primary proposal, I would likely vote in favor of it. However, the changes to the primary system bring little benefit to Nevada voters.

Question 4:

Shall the Ordinance of the Nevada Constitution and the Nevada Constitution be amended to
remove language authorizing the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as a criminal
punishment?

Nevada is known as the Battle Born state because it became a state during the Civil War. Part of that includes explicitly declaring it was not a slave state. The state constitution declares, “Neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude unless for the punishment of crimes shall ever be tolerated in this State.[ emphasis added]” It’s that punishment part that’s at issue here. The full text of the proposed change leaves the remainder of the statement intact.

This amendment is not about striking out language that speaks to Nevada’s history from the state’s constitution but instead removing language that makes it easier to exploit prisoners for labor. As the argument against passage says, “However, this ballot question could lead to unintended consequences within the criminal justice system relating to prison work requirements, community service, and parole and probation.”

It, rightly, points out that this could impact everything from community service programs in place of jail time to work release to vocational training. Good. If the only reason that those programs exist is because of a provision allowing slavery and involuntary servitude as a punishment for crimes then those programs are clearly not focused on rehabilitation but instead are focused on exploiting prisoners as a source of indentured labor. Somehow, I expect that programs focused on providing alternatives to prison and education and vocational skills will survive the removal of this language from the state constitution without much of a hiccup. On the other hand, Prison Industries, aka Silver State Industries, may have to pay more than pennies an hour for prison labor. This is a YES vote for me.

Question 5:

Shall the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 be amended to provide an exemption from the taxes
imposed by this Act on the gross receipts from the sale and the storage, use or other consumption
of diapers?

I touched on this in 2018 when there was a proposal to exempt feminine hygiene products from state and local sales taxes. I think 2018 me was pretty smart and 2024 me agrees with her 100%.

Sales tax is regressive and disproportionately impacts lower-income families. The fact that a family could spend $1000 a year on diapers and have nearly 10% of that be sales tax is absolutely true. The sales tax rate in Clark County, Nevada is 8.325%. But that’s also true for nearly all non-food goods and services. Sales tax isn’t a tax that targets specific products or services, nor does it target specific populations. And while I sympathize with lower-income families that are unduly burdened by sales tax, I don’t find the argument to carve out an exception here any more compelling than I did six years ago, especially with an estimated fiscal loss of $7.9 million per year.

If this is truly based on a desire to help lower-income families afford necessities, then let’s tackle the sales tax itself. Until then, this is a NO vote for me.

Question 6:

Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to create an individual’s fundamental right to an
abortion, without interference by state or local governments, whenever the abortion is performed
by a qualified healthcare professional until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the health
or life of the pregnant individual at any point during the pregnancy?

One of the flaws of the amendment process is that it makes making changes to the state constitution a difficult and drawn-out process. Amendments must pass in two consecutive elections to be successful. This is round one for this amendment and I, for one, am here for it. I even appreciate that it doesn’t cede to the legislature the ability to define or limit abortion. This is a YES vote all the way.

Question 7:

Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to require voters to either present photo
identification to verify their identity when voting in-person or to provide certain personal
information to verify their identity when voting by mail ballot?

I will give credit to the framers of this amendment – the list of approved documents is rather long:

Voters who vote in-person at a polling place would need to show an ID that is current or that has not been expired for more than four years. If a voter is more than 70 years old, the identification could be expired for any length of time so long as it is otherwise valid.
The acceptable forms of identification include:

1. Nevada driver’s license.
2. Identification card issued by the State of Nevada, any other State, or the US
   Government.
3. Employee photo identification card issued by the US government, Nevada government, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other Nevada government entity.
4. US passport.
5. US military identification card.
6. Student photo identification card issued by a Nevada public college, university, or
   technical school.
7. Tribal photo identification.
8. Nevada concealed firearms permit.
9. Other form of government-issued photo identification that the Legislature may
   approve.

It even includes ceding modifications to the legislature in the future. However, this is rooted in the entire voter fraud scam perpetuated by people who want to sow doubt on the integrity of our elections. I’m disappointed because I know this will pass, but I won’t be helping that happen. This is a hard NO vote for me.

The Tally

For the tl;dr crowd, here’s the final tally:

• Question 1: NO
• Question 2: NO
• Question 3: NO
• Question 4: YES
• Question 5: NO
• Question 6: YES
• Question 7: NO

Happy Voting!

Nevada Ballot Initiatives 2024: My Voting Decisions

All four of these pieces of garbage have been horked up by a group led by the wealthy MAGAt hedge-fund manager Brian Heywood, (he’s reportedly spent 6 million dollars on this) so I’m not going to go into long detailed descriptions here.

Initiative #2066:

Rolls back regulations trying to make new houses be more energy efficient, like offering a rebate to use electrical appliances instead of natural gas.

I will vote NO.

Initiative #2109:

Repeals the current tax on capital gains. Despite the state’s commie reputation Washington’s tax structure is actually very regressive (sales tax, no state income tax), and this will only make it worse.

I will vote NO.

Initiative #2117:

Repeals and bans The Climate Commitment Act. Heywood and company want to dump more toxins into the environment without penalty. Also takes an ax to the state transportation budget, which is already stretched.

I will vote NO.

Initiative #2124 :

Would cripple the state’s Long-Term Care insurance program by making payment for it optional. A giveaway to the private insurance industry.

I will vote NO.

Discuss!

Update:  This isn’t argument, it’s abuse.  You want room 12A, next door.  Colorado is one  door left, and Nevada is one door right.

Colorado Amendment G

Placed on ballot by legislature

Passes with 55%

Modify Property Tax Exemption for Veterans with Disabilities  Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the expansion of eligibility for the property tax exemption for veterans with a disability to include a veteran who does not have a service-connected disability rated as a one hundred percent permanent disability but does have individual unemployability status?

Summary: Current constitutional exemption exempts 50% of the first $200,000 of the primary residence’s value for qualifying homeowners: Coloradans 65 or older who have lived in the home for at least ten years, veterans with a service-connected disability rated 100% permanent and total by federal government, surviving Gold Star spouses of those who died in the line of duty or as a result from a service-related injury or event. The state reimburses local governments for all revenue lost as a result of the exemption.

This amendment would extend the exemption to vets who have qualified for the Total Disability Individual Unemployability rating from the US Dept of Veteran’s Affairs, affecting an estimated 3,700 veterans.

My take: The legislature passed this unanimously. The “best” argument against is that this will make property taxes more complicated and harder to administer. I think people will figure out how to manage it.

YES on G

Colorado Amendment H

Placed on ballot by legislature

Passes with 55%

Judicial Discipline Procedures and Confidentiality  Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning judicial discipline, and in connection therewith, establishing an independent judicial discipline adjudicative board, setting standards for judicial review of a discipline case, and clarifying when discipline proceedings become public?

Summary: Will create an independent adjudicative board of citizens, lawyers and judges to conduct misconduct hearings and impose disciplinary actions, and allows more information to be shared with the public. I’ll quote from the Colorado Sun (https://coloradosun.com/2024/10/10/amendment-h-explained-colorado/):

The proposal emerged from an interim legislative committee created in 2022, the year after an alleged blackmail scandal and cover-up of judicial misconduct, sexism and harassment was first reported by The Denver Post.

The committee’s final report concluded that the existing process was so secretive that victims couldn’t even track their own complaints. It also found that Judicial Department employees fear retaliation, and their distrust in the complaint system may have led to a number of ethical violations going unreported. 

My take: This was part of the recommendation of committee formed after the scandal. The main argument I could find against it was that it doesn’t go far enough. IANAL but seems a start is better than nothing.

YES on H

Colorado Amendment I

Placed on ballot by legislature

Passes with 55%

Constitutional Bail Exception for First Degree Murder  Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning creating an exception to the right to bail for cases of murder in the first degree when proof is evident or presumption is great?

Summary: In Colorado since 1876, a person accused of a crime has the right to bail from county jail while awaiting trial with exceptions, including crimes for which the death penalty can be pursued. With no death penalty, judges can no longer deny bail for first degree murder where “proof is evident and the presumption is great” of guilt. Arguments for this amendment say that people meeting this standard are a danger to others while released. Arguments against say that people are presumed innocent until guilty and that judges can set very high bail against people believed to be violent. Judges are doing that already in Colorado, setting bail as high as $100 million for some people.

My take: This is the legislature fixing an unintended side effect of eliminating the death penalty. I’m inclined to let them.
YES on I

Colorado Amendment J

Placed on ballot by legislature

Passes with majority vote

Repealing the Definition of Marriage in the Constitution  Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution removing the ban on same-sex marriage?

Summary: Colorado voters put language into the state constitution in 2006 defining marriage as between one man and one woman. That part of the state constitution has since been ruled unconstitutional. But with the current US Supreme Court and their respect for stare decisis….

My take: Get that shit out of the constitution.

YES on J

Colorado Amendment K

Placed on ballot by legislature

Passes with 55%

Modify Constitutional Election Deadlines  Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the modification of certain deadlines in connection with specified elections?

Summary: Will make some election filing deadlines one week earlier: signatures for citizen initiatives and referendum petitions, and judges to file intent to seek another term. Right now, statewide ballot measures must be published at least 15 days before the election. This amendment would make the newspaper publishing deadline 30 days earlier than current law.

My take: Election officials want more time to get ballots to overseas voters. The argument against is that it gives citizen initiative petitions less time to collect signatures. I’m with the county clerks on this one.

YES on K

Colorado Amendment 79

Citizen initiative

Passes with 55%

Constitutional Right to Abortion  Shall there be a change to the Colorado constitution recognizing the right to abortion, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the state and local governments from denying, impeding, or discriminating against the exercise of that right, allowing abortion to be a covered service under health insurance plans for Colorado state and local government employees and for enrollees in state and local governmental insurance programs?

Summary: Do you trust national Republicans on abortion and with the lives of pregnant people? Are you okay with enforcement of the Comstock Law on mailed medications? Is abortion healthcare?

My take: I support this amendment 100%.

YES on 79

Colorado Amendment 80

Citizen initiative

Passes with 55%

Constitutional Right to School Choice  Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution establishing the right to school choice for children in kindergarten through 12th grade, and, in connection therewith, declaring that school choice includes neighborhood, charter, and private schools; home schooling; open enrollment options; and future innovations in education?

Summary: Colorado law already allows school choice, with open enrollment letting children attend any public school for free, including neighborhood schools, charter schools, and some online schools. The argument against is that this might siphon public funding for private education, which is currently prohibited, and send that to the courts. The Republican Party supports this amendment.

My take: Taxpayer money should support public schools. Back off, private schools, and keep this out of the state Constitution.

NO on 80

Colorado Proposition JJ

Placed on ballot by legislature

Passes with majority vote

Retain Additional Sports Betting Tax Revenue  Without raising taxes, may the state keep and spend all sports betting tax revenue above voter-approved limits to fund water conservation and protection projects instead of refunding revenue to casinos?

Summary: In 2019 voters approved Prop DD, legalizing sports betting and letting state collect up to $29 million per year in tax revenue. But revenue is more than that cap now, projected to keep growing. The constitution requires taxpayers to approve all new taxes.

My take: I like water and water conservation and protection, and it’s better than refunding the excess to casinos which would happen otherwise.

YES on JJ

Colorado Proposition KK

Placed on ballot by the legislature

Passes with majority vote

Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax  Shall state taxes be increased by $39,000,000 annually to fund mental health services, including for military veterans and at-risk youth, school safety and gun violence prevention, and support services for victims of domestic violence and other violent crimes by authorizing a tax on gun dealers, gun manufacturers, and ammunition vendors at the rate of 6.5% of the net taxable sales from the retail sale of any gun, gun precursor part, or ammunition, with the state keeping and spending all of the new tax revenue as a voter-approved revenue change?

Summary: Will create a new tax on firearms, firearm parts, and ammunition, using the revenue for crime victim services, mental health services for veterans and youth, and school safety programs.

Who pays: Firearm dealers, manufacturers, and ammunition sellers on retail sales.

Who doesn’t: Sellers with less than $20,000 in yearly sales, as well as sales to law enforcement and active duty military members, as well as private sales between individuals who are not firearm dealers or manufacturers or ammunition vendors.

My take: Can’t fix the 2nd Amendment? At least we can tax the guns and ammo.

YES on KK

Colorado Proposition 127

Citizen initiative

Passes with majority vote

Prohibit Bobcat, Lynx, and Mountain Lion Hunting  Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a prohibition on the hunting of mountain lions, lynx, and bobcats, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the intentional killing, wounding, pursuing, entrapping, or discharging or releasing of a deadly weapon at a mountain lion, lynx, or bobcat; creating eight exceptions to this prohibition including for the protection of human life, property, and livestock; establishing a violation of this prohibition as a class 1 misdemeanor; and increasing fines and limiting wildlife license privileges for persons convicted of this crime?

Summary: It’s already illegal to hunt lynx in Colorado. Mountain lions and bobcats would still be able to be killed in defense of personal safety, livestock, and property. The main change here would remove mountain lions from the definition of “big game” and make landowners ineligible for state reimbursement for damage caused by a mountain lion. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has managed mountain lion hunting since 1965 and supports hunting as a tool for wildlife management. Animal conservation groups tried to get legislation against mountain lion hunting through the state leg in 2022 and failed.

My take: While I love cats, let CPW do its job with ecological issues.

NO on 127

Colorado Proposition 128

Citizen initiative

Passes with majority vote

Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence  Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning parole eligibility for an offender convicted of certain crimes, and, in connection therewith, requiring an offender who is convicted of second degree murder; first degree assault; class 2 felony kidnapping; sexual assault; first degree arson; first degree burglary; or aggravated robbery committed on or after January 1, 2025, to serve 85 percent of the sentence imposed before being eligible for parole, and requiring an offender convicted of any such crime committed on or after January 1, 2025, who was previously convicted of any two crimes of violence, not just those crimes enumerated in this measure, to serve the full sentence imposed before beginning to serve parole?

Summary: This was put on the ballot by Advance Colorado, a conservative group. It would force prisoners to serve more of their sentences and introduce three-strikes loss of any parole time that could otherwise be earned.

My take: I don’t like removing earned time and incentives for good behavior, and I don’t buy that it will reduce crime rates. And I don’t like Advance Colorado either.

NO on 128

Colorado Proposition 129

Citizen initiative

Passes with majority vote

Establishing Veterinary Professional Associates  Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating a new veterinary professional associate profession, and, in connection therewith, establishing qualifications including a master’s degree in veterinary clinical care or the equivalent as determined by the state board of veterinary medicine to be a veterinary professional associate; requiring registration with the state board; allowing a registered veterinary professional associate to practice veterinary medicine under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian; and making it a misdemeanor to practice as a veterinary professional associate without an active registration?

Summary: Will create a new regulated position of veterinary professional associate to provide care, along with veterinarians, vet techs, and vet tech specialists. Arguments for says it’s hard to get vet care now in rural and agricultural communities. Arguments against say the education and training requirements are vague and “do not differentiate” this new position from existing veterinary care professionals, and no academic programs for this currently exist.

My take: If the problem is that people don’t want to work in rural areas, this doesn’t seem like a fix. My state rep, Karen McCormick (D), is a veterinarian and says to vote no (from county Dems):

She has been working on solving the lack of enough veterinarians and cost of using vet services statewide in the state legislature for at least two years now (with two bills recently passed) and is bringing more legislation forward in the coming term to study and solve this issue with well-crafted and thoughtful bill making.

NO on 129

Colorado Proposition 130

Citizen initiative

Passes with majority vote

Funding for Law Enforcement  Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning state funding for peace officer training and support, and, in connection therewith, directing the legislature to appropriate 350 million dollars to the peace officer training and support fund for municipal and county law enforcement agencies to hire and retain peace officers; allowing the fund to be used for pay, bonuses, initial and continuing education and training, and a death benefit for a peace officer, police, fire and first responder killed in the line of duty; and requiring the funding to supplement existing appropriations?

Summary: Advance Colorado put this on the ballot to direct more money for police (not social workers and behavioral health workers), with no new revenue source.

My take: I don’t like this unfunded mandate. And still don’t like Advance Colorado.

NO on 130

Colorado Proposition 131

Citizen initiative

Passes with majority vote 

Establishing All-Candidate Primary and Ranked Choice Voting General Elections  Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating new election processes for certain federal and state offices, and, in connection therewith, creating a new all-candidate primary election for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, CU board of regents, state board of education, and the Colorado state legislature; allowing voters to vote for any one candidate per office, regardless of the voter’s or candidate’s political party affiliation; providing that the four candidates for each office who receive the most votes advance to the general election; and in the general election, allowing voters to rank candidates for each office on their ballot, adopting a process for how the ranked votes are tallied, and determining the winner to be the candidate with the highest number of votes in the final tally?

Summary: Will establish an all-candidate nonpartisan primary for all voters for certain offices. It advances the top four candidates to a general election where voters rank the candidates in order of preference.

Would apply to US Senator, US Rep, Gov and Lt. Gov, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Atty Gen., Members of the State Board of Education, Regent of the University of Colorado, State Senator, State Rep.

Would not apply to US President, district attorneys or local government offices.

This Proposition if passed would not take effect until at least 12 municipalities that meet “various demographic qualifications” have used ranked choice voting, and the state must audit those elections before changes would happen at the state and federal election level.

This is the third initiative supported by multimillionaire Kent Thiry to change how elections work in Colorado, having previously replaced in-person presidential caucuses with a primary vote, and opening primary voting to unaffiliated voters. Article on him and his efforts here: https://www.cpr.org/2024/08/20/kent-thiry-reshaped-colorado-electoral-system-initiative-310/

The argument for is that many offices are decided during the primary vote and not the general election, and that the change will bring more people out to vote because those votes can make a difference.

Colorado is one of several states where people (pretty much the same group of people?) are trying to pass this change.

Supporters say it will reduce polarization… but if the polarization is between a relatively sane party with few nut jobs, and a far right party of increasingly crazy fascist leaners I wonder: what problem are we trying to solve exactly? And is this the way? And how will big $$ game the new system?

My take:

??? on 131

I don’t have one yet, sorry–maybe Balloon Juice can help?

NO on 131

I don’t trust the money behind it or potential consequences, and I’m not convinced it’s needed.

I do like ranked-choice voting, and don’t feel it would be too complicated for people (though I remember the butterfly ballot in 2000, sigh).

I’m less convinced by the nonpartisan primary. The CO Democrats and CO Republicans don’t like the plan, though part of the fracturing Republican party supports it.

The League of Women Voters supports it (yay?) as does the Colorado Chamber of Commerce (oh), and Sen. Hickenlooper (yay?) and former Rep Ken Buck (oh). Lauren Boebert is against it.

I don’t know how much easier it will be for big money to game the system with a change like this, or what the unintended (or intended?) consequences will be. People can already vote in any primary if they’re unaffiliated.

I’d welcome insights from jackals who have more experience with nonpartisan primaries and ranked-choice voting, and whether this well-funded proposition is a good idea.

THE END.

Discuss!

Update:  This isn’t argument, it’s abuse.  You want room 12A, next door.   Washington State is next door, and Nevada is right after that.

Measure 115: Constitutional amendment.  Creates procedure for impeachment of statewide elected officials by Oregon Legislature for malfeasance, corrupt conduct, neglect of duty, or high crime. Removal from office would require 2/3 of the Oregon House of Representatives to impeach, and 2/3 of the Oregon Senate to convict. An impeachment trial would be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court. The statewide officials affected would be the Governor, the Secretary of State, the State Treasurer, the Attorney General, and the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries.

This is an entirely reasonable proposition, and there is no organized opposition to it. My only concern is that for safety, the Democrats must maintain their majority in both houses. If the Republicans were to gain the majority, they would certainly abuse the process. 

I will vote Yes. 

Measure 116: Constitutional amendment. Establishes independent commission to determine salaries for  a longish list of Oregon public officials. State employees or officers, lobbyists, and their family members are excluded from serving on the commission. The exact membership and method of selection will be determined by future legislation. 

Currently, the legislators do this work, which means they effectively determine their own salaries. There is no serious opposition to the measure. 

I will vote Yes. 

Measure 117: Changes Oregon’s voting system to “ranked choice” (AKA “instant runoff”) from plurality. 

Ranked Choice Voting enthusiasts are certain it will solve all of our voting problems. I am not convinced it’s better or worse than the current method—I hear Kenneth Arrow muttering in my ear—but I honestly am agnostic about it. If my fellow Oregonians want it, fine. If they want to keep the existing method, fine. I will be surprised if the measure passes, due to the not-inaccurate perception that the method is rather complicated, confusing, and technocratic.

I will probably abstain on this one. 

Measure 118: Increases corporate minimum tax on Oregon sales in excess of $10M, distributes monies so raised to Oregon residents. If said residents lose federal benefits because of the distribution, the State will make up the difference.

Look, I’m all for soaking the rich, but this ain’t it. The official impact statement on the ballot includes

Known administrative costs are estimated to be $1.6 million General Fund and 22 permanent positions in the 2023-25 biennium and $48.2 million General Fund and 199 additional permanent positions in the 2025-27 biennium at the Oregon Department of Revenue. The measure will generate a significant workload increase processing applications for the rebate, verifying the identity and eligibility of those applying for the rebates, reviewing payments and tax refunds for fraudulent activity, handling appeals, increasing customer inquiries, increasing audit and collections activity for the new tax, and increasing technology programming. Other major expenses are unknown but could be significant for expenses such as payments for rebate checks, prepaid debit cards, mailings associated with the program, legal fees, and public information costs.

Individuals who lose federal benefits because of the rebates will be held harmless with additional payments. The costs associated with this provision are unknown……

GAHHH, RUN AWAY!!!1! This will cause many more problems than it solves. 

I will vote No on this mess. 

Measure 119: Cannabis retailers & processors must remain neutral regarding communications to their employees from labor organizations. 

While cannabis is technically illegal at the federal level, it’s legal in Oregon if you are over 21. This measure addresses some loopholes and ambiguities stemming from federal law that have allowed Oregon cannabis retailers to thwart employee organizing. 

I’ll vote Yes. 

Discuss!

Initiative 1: Lottery Proceeds to Vo-Tech Scholarships and Grants

Title: AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT LOTTERY PROCEEDS MAY BE USED TO FUND OR PROVIDE SCHOLARSHIPS AND GRANTS TO ARKANSAS CITIZENS ENROLLED IN VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL SCHOOLS AND TECHNICAL INSTITUTES

Summary: Arkansas was late in adding a state lottery to help raising scholarship money to keep Arkies in Arkansas, passing one in 2008.  Since the technical drafting requirements were tight, vocational and technical colleges could not be included in the initial 2008 ballot initiative.  This Amendment is supported by Shane Broadway, a popular Democrat who is now VP of the state university system.  No one is opposing it.

My take is to support it.  Arkansas has tight drafting requirements AND an even-stronger prohibition against “fun” than most other Southern states, so the exclusion of vo-tech had to be done.  No money is being “lost”, just moved around.  The in-state system is pretty good for cost and access, but anything that helps helps.

Initiative 2: Re-doing a Casino License System to Require the County’s Voter’s Approve It, Pope County Edition

Title: [too long, here’s the Popular Name] An amendment requiring local voter approval in a countywide special election for certain new casino licenses and repealing authority to issue a casino license in Pope County, Arkansas.

Summary: (deep breath) So gambling is illegal in Arkansas (games of “pure chance”) and you can get in trouble with poker (mixed games of “chance and skill”), which only allowed 1 casino in the state at Hot Springs National Park.  Eventually, Arkansas voters approved a Amendment allowing some to be built in West Memphis and Pine Bluff (~hour south of Little Rock).  In 2018, a few others were approved in various locations, including Pope County (about an hour to 90 minutes NW from Little Rock and 2 hours from Oklahoma border).  The vote in Pope County was 60% against but the 2018 Amendment was a package deal.  The Cherokee Nation owns and operates the closest casino across the Oklahoma line and helped to put a “re-do” on the ballot to require that casinos in the future will require the county to approve of it.

Supporters include the Choctaw Nation (guess who will operate?) and opponents include the Cherokee Nation (see above).

My take is to support it.  The package deal had some slime attached to it in handing out the original licenses and skipping over locals enough to make it past the petty slap-fight taking place on the ballot.  Arkansans are the ones to blame, since there are a lot of heavily-conservative Southern Baptists who are shocked, SHOCKED!, to discover that others in their congregation ALSO like to gamble, drink, and watch porn.

Initiative 3: Expanded Medical Marijuana Access

Title: [too long, bears the exact sections being revised with the exact revisions, etc]  Just call it “The Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2024”

Summary: In 2016, Arkansas approved a medical marijuana regime (and a super-majority of Republican legislators who opposed it, go figure) that had limited licenses, limits on who could prescribe (MD or DO), specific conditions or symptoms, etc.  Tightly-controlled in all aspects.  THIS is Amendment would relax all of that, allow patients with permit to grow their own (up to 7 mature plants at a time), allow out-of-state medical users to buy in state, basically liberalize most aspects of the regime.  The Amendment also has a backdoor that triggers if marijuana is legalized at the federal level to allow all of that plus possession of an ounce by adults.

Supporters are dispensaries and the usual MJ legalization crowd, including patient advocates.  Opponents are the Huckabee crowd and culturally-conservative religious groups, the usual.

My take is to support it.  As much as I’d prefer big and broad strokes for Amendments, as long as Arkansas voters support progressive issues widely AND Republican legislators, this is how progress is made on the topic.  There really isn’t a better way.

Discuss!

In lieu of using property taxes to fully fund our schools, the state has become heavily reliant on bond measures—previously reserved for state-level infrastructure—to shore up our schools. The one resource that CA has more valuable than gold is our high real-estate values, but Prop 13 infamously killed our government’s ability to raise revenue via property taxes. Instead of overturning Prop 13 on commercial property—it’s been tried on the ballot already, and failed to overcome our generational fear of property tax law—we have to fund our schools somehow. So we do that with bonds paid for out of the general fund. Yes, it will raise our bond obligations, which must be repaid with interest. Government costs money. Schools need to be upgraded, repaired, and built. Whether or not you have children, raising the next generation of Californians in high-quality and safe facilities is a no-brainer.

YES Prop 3

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

This overturns the notorious Prop (H)8 from 2008, when California simultaneously outlawed same-sex marriage, gave its EVs to Barak Obama, and said that hen-houses must be humane. We are a weird animal-loving, centrist bigoted lot sometimes. Anyway, there is no case to be made to vote against this measure. The SCOTUS is fickle and could take away the rights of Californians to marry who they love. The sooner we ensconce marriage freedom in our constitution, the better. 

YES Prop 4

AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.

You may have noticed that climate change is here. And that inhabited parts of California seem to light up like Roman candles at the strike of a match. Combating the on-the-ground effects of climate change aren’t going to be cheap, but if we want to continue to live in the Golden State, we’re going to need to take climate change even more seriously. We need more than rakes (though I am in the market for a new rake. Recs welcome). The NO camp put in the ballot flier that we should fund wildfire prevention via the budget not bonds. This is disingenuous. You don’t have to like the bond system of California, but it’s how we fund infrastructure constitutionally. Take that objection to the next constitutional convention.

YES Prop 5

ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

I really hope this one passes, but we Californians aren’t the most enlightened mob when it comes to good governance and ballot initiatives. It is really hard to fund public infrastructure at the local level because our voting ancestors locked in two-thirds as the voting threshold for local bonds. Because of this, there is a goddamned hustle in my town just to get the library bond passed. It failed a few years ago by three points and the city has been scared to try again until now. There is no reason a local community should have to get a super-majority to approve spending. What is this, the US Senate? A few tax-hating libertarians love the status quo, because it allows them to rule via a tiny minority. 55% is still more than a simple majority—my preference—all but the most red-tide districts in CA should be able to get what they need if this proposition passes.

YES Prop 6

ELIMINATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Did you know that the 14th amendment to the US Constitution actually allows slavery in some circumstances? Slavery, or involuntary servitude as this prop euphemistically puts it, is legal at the federal level if you are incarcerated. A YES on Prop 6 makes that practice illegal in the state of California. There is no valid anti-position, only an immoral one. Slavery is wrong, and it’s a shame we didn’t eliminate entirely in 1868. But better late (very late) than never.

YES Prop 32

RAISES MINIMUM WAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

This one I think is a no-brainer, but if you have a case to make against pegging the minimum wage to inflation, have at it in the comments.

YES Prop 33

EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

This proposition would overturn the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Act, which basically says (among other weird things) that residential construction built after 1979 isn’t subject to rent control. If 33 passes, a city could—if it wanted—enact rent control without Costa-Hawkins getting in the way. The NO campaign has been aggressive in their opposition to this measure, generating lots of scary scenarios in their commercials and mailers that don’t happen in real life. That said, it’ll probably work. Our initiative system isn’t designed to handle complicated issues. Just to stick it to the supporters, the NO camp is sponsoring prop 34, which is designed to hamstring the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a big sponsor of 33. I would like to see Costa-Hawkins go away, but I’m not holding my breath that the 33 campaign is going to pull it off in 2024 with so much money opposing it.

NO Prop 34

RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

This is a revenge proposition designed to punish the AHS for supporting Prop 33 (see above). In the title “CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS” should really be “ONE PROVIDER, AHS”. I don’t love revenge props, obviously. If this passes, AHS (and not really anyone else) will be constitutionally bound to not advocate for renters’ rights since they couldn’t legally spend money on anything but health care. Whether you agree or disagree with AHS is irrelevant. It’s a legal cudgel to silence one organization. That’s bullshit. Please vote NO.

NEUTRAL Prop 35

PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

I was a YES, and still might vote yes on this measure, but at least for now I can see why a person of good conscience would honestly vote NO. Due to the vagaries of how California exploits the federal Medi-Cal matching program, we are able to get more money from the feds by taxing insurance companies more. That seems like an excellent hack. But the exploit means that the matching funds could be used by the legislature to plug gaps in the general fund budget. A YES vote would statutorily prevent that. For good governance advocates who dislike tying the legislatures’ hands, a NO vote makes sense. If you’re upset because young children on Medi-Cal were left off the negotiations on this proposition—and thus would be disenrolled from Medi-Cal if their parents fail to re-enroll—I can see a NO vote sending a powerful message of distrust of the behind-the-scenes dirty negotiation process. But if you feel that expanding behavioral health services, primary care, especially in our poor rural communities, and making sure that the money from the Medi-Cal tax goes only to Medi-Cal patients, then a YES vote is morally laudable as well.

NO Prop 36

ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

This one is going to pass, probably by a wide margin, but it won’t do so without my objection. The media have been lying to us about the increase in crime in CA, with sensationalism over smash and grabs at the drugstore being evergreen front-page stories. In reality crime is flat to down in California. The damage has been done though, and in the voters’ minds, the increase in homelessness, flash mobs at the 7-Eleven, and violent crime (any) are now locked in as being interconnected. This prop is going to undo the marginal good that we accomplished by reducing some felonies to misdemeanors and not rehabilitating drug addicts in the carceral system. The anti-tax enthusiasts are going to hypocritically vote for this one, even though every additional person we throw in jail we are statutorily obligated to spend money on to keep behind bars. That’s less money for roads, schools, and wildfire prevention.