#Ballot Measures and Referendums

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Greg Owen at LGBTQ Nation:

On February 26, 2015, the California Attorney General’s Office stamped “received” on a cover letter from Huntington Beach attorney Matt McLaughlin, acknowledging receipt of a proposed initiative for the November ballot that would authorize the mass murder of gays and lesbians in the state. McLaughlin called his proposal the “Sodomite Suppression Act.” Kamala Harris was the state attorney general. Harris had just won reelection — overwhelmingly — in November, and three weeks before McLaughlin’s measure landed in her inbox, she had declared her intention to seek the U.S. Senate seat occupied by Barbara Boxer, who announced her retirement that January. Now Harris was confronted with a hateful proposal she had no choice but to deal with: under California state law, the attorney general has zero discretion to disregard a properly proposed initiative filing, no matter how intentionally provocative, discriminatory, or felonious.   The “Sodomite Suppression Act” was all three. And prophetic, too.

What came to be known as the “Shoot the Gays” initiative detailed several steps to eliminate the gay and lesbian population of California based on McLaughlin’s interpretation of Scripture. “The abominable crime against nature known as buggery, called also sodomy, is a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrha [sic],” McLaughlin wrote. “Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God’s just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.” The proposed measure would outlaw “sodomistic propaganda directly or indirectly by any means to any person under the age of majority.” Violators would be fined “and/or imprisoned up to 10 years, and/or expelled from the boundaries of the state of California for up to life.”

[...] Harris wasn’t having it. “It is my sworn duty to uphold the California and United States Constitutions and to protect the rights of all Californians,” Harris said as a deadline for action loomed. “This proposal not only threatens public safety, it is patently unconstitutional, utterly reprehensible, and has no place in a civil society.” For the first time, a California attorney general sought relief from her sworn obligation and petitioned the state’s highest court to dismiss it. “If the court does not grant this relief,” she said, “my office will be forced to issue a title and summary for a proposal that seeks to legalize discrimination and vigilantism.” There was little-to-no chance McLaughlin would collect the 365,880 signatures of registered voters required to make the ballot, and even less that Californians would approve it or that it would survive the inevitable court challenges if it did pass.

In 2015, a few months before Donald Trump made the infamous escalator ride to announce his presidential run and SCOTUS’s Obergefell ruling, then-California AG Kamala Harris found a way to reject a bigoted referendum item from making it onto the ballot.

That ballot measure was called the “Sodomite Suppression Act.”

Portions of what was in the act later became standard GOP policy against LGBTQ+ Americans.

[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

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Reading the headlines over the last couple of days, you would think the biggest political story about this election is Trump’s pathetic attempt to challenge Vice President Kamala Harris on the size of her rally crowds.  Look at this Truth Social post!  Trump says she used AI to create fake photos of her crowd at an airport in Detroit!  There was even a story in my newsfeed from a polling expert pointing out that you cannot calculate support for a candidate by crowd size.  If crowd size were what mattered, Bernie Sanders would be president by now, he reminded us.

Political narratives are strange beasts – at least they were until Trump came along and made them even stranger.  It used to be that fights over policies and personalities and the pasts of politicians drove elections.  When John Kerry ran in 2006, Republicans took his war record in the Navy in Vietnam and “Swift-boated” him by twisting his service into something it wasn’t.  They’re trying to do the same thing with Tim Walz right now, creating a fake story that he was somehow derelict in his duty when he retired from 24 years of service in the National Guard to run for congress not long before his unit in Minnesota was deployed to Iraq.

Then Trump showed up and proved that you can do it using lies alone.  That’s what his ridiculous story that Kamala Harris is using AI to fake her crowd size was.  Trump proved that if you tell enough lies again and again and again, something will stick, and then you can run with it. 

You will notice in the above paragraphs that the political narratives I gave as examples were all driven by men:  Men running for office; men’s careers being dissected and put on display; men using lies and misinformation to create stories about each other where there really aren’t any.  Even the political narrative about Hillary Clinton during her presidential run in 2016 was created by men:  Roger Stone interfacing with Guccifer II to get Hillary’s emails leaked to the press; Trump taking the fake “issue” about “her emails” and making it a central feature of his campaign.

But this week, a campaign narrative driven by women entered the picture in a big way.  On Monday, Arizona election officials announced that they had received enough signatures on petitions – in fact 50 percent more than was required – to put access to abortion on the ballot in November.  On Tuesday, Missouri officials certified enough petition signatures to allow a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine the right to abortion in the state’s constitution.

Both of these things are a big, big deal.  The drives to collect enough signatures to get the referendum measures on the Arizona and Missouri ballots were run by women.  Referendums on abortion have already been approved for a November vote in Florida, Nevada, Colorado, and South Dakota.  Petitions have been submitted in Nebraska and Montana for similar abortion ballot measures and await approval by election officials.  State constitutional amendments will be on the ballot in New York and Maryland that will guarantee access to abortion as well.  The New York Times reminded us in a story today that ballot measures guaranteeing a right to abortion have passed in all seven states where they have been put to a vote since Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022.  The red states of Kentucky and Kansas were among the states that passed abortion rights measures by referendum. 

Arizona and Nevada are crucial battleground states in the presidential election that will be decided in November.  Having the issue of abortion on the ballot alongside the decision to vote for either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, who brags about having appointed three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe, is expected to help Democrats from Vice President Harris on down the ballot, including pivotal races that will determine control of the House and the Senate next year.

Abortion is not just a so-called “women’s issue.”  Until two years ago, the right to abortion was embedded in the language of the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection of the laws for all.  It was part of the central argument that established a right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, which involved the right of couples to use birth control.  The fight over abortion rights, often framed as the right of a woman to control her own body, also involves the right to privacy for all of us.  Right wing lawsuit-factories such as the Alliance Defending Freedom have already stated their intention to sue to overturn Griswold, as well as other Supreme Court decisions based on the 14th Amendment involving same sex marriage and the right to love whoever you want in any way you want in the privacy of your bedroom.

With Kamala Harris running for president, Democrats will have the opportunity to emphasize that so-called kitchen table issues such as inflation and taxes are also women’s issues because our candidate is a woman, and that is a good thing.  It is definitely a good thing that abortion will be on the ballot in at least two key swing states, and it's even better thing that the person driving the political narrative for the Democratic Party this year is a woman. 

[ridenwithbiden]

ICYMI "Ohio Republicans are claiming a constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights, which was approved by voters in Tuesday’s election, doesn’t actually do that - and they’re promising to take steps to prevent the legal protection of reproductive freedom in the state.

“To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts with Issue 1, Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative,” Ohio House Republicans wrote in a statement released Thursday. “The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings and input from legal experts on both sides.”

Ohio banned abortion in the aftermath of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, but legal challenges to state’s abortion laws left residents’ reproductive rights in limbo until Tuesday’s ballot measure. The strategy Republicans are now proposing would essentially strip Ohio’s courts of the authority to repeal existing abortion restrictions before the new amendment goes into effect on December 7.

“No amendment can overturn the God-given rights with which we were born,” state Rep. Beth Lear (R-Galena) added in the Republican’s statement. Another representative, Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester), claimed the referendum had only passed due to “foreign election interference.”

Rep. Bill Dean (R-Xenia) said the amendment “doesn’t repeal a single Ohio law,” and that its language is “dangerously vague and unconstrained, and can be weaponized to attack parental rights or defend rapists, pedophiles, and human traffickers.”

Ohio is not the only state where Republicans are attempting to undermine pro-choice ballot initiatives endorsed by constituents. In Michigan, two anti-choice activist groups are working with Republican lawmakers to sue the state and block the implementation of that state’s voter-approved constitutional amendment.

Stacey LaRouche, press secretary to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, told The Detroit News that “it shouldn’t be lost on people that these right-wing organizations and radical Republicans in the Michigan Legislature are cherry-picking courts to try to once again overturn a constitutionally guaranteed right because they can’t win with voters.”

Ballot measures supporting reproductive freedom have been approved in all seven states where they have been put to voters. Despite Republicans claiming that the end of Roe signified the return of the abortion issue to the will of individual states, they clearly remain determined to undermine reproductive rights no matter what any state’s voters have to say about them."

[beardedmrbean]

Do they ever give up? Those looking to divvy up Americans by race, that is.

In California they tried to get race preferences approved in a 2020 referendum, but voters rejected it 57.2% to 42.8%. This was a stunning rebuke, not only because the rejection came from residents of a blue state but because the losing side had outspent opponents something like 14 to 1.

In 2023 the Supreme Court weighed in with a landmark ruling that barred colleges from treating people as members of a racial group instead of as individuals—and cast constitutional doubt on all race-based preferences. “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. Couldn’t be clearer, right?

Not in California. Undaunted state Assemblyman Corey Jackson is pushing a bill called ACA7. It takes aim at the state ban on race preferences that voters put in the constitution in 1996 when they passed Proposition 209. Californians reaffirmed Proposition 209 three years ago at the ballot box.

The language the voters agreed to and the activists hate reads as follows: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” Unlike the 2020 effort, the new bill would leave that language intact. Instead, it would add a provision allowing the governor to create “exceptions.” Effectively that would gut the ban.

Apparently, the lesson the advocates of state-sponsored discrimination have taken from their defeat is that if at first you don’t succeed, try something sneakier.

Here is Mr. Jackson’s press release summarizing the bill: “ACA7 will allow . . . the Governor to issue waivers to public agencies that wish to use state funds for research-based, or research-informed and culturally specific interventions to increase life expectancy, improve educational outcomes, and lift people out of poverty for specific ethnic groups and marginalized genders.”

Gail Heriot is a University of San Diego law professor who sits on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and was a leader of both Proposition 209 and the “no” effort on the 2020 referendum. She has launched a petition with Extremely Concerned Californians at change.org opposing the measure.

“ACA7’s proponents are hoping that voters will be fooled into thinking that it is just a small exception,” Ms. Heriot says. “In fact, it gives the governor enormous power to nullify Proposition 209.”

Edward Blum agrees. As the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, he spearheaded the lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina that killed race preferences in college admissions.

“Racial preferences are never legally justified because some specious ‘research’ report concludes it would be beneficial to a certain race,” says Mr. Blum. “This exemption will trigger endless litigation that will polarize California citizens by race.”

But sowing discord is a feature, not a bug. As the bill was making its way through the Assembly, Mr. Jackson got in a spat with Bill Essayli—a Republican who is also the first Muslim elected to the Assembly. Mr. Essayli pointed out that the majority of Californian voters disagree with state-sanctioned discrimination. “I fundamentally disagree with this backwards policy,” he later tweeted.

Mr. Jackson responded in his own tweet: “This is a perfect example how a minority can become a white supremacist by doing everything possible to win white supremacist and fascist affection.”

ACA7 passed the state Assembly in September. If it passes the Senate, it will be on the ballot in November. If Californians vote yea, it will become part of the constitution.

But all is not lost. The 2020 referendum awakened a sleeping giant: the Asian-American community. Asian-Americans quickly realized (as the Harvard case drove home) that they and their children are the primary victims whenever race is substituted for merit. Asian-Americans are more aware and organized than they were in 2020. They aren’t likely to be fooled by talk of “exceptions” based on “research.”

It also isn’t a given that ACA7 will make it through the state Senate. Though Democrats enjoy a 32-8 majority, polls consistently show race preferences are unpopular. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s support will be crucial.

Though he has no formal role in the constitutional process, some think the bill will go nowhere if Mr. Newsom doesn’t want it to. If it does make it to the ballot this November, he’ll be under immense pressure to endorse it. That’s another reason the Senate should kill ACA7 now, Ms. Heriot says.

“California voters need to make sure their state senators know where they stand—through emails, phone calls, letters, and petitions,” Ms. Heriot says. “Once the senators understand that, they will realize putting ACA7 on the ballot is not in their interest.”

[ismellpestilence]

Now feels like as good a time as any to remind people that you need to vote not just in the presidential elections but also for local elections, ballot measures, referendums, and such. These fascist politicians didn't appear out of nowhere. Greg Abbott started as a state trial judge, for fuck's sake.

Obviously there's other factors involved but this is not the time for "they're all corrupt so I won't vote for anyone" or "but local elections don't do much". Unless you're personally planning the revolution I don't want to hear anyone whining about how voting doesn't work.

Register to vote and fill out every bubble on that ballot like your life depends on it.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Hallie Lauer

City of Pittsburgh operations could come grinding to a halt — buildings dark, public transport riders stranded, firefighters unable to enter burning buildings and paramedics unable to administer life-saving drugs — if a proposed ballot measure seeking to cut all ties to Israel is passed in November, challengers to the provision said in legal documents Tuesday.

City Controller Rachael Heisler and the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh filed separate challenges to a petition that seeks to change Pittsburgh’s Home Rule Charter to ensure that the city cannot invest in or buy services from any entity doing business with or in Israel.

The petition — submitted with more than 12,800 apparently valid signatures — seeks to put the issue before voters as a ballot referendum in November.

While the petition lists neither the name nor address of a submitting entity, it is believed to be the product of the pro-Palestinian “No War Crimes on our Dime” group. The group’s website outlines the reasoning behind the ballot initiative and says it’s backed by the Pittsburgh Democratic Socialists of America, although as recently as Monday the website had claimed backing from a group identified as Keystone Progress.

Hallie Lauer

Staffers for prominent local officials signed on to ballot referendum to end Pittsburgh’s ties to Israel

Keystone Progress reached out to the Post-Gazette after the initial publication and said that their organization name was used in error and that the group is not financially backing the ballot referendum efforts.

Both challenges submitted Tuesday claim the referendum violates state law and certain business provisions of the Home Rule Charter and could create undue strain on city operations.

If the petitions make it past the challenge phase, a referendum will be included on the November ballot, asking Pittsburgh voters to decide whether the charter should be amended to prohibit “investment or allocation of public funds, including tax exemptions, to entities that conduct business operations with or in the state of Israel.”

If approved by voters, the prohibition would be in effect until “Israel ends its military action in Gaza,” allows humanitarian aid to reach the people of Gaza, and grants “equal rights to every person living in the territories under Israeli control,” according to the language of the referendum.

The No War Crimes on our Dime website argues that even making a change in one city, such as Pittsburgh, could send a message about the management and allocation of public resources. “Israel’s war machine is dependent on American weapons and money. … That means we have the capacity, right, and responsibility to stop the violence today by making our government impose a ceasefire and push for equal rights.”

Organizers of the initiative could not be reached directly for comment.

[zvaigzdelasas]

The Venezuelan government held a closing campaign rally ahead of a non-binding referendum that will measure popular support for a longstanding territorial claim over the Essequibo Strip. “This Sunday, with our votes, we will defend the Guayana Esequiba,” Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro told crowds in Caracas, using Venezuela’s name for the disputed territory. “I call on everyone to take part in this popular initiative.” On December 3, around 20 million Venezuelan voters are eligible to participate in a five-question referendum centered on the controversial border between Venezuela and neighboring Guyana. The questions will weigh whether citizens reject an 1899 arbitration ruling that Venezuela deems illegitimate, support a 1966 agreement as the only binding instrument to solve the dispute, dismiss the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over the matter and oppose Guyana’s resource exploration in the Essequibo Strip’s territorial waters. A final question asks voters if they support creating a new state, called Guayana Esequiba, in the disputed strip, granting Venezuelan citizenship to its inhabitants and implementing social programs for the local population.[...]

“This referendum is the moment for national unity,” the Venezuelan leader stated in his address. “We cannot run from the responsibility of recovering the lands bequeathed to us by our independence heroes.”

Friday’s rally came hours after an ICJ ruling to address a motion filed by Guyana requesting that the court introduce provisional measures against the December 3 referendum. In particular, Georgetown wanted the judges to ensure that the first, third and fifth questions be removed from the ballot. It also demanded that there be no future referenda questioning the 1899 arbitration decision. In its response, the ICJ made no reference to the consultative referendum. However, the Hague-based tribunal stated that Venezuela should “refrain from taking any action” that would modify the present circumstances whereby the Essequibo Strip is under Guyanese administration. The ICJ further asserted that the validity of the 1899 arbitration ruling, where no Venezuelan negotiators were present, is to be weighed by the court in the coming months. In 2018, Guyana introduced a motion requesting that the ICJ uphold the validity of the 1899 border. Venezuela protested that it did not recognize the court’s jurisdiction to settle the territorial controversy, but the judges dismissed the arguments. Guyanese President Irfaan Ali welcomed the Friday ruling in a statement. “As the court has made clear, Venezuela is prohibited from annexing or trespassing upon Guyanese territory or taking any other actions […] that would alter the status quo in which Guyana administers and controls the Esequibo region,” it read. Georgetown has taken particular issue with the final question of the referendum which proposes the creation of a new Venezuelan state in the disputed area, claiming that it shows pretenses to “annex” the Essequibo region. However, the wording of the question goes on to affirm that the creation of this state would be “in accordance with international law.” The 160,000 square kilometer, sparsely-populated and resource-rich territory has been administered by the United Kingdom and later the independent Cooperative Republic of Guyana since the 1899 judgment. Venezuela never recognized the arbitration results and the border controversy has flared up recurrently, most recently since 2015 following the discovery of massive offshore oil deposits. For its part, Venezuelan officials hailed the fact that the ICJ effectively rejected Guyana’s request to interfere with Sunday’s referendum. In a statement, the government said it “took note” of the court’s decision and that international law would preclude any interference with Venezuela’s political system. Caracas went on to reaffirm its conviction that the 1966 Geneva Agreement, which saw Venezuela, the United Kingdom and soon-to-be-independent British Guiana commit to finding an amicable and satisfactory solution to the border issue, remains the only binding instrument to solve the dispute. Venezuelan authorities have spared no effort to boost participation in Sunday’s vote. This week, civil registry Saime organized special, fast-tracked procedures for citizens to obtain or renew ID cards so as to be able to participate in the referendum. [...] The consultative referendum has led to a war of words between Caracas and Georgetown as well as rampant speculation about its implications. Venezuelan Socialist Party (PSUV) Vice President Diosdado Cabello took aim at a “campaign that says this referendum is a prelude to war.” “Does anyone believe we are going to declare war against anyone?” he asked during his weekly TV broadcast. [...] The Maduro government has likewise warned against US meddling and raised warnings of a possible increased presence of the US Southern Command in the region. The Biden administration has backed Guyana on the dispute and pledged support, with a Department of Defense delegation visiting Georgetown last week to “strengthen a military partnership.”

2 Dec 23

[prolifeproliberty]

If you are a registered voter in Texas, sign this petition! This is to get a referendum on the Republican primary ballot that reads "Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an independent nation?"

Whether you want Texas to secede or not, whether you think we can secede or not, the voters should have the chance to answer this question for themselves. All this petition does is get the measure on the ballot so it can be voted on.

If you signed a petition about this in 2021, that was for the 2022 primary ballot and has expired. This is a new petition.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

AMERICANS DON’T WANT abortion to be banned. In fact, they barely want it legislated at all: A 2024 poll found that 81 percent of voters don’t want abortion issues to be regulated by the government. Instead, they want the decision to be between a patient and their doctor.  That overwhelming support for legal abortion leaves Republicans with a major problem: How do you defend and push a policy that no one wants? In the nearly two years since Roe v. Wade was overturned, the GOP has faced an unprecedented backlash. They’re losing election after election — from the 2022 midterms to state Supreme Court races — and abortion rights win every time they are on the ballot. Republicans are even considering doing away with the term “pro-life” because Americans view it as too extreme. The horror stories regularly coming out of states with abortion bans certainly don’t help.  In response, anti-abortion lawmakers and groups have recently launched a new two-pronged attack. They’re changing the way they publicly talk about abortion, using specific terms and phrases to make Americans believe that they’re softening on the issue; at the same time, they’re systematically chipping away at democracy so that voters won’t have a say in the matter, just in case their talking points don’t work. I’ve been tracking these tactics in my newsletter, “Abortion, Every Day,” since Roe was overturned, finding that the GOP’s deception runs deeper than most people realize.  It wasn’t long after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision, for example, that anti-abortion organizations and politicians stopped using the word “ban.” (James Bopp, general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, called the term “the big ban word.”) Instead, they replaced it with words like “standard” and “consensus.”  It makes sense: “I support a national consensus” sounds a whole lot better than “I support a national ban,” especially given how unpopular Republicans’ bans are.  [...] And in a moment when so many states are using citizen-led ballot initiatives to restore and protect abortion rights, Republicans are also eager to claim that “the will of the people” is being represented by legislators — rather than voters having a direct say on an issue. Before the Supreme Court heard arguments this spring over lifesaving abortions in emergency rooms, for example, conservative legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom accused the Biden administration of “overrid[ing] the will of Idaho voters enacted through their elected representatives.” [...] All of these efforts — the fake ballot measures, text trickery, and the war on language — are being pushed precisely because Republicans know that Americans support abortion rights. They know they can’t win on their own arguments and merits, so they try to lie and fool voters in order to win. As we speed toward the election this November, we’ll see the same kinds of tactics from the Republicans running — including Trump, who is desperate to escape voters’ post-Roe fury.

Abortion, Every Day writer Jessica Valenti for Rolling Stone on how the "pro-life" movement is rebranding in the Dobbs era with the intent to obscure and deceive people about their anti-abortion extremism (05.23.2024).

[alainamama17]

Steps to Establish Initiatives and Referendums If You Live In a State Without Them

If you live in any of these states, your state does not have the initiative and referendum process.

Alabama Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Indiana Iowa Kentucky Kansas Minnesota New Hampshire New Jersey New York North Carolina Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin

If you don't know what initiative and referendums are, here's what they are.

Referendum: This is an electoral process where voters can express their opinion on government policy or proposed legislation. It can be obligatory, meaning certain actions, like constitutional amendments, must be put to a popular vote, or optional, where a vote on a law passed by the legislature is required only if petitioned by a specified number of voters.

Initiative: This process allows citizens to propose new laws or constitutional amendments. An initiative can be direct, where the proposal goes straight to a vote, or indirect, where it first goes to the legislature and, if rejected, then to a popular vote.

In the U.S., these are forms of direct democracy that give power to the people to shape legislation and policy directly, rather than through elected representatives. They are tools that can empower citizens to have a more active role in governance, especially at the state level, as there is no federal initiative and referendum process.

Steps to Establish Initiatives and Referendums If You Live In a State Without Them

Residents of states without an initiative and referendum process can push to establish these processes through several steps. Generally, the process includes:

Preliminary Filing: Submit a proposed petition to a designated state official, often the Secretary of State.

Review of Petition: Ensure the petition conforms with statutory requirements and, in some states, a review of the language of the proposal.

Ballot Title and Summary: Prepare a ballot title and summary for the proposed initiative or referendum.

Signature Collection: Gather the required number of signatures from registered voters within the state.

Submission and Verification: Submit the signatures for verification.

Ballot Placement: Once verified, the measure is placed on the ballot for a public vote.

It’s important for residents to organize and campaign effectively to gather support for their cause. They may also need to work with legal experts to ensure that their proposed measures are in line with state laws and regulations. Additionally, public awareness campaigns can help educate voters about the benefits of having an initiative and referendum process in their state.

[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.

[lepartidelamort]

“Abortion Lord” Trump Wants to Overturn Six-Week Ban, Allow Women to Murder Older Children

Andrew Anglin

So, I don’t know how much you’re keeping up with this election. I’m not really keeping up with it all that much. I don’t think voting is real, so I’m just going to wait and see who the Jews pick, and then analyze it from there.

But, insofar as I am keeping up with it… it’s everything that I predicted. Both candidates are talking a lot about the concerns of Israel, while both scramble for the middle.

Kamala is now talking about hardcore border security. She’s saying she’s changed all of her views, and is no longer a “Biden Style Radical Extremist.” She’s basically claiming she didn’t have any power under Biden and didn’t really want to do this hardcore leftist stuff.

Meanwhile, Trump is an anti-racist, pro-homosexual abortionist.

New York Post:

Former President Donald Trump suggested Thursday that he’ll vote in favor of a Florida ballot measure aimed at overturning the state’s six-week abortion ban. “I think the six week is too short. It has to be more time,” Trump told NBC News when asked how he intends to vote on the November referendum. “I want more weeks.” “I am going to be voting that we need more than six weeks,” the former president added. … Last week, Trump touted on Truth Social that, if elected, his administration would be “great for women and their reproductive rights.”

It’s hard to say if this would be a good move if the election was real. I don’t think he would be saying this if he thought the election was real. Probably.

If the election is only about appealing to Jews, who you want to select you as president, then Trump abandoning his most devoted base in favor of wanton abortionism is a good move.

He’s got the hardline Israeli Jews on board. He wants the leftist Jews to at least not be afraid of him.

This is exactly what you would expect to happen if the election had nothing to do with voting and was entirely decided by Jewish overlords.

[azspot]

In 2017 the Arizona Legislature pass a law that expanded and lossened school vouchers, moving them from a postition of helping parents and special needs students to permiting a free for all of funding for any school and homeschooling. In 2018 a grass roots referendum was placed on the ballot as Proposition 305, this referendum placed before the public for popular vote rolled back school vouchers to their previous scope and increased accountability for how the public funds were used, also insuring accountability for good stewardship of public tax dollars. This measur passed by a margin of 65% to 35%. Inspite of such overwhleming opposition, the Arizona Legislature with strong pressure from special inerests groups went against the proclaimed will of Arizona voters and negated Proposition 305 and expanded school vouchers as well as removing accountabiity for how the funds are used or applied. Think for a moment; Arizonans are taxed by schoold district but the funds are arbitrarily taken from the districts and local schools to fund for profit schools or buy a computer or pay for a 'educational' trip for a home schooler. There is no recourse, no accounting, no elected voice to oversee the use of your tax dollars. This is taxation without representation. This removes $10,000 - 15,000 from the local school for each student. Yet the local school still has the same costs and standards to uphold. In roughly 2 years, this action by the Arizona Legislature has moved the state budget from a surplus to a debt of $ 1,000,000,000. In its first 6 months it added over $400,000,000 in debt.

David Hopper

[kp777]

By Jessica Corbett

Common Dreams

Sept. 6, 2024

"This is what state-authorized election interference looks like," said the ACLU of Florida.

Floridians and reproductive rights advocates responded with alarm on Friday to Tampa Bay Timesreporting that Florida law enforcement officers have been sent to the homes of multiple voters who signed a petition to get an abortion rights measure on the November ballot.

While Isaac Menasche told the newspaper that he isn't sure which agency the plainclothes officer who came to his home is with, fellow Lee County resident Becky Castellanos said Florida Department of Law Enforcement Officer Gary Negrinelli showed his badge and gave his card.

Both visits were about potential fraud related to the petition for Amendment 4, which would outlaw pre-viability abortion bans in Florida. Menasche was asked if he signed the petition, which he had. Negrinelli inquired about Castellanos' relative, who also signed the petition.

"This is pure voter intimidation, just like with the 'election police' in 2022. It's Gestapo tactics."

The officer inquiries appear "to be part of a broad—and unusual—effort by Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration to inspect thousands of already verified and validated petitions for Amendment 4 in the final two months before Election Day," the Times reported.

The Republican governor signed the state's six-week ban that would end if the ballot measure passes. He has also faced criticism for creating an Office of Election Crimes and Security, whose work has led to the arrest of Floridians who believed they were legally allowed to vote following the passage of a referendum that restored voting rights to many people with past felony convictions.

As the Times detailed Friday:

Since last week, DeSantis' secretary of state has ordered elections supervisors in at leastfour counties to send to Tallahassee at least 36,000 petition forms already deemed to have been signed by real people. Since the Timesfirst reported on this effort, Alachua and Broward counties have confirmed they also received requests from the state. One 16-year supervisor said the request was unprecedented. The state did not ask for rejected petitions, which have been the basis for past fraud cases.

While Department of State spokesperson Ryan Ash said the agency has "uncovered evidence of illegal conduct with fraudulent petitions" and "we have a duty to seek justice for Florida citizens who were victimized," a representative for the coalition behind Amendment 4 criticized the state effort.

"This is very clearly a fishing expedition," ACLU of Florida spokesperson Keisha Mulfort, whose group is part of Floridians Protecting Freedom, told the Times. "It is more important than ever for Floridians to reject these authoritarian tactics and vote yes on Amendment 4 in November."

Promoting the report on social media, the ACLU of Florida added, "This is what state-authorized election interference looks like."

Democrats in the state were similarly critical. Florida state Rep. Anna V. Eskamani (D-42) shared a social media post in which Menasche described feeling "shaken" and "troubled" by the encounter with the officer.

"This is unhinged and undemocratic behavior being pushed by DeSantis and his cronies in an effort to continue our state's near total abortion ban," said Eskamani. "It's clear voter intimidation and plain corruption—continue to call it out and fight back. Vote @yes4florida and spread the word."

Responding to Eskamani, Pamela Castellana, chair of the Brevard Democratic Executive Committee, said: "This literally took my breath away. This is pure voter intimidation, just like with the 'election police' in 2022. It's Gestapo tactics. If you live in Florida you know. If you don't—please help me get the word out. Stop authoritarianism."

Journalist Jessica Valenti argued Friday that Republicans "don't care that voters want abortion rights restored—and if they need to dismantle democracy to keep it banned, so be it."

"We've seen lots of Republican attacks on pro-choice ballot measures—but what makes this one especially insidious is that it's trying to gaslight Americans into thinking that voters don't really want abortion rights restored, but that the overwhelming support is fabricated," she added.

In addition to raising concerns about the fraud allegations, Amendment 4 supporters are outraged over the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration on Thursday launching a webpage claiming that the ballot measure "threatens women's safety."

Florida Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book (D-35) pledged that she is looking into "appropriate legal action," while Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said in a statement that "this kind of propaganda issued by the state, using taxpayer money and operating outside of the political process, sets a dangerous precedent."

"This is what we would expect to see from an authoritarian regime," added Jackson, "not in the so-called 'Free State of Florida.'"