From Vox: Trump won. But so did marijuana legalization, gun control, and minimum wage increases.

An odd result since these are all liberal proposals.

- Click here for the story.

By all accounts, the biggest races on Election Day were a total disaster for Democrats. Donald Trump won. Republicans kept Congress, holding back a Democratic attempt to retake the Senate. And down the ballot, the results weren’t much better for the party: Democrats overall lost governors’ races, although the results were more mixed in state legislatures.

But not all is doom and gloom. While Democrats lost big, liberals won some of the big initiatives that were on statewide ballots. It wasn’t a total sweep — several states, for example, affirmed the death penalty — but there were gains on some issues, including marijuana legalization, minimum wage, and gun control.

The full results paint a much more mixed picture than the top-ballot results suggest: The Democratic Party got clobbered, but some of the major policies Democrats support also won big.

From Ballotpedia: 2016 ballot measures

A look at the 153 ballot initiatives that are up for a vote in 35 states this November. None in Texas - we do not have them statewide, though they can happen on the local level. The dominant issues are marijuana, gun control, health care and minimum wage.

- Click here for the article.

Texas does regularly place constitutional proposals on the ballot. Some laws passed by the legislature can only take effect if the Texas Constitution is amended. As we will see in class, it often is.

- Click here for Ballotpedia's list of Texas ballot measures.

From the NYT: Builders Pierce California’s Environmental Shield With New Weapon: The Ballot

This should help with some terminology - and demonstrate that things don;t always work out as planned.

- Click here for it.

Once heralded as a vital check on corporate influence over government, California’s ballot initiative system — which allows residents to propose laws and approve them by popular vote — has been used to sharply cut property taxes and to enact the country’s first medical marijuana law.

But these days, developers are using the process for another purpose: to sidestep state environmental laws and speed up major developments.

Plans for a stadium in Carson, a shopping center north of San Diego and a massive warehouse complex in Moreno Valley were approved last year using the ballot initiative process. Another ballot measure petition hastened construction of a stadium in Inglewood, where the N.F.L.’s Los Angeles Rams will play.

The advantage for developers is clear: Projects approved by ballot measures avoid legal challenges under the California Environmental Quality Act.

There is a twist, though: Residents often do not even get a chance to vote.

Once 15 percent of eligible voters have signed a petition, a project qualifies for the ballot, and local elected officials can either call a special election or accept the proposal without negotiating changes. Officials often approve the project to avoid paying for a special election that could further strain tight budgets.

Supporters of the ballot measures say they allow residents to override a broken system in which lawsuits and environmental reviews can delay projects for years.

But environmentalists argue that the arrangement grants special privileges to developers, even if only a relatively small fraction of residents support a project. And land-use experts say the strategy will become more common unless the state government steps in to curtail it.

So far, the issue has failed to attract much attention in Sacramento.

“We’ve ended up with a warping of direct democracy to defeat strong environmental laws,” said Douglas Carstens, a lawyer specializing in land use and the environment. “It’s ramping up. Within a year or two, people will realize what a bad situation this is.”

From Vox: Big Marijuana is coming — and even legalization supporters are worried

This story applies to 2305 - since it touches on the influence of interest groups on both the legislative and administrative process - and 2306 because it hits on changed attitudes about marijuana. Modest changes were made in the 84th session of the legislature to criminal law regarding possession and medical marijuana, but some floated the idea of outright legalization.

It appears that some groups promoting legalization also want a monopoly on selling it - we noticed that that was the condition in Ohio when voters were offered the chance to legalize marijuana for recreational use, but only on the condition that sales be restricted to a monopoly.

I flagged the following labels for the story: monopolies, initiatives, lobbying, laboratories of democracy, criminal law, agency capture, 

- Click here for it.

Last month, Ohioans rejected a very unusual marijuana legalization proposal. Beyond legalizing pot, the ballot initiative would have given campaign donors direct rights to the state's 10 pot farms as an explicit gift for their support. It was, even legalization advocates argued, a flagrant display of would-be members of the pot industry trying to cash in on a movement motivated primarily by social justice issues.

But while Ohio's measure was rare in its blatant cash grab, some legalization backers are increasingly concerned that something like Ohio's initiative will become standard — and the interests of the pot industry, which will grow more and more as legalization spreads, will take priority over the public's best interests.

Dan Riffle, the former director of federal policy at the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), a legalization advocacy group, recently told me that these concerns pushed him to leave MPP. In a revealing interview, he said that "the industry is taking over the movement."
"We used to talk three or four years ago about how we're creating this industry, yet nobody in the industry gives to MPP," Riffle said. "But now that they do give at least a little, it's like, 'Be careful what you asked for.' Because we owe them now, and they get to drive the agenda."

More than posing as a concern for the face and heart of the legalization movement, the worry that the industry will take over poses some challenges on the policy end as well. As support for marijuana legalization continues to grow, the question is quickly shifting from whether to legalize to how to legalize. And a movement that's led by a pot industry has different interests than the public and policy reformers might have.

From the Atlantic: Seattle's Experiment With Campaign Funding City residents approved a public-financing program in which voters will get $100 worth of election vouchers—the first of its kind in the nation

An innovative approach to dealing with the imbalances in campaign finance.

- Click here for the story.

When people talk up the idea of the public financing of elections, they are usually referring to a system that goes something like this: Candidates must first raise money from individuals, and then the government will chip in matching funds or a pre-set amount that campaigns can spend on their race.

In Seattle, however, voters just approved a system that flips that approach on its head. Starting in 2017, city residents will be able to contribute to local candidates without spending a dime of their own money. Instead, the government will send each registered voter four $25 vouchers that they can give to candidates of their choice. No cutting a check. No minimum contribution. Candidates can opt out, but those who participate will have to abide by strict limits on spending and on receiving private donations.

“The promise of vouchers is turning every single voter in the city into a donor,” said Alan Durning, the executive director of the Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based think tank and advocacy group that pushed for the new program.

The Seattle ballot initiative, which won with more than 60 percent of the vote, was one of three victories for major election-reform groups last Tuesday. In Maine, voters approved fixes on disclosure requirements and penalties in the state’s public-financing system after court decisions like Citizens United had weakened the program. And in Ohio, an anti-gerrymandering proposal that sets up a bipartisan redistricting commission for state legislative races passed in a landslide.

Random items on last week's local elections

These are all from Governing Magazine

How People Voted on Local Ballot Measures Across the Country.

Social conservatives around the country hailed the sound rejection of an anti-discrimination ordinance in Houston. But progressives were able to claim victory on local ballot measures elsewhere that address housing, transportation, early childhood education and campaign finance.

Democrats, Women and LGBT Win Big in 2015 Mayoral Races.

Most mayors who were on the ballot Tuesday easily won re-election, but incumbents were ousted in Salt Lake City and Portland, Maine. In Philadelphia, Democrat Jim Kenney was elected mayor, as expected. Meanwhile, the mayors of San Francisco; Orlando, Fla.; Fort Wayne, Ind.; Spokane, Wash.; Toledo, Ohio; and Boise, Idaho; all won new terms.

Democrats scored a victory in Indianapolis, with Democrat Joe Hogsett easily picking up the office being vacated by Republican Greg Ballard. He will be working with his party's new single-seat majority on the city-county council. Democrats will now serve as mayor of 22 of the nation's 25 largest cities. That is, if Sylvester Turner can win a runoff in Houston on Dec. 12.

2015 Election Results: State and Local Races and Ballot Measures.

Some random stories about yesterday's election

- Officials report few problems with Voter ID requirement.
- Texas voters have their say at the polls.
- Casinos, pot, secession among US ballot measures.
- Houston suburb votes down $69M HS stadium.
- Texas voters OK massive water plan: What’s next?
- Full Coverage of the 2013 State and Local Elections

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/11/05/5310043/texas-voters-ok-massive-water.html#storylink=cpy

In the Supreme Court today: Hollingsworth vs. Perry

As we discussed previously, this case is about the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which was an initiative passed by the California electorate in November 2008 that stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

This was overturned in August 2010 by a U.S. District Judge that found the proposition to violate the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The case went through the 9th Circuit Court for a couple years before it was determined that the District Court decision should be upheld, but the decision was not unanimous.

- Click here for a brief description of the process the case went through on its way to the Supreme Court.
- And click here for the process thus far in the Supreme Court.

According to ScotusBlog, these are the two questions the Supreme Court is charged with considering: (1) Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman; and (2) whether petitioners have standing under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution in this case.

A quick word on "Hollingsworth" and "Perry."

Dennis Hollingsworth is the named petitioner. He, along with a few others, is the person who lost the previous cases and asked for the Supreme Court to review the case by requesting the court file a writ of certiorari. He and the others were affiliated with the groups that helped organize the original inititiatve. The question of standing resulted because the state of California has decided to not argue in favor of the law in court, so it is not clear that the petitioners have suffered a harm that allows them to take a case to the court.

This helps solve some confusion regarding the court case because two others - Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown - were batted around for a while. Each refers to one of California's recent governors, but since neither decided to pursue the case, they were each dropped, but Holingsworth and Company were allowed to pick it up.

Kristen Perry is the named defendant who was married to her partner in 2004 when San Francisco briefly recognized them prior to the 2008 ballot inititiative. Aftee they received their license they were informed that the marriage had been voided. After passage of Proposition 8 they joined a challenge to it organized by the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

- Click here for a look at these and other players in the case.
In 2305, we've mentioned several times that the equal protection clause has yet to be used, by the Supreme Court, to resolve disputes over unequal treatment due to sexual orientation. They've done their best to avoid it, but no longer. This could easily turn into one the courts more important decisions, depending on what they rule and how expansively they make their decision. Will it only affect California? Or only the states that have ruled in favor of same sex marriage? Or possibly all the states?

Stay tuned.

Are we at a tipping point in the War on Drugs?

The successful marijuana initiatives earlier this year may have started something.
Here's a look at the impact a new documentary - The House I Live In - is having on attitudes about laws that treat non-violent drug criminals like violent criminals and send some to jail for life sentences for what seem like relatively minor offenses. It has led to the development of a caste system in the US since those convicted are burdened with a criminal record. The conspiratorially minded think that's the point.

But when opinion leaders like Pat Robertson think we should decriminalize marijuana, things have changed. Majorities of Americans now favor legalization (not that that always matters). The media is more likely to publish editorials favoring legalization as well.

As of yet, this only applies to marijuana, not harder drugs.

One sticking point mentioned in the story is the financial benefits that certain people and institutions receive from the status-quo. Drug laws give law enforcement something to do. And the rise of privately owned prisons means that the incarceration of large numbers of people - for whatever reason - produces profits.  I would guess that policy shifts will not really occur until powerful interests see more money to be made when marijuana is legal rather than illegal. Tobacco companies are apparently ready to go producing marijuana cigarettes (will we still call them joints? Doesn't seem appropriate.). They have tremendous political pull.

Selling / spinning gay marriage

Buzzfeed describes how gay marriage proponents - specifically those hired to help gay marriage initiatives pass in several states this past election - were able to change attitudes about it and gain support from the electorate. The key was to change the attitudes of people in the middle - big surprise.

Its a great look at how effective interest groups influence public opinion.

The story links to a report from a group called Third Way titled Commitment: The Answer to the Middle's Questions on Marriage for Gay Couples. Some text from the story:

The surprise sweep for marriage equality efforts at the polls in 2012 came after a dramatic shift in the television ads their backers ran — a change that came about after a yearlong research effort to crack the code of previously successful ads run by marriage-equality opponents that focused on "gay marriage" being taught in schools.
Among the key changes were a shift away from talk of "rights" to a focus on committed relationships; a decision to address "values" directly as being learned at home; and an attempt to give voters "permission" to change their minds, according to elements of the research shared with BuzzFeed.

The research was "instrumental in helping us figure out our path," said Zach Silk, who served as the campaign manager to approve Washington's Referendum 74.

The research was sponsored by Third Way — a centrist Democratic think tank — that conducted an extended round of surveys beginning in September 2010 "aimed at answering a single question: How do we most effectively persuade people in the middle to support relationship recognition for gay and lesbian couples, including marriage?"

3 out of 6 marijuana legalization innitiatives passed arounf the country.

In case you need a reason to visit Colorado, Washington, and Massachusetts.

State Ballot Initiatives Across the Nation

Here's a comprehensive list from Project Vote Smart. Since Texas does not allow state-wide ballot initiatives, we won't be voting on any.

Note the breadth of items.

Victory for Prop. 8 backers : SCOTUSblog

Victory for Prop. 8 backers : SCOTUSblog.

From the LA Times:

The California Supreme Court decided Thursday that the sponsors of Proposition 8 and other ballot measures are entitled to defend them in court when the state refuses to do so, a ruling likely to spur federal courts to decide the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans.

The state high court’s decision, a defeat for gay rights groups, sets the stage for a federal ruling -- which could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court -- that would affect marriage bans outside California.
Background from the NYT:

Some gay rights groups were disappointed today when the California Supreme Court ruled that the sponsors of Proposition 8, ProtectMarriage, have standing to defend the discriminatory law, even though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown had refused to do so.

Previously, Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled the ban against same-sex unions unconstitutional in federal court, had said that ProtectMarriage could not appeal his decision to the Ninth Circuit, because they were never able to prove that gay marriage harmed them in any way.

That, of course is one of the many huge flaws in the argument against marriage equality.

But, as we wrote in an editorial on December 10, 2010, denying standing to the anti-marriage crowd would effectively nullify the referendum, confounding the initiative process and the voters’ right to have their choices defended. That’s probably not the best way to secure equality for a minority group.

2010 California Propositions

Here's a list of what passed and what didn't in Tuesday's election.

Aside from the defeat of Prop 19 -- which would have legalized and taxes marijuana -- the most interesting result might be Prop 20, which establishes a committee (the California Citizens Redistricting Commission) that will design congressional districts rather than the state legislature.

Should Texas do something similar?

Can the Federal Government Challenge the Constitutionality of Prop 19 if it Passes?

Yes.

No.

Federalism and California's Prop 19

Following on a previous post, here are a few links regarding the nation/state issues brought up by California's proposal to legalize marijuana:

- Federalism and Medical Marijuana.
- Some Red Herrings.

2301s take note.

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

For our upcoming discussion of direct democracy -- recall that the Constitution establishes a republic -- here's the latest from California, the center of initiative activities, which in turn can influence the nature of policy policy change elsewhere: the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. The bill would effectively legalize marijuana (Click here for lists of other initiatives considered in the states). .

Past heads of the DEA are threatening to sue the state if this passes, but here's a question about what the suit would be based upon.

Aside from whether this is good idea substantively, there is the federalism issue. Marijuana would remain illegal nationally, which sets up the obvious fight.

Framing Democracy

George Lakoff highlights a great example of framing effects. The lesson is: Ballot language matters a great deal. For 2301s, this further confuses whether poll results necessarily reflect public opinion.

Voter Initiatives in California

A huge subject in 2301 will be the nature of the American democratic system. The founder's deliberately avoided creating a pure, or direct, democracy and opted instead for a representative system, or republic. One reason was to ensure that the anger and fluctuations common to mass public opinion would not have an immediate impact on public policy. The intent was that slow rational deliberations would win out over heated superficial ones.

Nevertheless, more direct democratic mechanisms have been instituted over American history, notably the Progressive movements' push for recall, initiative and referendum elections a century back. Perhaps no state has used them more than California, but it is commonly argued that many of the budgetary problems the state faces stem from this process. Anger from the left and right have, respectively, increased social spending and limited the ability of the state to pay for those services. In addition, the ability of legislators to effectively manage crises has been also been limited.

The following NYT story suggests that these woes will continue.

As we discuss the nature of democracy and our views about the appropriate relationship between the government and the governed, it is worth considering how close the relationship ought to be. A major lesson we will learn from discussing the constitutional structure will be how the entire constitutional system structures that relationship. Without an understanding of that relationship, the the entire purpose of the governing system is a mystery.

Revisions, Initiatives, Amendments, and Equal Protection

I'll admit to still being a bit confused about the precise nature of the Proposition 8 dispute in California, and what the nature of the narrow ruling issued yesterday was, but this helps a bit:

The California court ruled last May that same-sex couples enjoyed the same fundamental “right to marry” as opposite-sex couples. That sweeping 4-to-3 decision provoked a backlash from opponents that led to Proposition 8, which, after a bitter campaign fight, garnered 52 percent of the vote in November.

Tuesday’s opinion focused on whether the use of a voter initiative to narrow constitutional rights under Proposition 8 went too far.

Supporters of same-sex marriage, who filed several suits challenging the proposition after its adoption, argued that the change to the state’s Constitution was so fundamental that the initiative was not an amendment at all but instead a “revision,” a term for measures that rework core constitutional principles.

Under California law, revisions cannot be decided through a simple signature drive and a majority vote, as with Proposition 8. Instead, they can be placed on the ballot only with a two-thirds vote by the Legislature.

But the justices said the proposition was an amendment, not a revision. It has been historically rare for the state’s courts to overturn initiatives on the ground that they are actually revisions, and many legal scholars had deemed the challenge to Proposition 8 a long shot.