There are 155 ballot measures being voted on during the 2016 U.S. elections on November 8th, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Eight measures were voted on before November, and the 155 count includes Washington, D.C.'s statehood referendum. Hundreds of local ballot measures are not reflected in this count.
[Continues...]
Arkansas, Florida, Montana and North Dakota are voting on permitting medical cannabis, while Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada are voting on recreational cannabis. Montana will vote on expanding access to medical cannabis to patients diagnosed with chronic pain or PTSD, and the removal of some limits of the current law, including surprise inspection by law enforcement. Oklahoma's "Act relating to Criminal Justice Reform for Low-Level Offenses" would soften penalties for drug possession (but not possession or transportation with intent to distribute).
Currently, 20 states allow only medical cannabis under various circumstances, and Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, and Washington D.C. have legalized or decriminalized recreational cannabis. Since at least some of the 2016 cannabis initiatives are likely to pass, you can expect more banking-related headaches in the near future. The number of U.S. banks that will accept money from semi-legal cannabis businesses is up 45%, but many dispensaries are still forced to operate on an all-cash basis, making them attractive robbery targets.
Colorado will vote on a "Medical Aid in Dying" measure which would allow doctor-assisted suicide. If passed, Colorado would join Oregon, Washington, California, Montana and Vermont in allowing some form of assisted suicide. Meanwhile, California is voting on the repeal of the death penalty and Nebraska is voting on reinstatement. California has two death penalty measures on the ballot: one for repeal, and one for changes that would speed up appeals and petitions. Oklahoma may revise the state constitution to make it easier to change the method of execution.
Washington, D.C. is voting on a non-binding statehood referendum. This is the first such vote since 1982. Some would-be backers are turned off by the take-it-or-leave-it inclusion of a new constitution. Previously, the vote would have also included accepting the proposed new name from the 1982 vote, "New Columbia", but that has been rejected by the D.C. Council. Instead, the new state would be called the "State of Washington, D.C." with the D.C. being shorthand for "Douglass Commonwealth".
The state of Washington's Initiative 1491, "Extreme Risk Protection Orders", would allow police or family/household members to obtain court orders temporarily restricting access to firearms for "persons exhibiting mental illness, violent or other behavior indicating they may harm themselves or others". Maine, California and Nevada will vote on measures that would require background checks to purchase guns. Indiana and Kansas will vote on right to hunt/fish measures that do not explicitly mention guns.
Arizona, Maine, Colorado and Washington are voting on increases in the minimum wage, to be phased in by 2020. Washington will consider a $13.50/hour minimum wage, while the other states will decide on $12/hour. On the other side of the coin, South Dakota will vote on a decrease of the minimum wage for workers under 18 years old.
Some more interesting initiatives and referenda: Florida will vote on the "Consumer Rights Regarding Solar Energy Amendment", which claims to establish a right for homeowners to own or lease solar power equipment, while preventing subsidization by non-solar power customers. This measure has been criticized as a ploy by utility companies to raise fees for solar users, and the utilities have spent $22 million to try to get it passed. Colorado will vote on establishing ColoradoCare, a universal health care system. Georgia will vote on imposing additional penalties on child sex-trafficking crimes. Maine voters will consider establishing ranked-choice voting, allowing the method to be used in the U.S. Senator, State Senator, U.S. Representative, State Representative, and Governor races. Montana will vote on establishing the Montana Biomedical Research Authority, which would oversee grants for brain-related medical research and fund some peer-reviewed research. Oklahoma's Wine and Beer Amendment would make extensive changes to the sale of alcohol in the state. Oregon will vote on an increase in corporate taxes to fund education, health care, and senior citizen services.
You can find lists of all the amendments at the NCSL and Ballotpedia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @01:31PM
I expect this one to pass easily and spread through the nation like a prairie fire.
It says that the state of California (MediCal) will not pay any more for a medicine than the best price that USA.gov pays (the Veterans Administration price).
Big Pharma is fighting this tooth and nail (with all kinds of lies).
The last number I saw said they'd already spent $109M.[1] [archive.li]
[1] The S/N comments engine is -still- NEEDLESSLY screwing with %22 in hyperlinks.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @02:37PM
Using Americans' knee jerk itch to support vets to undermine pharma pricing? Now that's entertaining.
Can we rope Indian generic drugs into this arrangement?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @09:33PM
http://www.google.com/search?q=reading.comprehension.course [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @10:16PM
So let's say every state does this.
And let's assume that Big Pharma keeps selling to those states (dubious, but what the hell).
What's to prevent this from turning into another hidden tax on the rest of the population paying yet higher prices to subsidise the state systems?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @12:28AM
Big pharm will quickly realize that they can game it. Instead of dealing with hundreds of companies to fix prices. They can 'campaign contribute' to someone congress critter to get what they need.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rondon on Thursday November 03 2016, @01:32PM
These Florida solar shenanigans are really pissing me off. The utilities completely distort the truth (when they aren't outright lying) and the text that will show on the ballot is not representative of the spirit or language of the bill. I hate, Hate, HATE how moneyed interests are now able to distort direct democracy almost as well as they purchase representative democracy.
God damnit.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday November 03 2016, @01:44PM
Yeah, I remember when casinos were getting approved here in Ohio: The proponents, who just happened to be the companies that would benefit from its approval, of course, boasted about thousands of new jobs (which did not turn out to exist), and filled the voters' heads with images of Cleveland being the new Las Vegas or something. The opponents fell mostly into 2 categories, and the well-funded opponents were of course mostly front groups for the casinos that operated near Ohio in neighboring states.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @02:28PM
In Maryland, it was all about how all the casino money would go to education and the kids. What the MD lawmakers do now is if $X million comes in from the casinos, that does go into the education fund, but not after taking $X million out of the fund to move it elsewhere. See, they never promised that the education fund would increase, they just promised that the casino money would go to it.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 03 2016, @08:46PM
To limit that kind of shenanigans, I grew up with a constitution that states that ALL income goes into the general fund.
If a politician writes a law stating that $NewTax is exclusively to fund the Protect The Children Agency, they get denied by the Constitutional Council.
It prevents the accumulation of protected single-minded money flows which turn into a budget nightmare or a corruption magnet.
(Score: 1) by shipofgold on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:57PM
This one is all about Net-Metering. The "subsidize" language is a direct reference to the fact that those who own rooftop solar can "sell" the extra energy they generate back to the power company when their Electric Meter runs backwards.
The Power company claims that they are buying power at retail cost (ie the same cost they are selling it) and consequently those other non solar owning families have to pay more (or subsidize) because the power company pays more.
This will probably put a big dent in Solar Energy in Florida (one place in the country where it makes the most sense). I ran the numbers to see if I could win by putting a solar installation on my roof. At today's electric rates, and the cost of the installation I might end up with a payback over 10-12 years without Net Metering. But that is a long time, and the maintenance costs will probably eat up any savings I get.
Overall it would be a lot greener, but the power companies don't care about that....only their bottom line.
If the cost of an installation went down by half, it might make sense, even if NetMetering didn't exist...but as it stands now NetMetering is the only thing that make Solar work financially.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 03 2016, @06:04PM
You really can't sustain a business buying a commodity at retail price and also selling it at retail prices. Its amazing how many people have no grasp of basic economics.
Much as you like to heap hate on the power companies that are forced to do this by stupid laws, it doesn't make economic sense. You need some price differential between supply and demand in every transaction or you don't have a market, you have the tragedy of the commons all over again.
If the state persists in such "all things at retail" laws they should just take over the power distribution grid completely, and run the whole thing like highways, which operate at a perpetual loss simply because they provide so much utility to civilization as a whole.
Alternatively, Neighborhoods, housing developments, and perhaps entire small cities should just create a closed loop system with no grid inter-tie. Require rooftop solar AND storage (like Tesla's home batteries). If just one such subdivision was put in properly, I suspect they would become the norm in places like Florida.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 03 2016, @07:06PM
I must point out that power companies are at least partly exempt from the laws of economics that dictate what a Mom and Pop store must do. Power companies are awarded monopolies by the government, and they have captive audiences.
An amusing anecdote for you. A power company ran a highline through the county. Brother in law didn't want to sign the papers for the easement. Someone came out to talk to him, they negotiated, and bil was given free electricity in exchange for signing the papers. Bil had that sweet arrangement for quite a number of years, before the local power company discovered a transformer hanging off of a highline tower. They followed the wires, and discovered the power was hooked up, without even a meter. Local power company threatened legal action, the owners of the highline removed their transformer, and bil now pays for his power through the local coop, which holds the "legal" monopoly to sell electricity in the area.
I really don't think that could happen today, there are to many prying eyes, everywhere you go. Lemme think - bil is 13 years older than I am - I guess this happened mid to late '60's. Today, it's a different world out there.
Anyway, the way I see it, the power companies were formed by and with special powers by the government. The power companies MUST turn a little profit, or they will go out of existence, but the government is there to smooth the way for them. Unlike Mom and Pop, government passes laws to ensure the power companies can make power - laws from limiting the price of fuel, to what kind of fuel will be used, to special considerations for "minority" owned suppliers, on and on it goes. Government can and will pick up some of the power company's costs, if things are looking bad. It is in the "public interest" to keep the power companies running smoothly, and government uses it's powers to ensure that they do.
So - the electric company CAN buy power at retail, and sell it at retail, and still show a profit. While it would be unfeasible for a local small businessman to try that, a monopoly with government backing can do so. Taxpayers will pick up any slack in the balance sheet, after all.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 03 2016, @06:15PM
I hate, Hate, HATE how moneyed interests are now able to distort direct democracy
Your assumption that "direct democracy" could work in any civilization bigger than a small country village is the source of your discomfort. You seem to hate the public discourse which is necessary for "direct democracy" to exist!
You yourself express this as hatred of the fact that others, who's views you dislike, have any input at all, and you imply that their input should be censored and they should be silenced.
How do you expect "direct democracy" would ever work with intolerant attitudes like your own?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Thursday November 03 2016, @08:42PM
Frojack, I understand how you could say that I am implying censorship, but I am not. I do not think that censorship (by the gov't) is the answer.
I do, however, think that it is disgusting that our local radio and television stations are allowing outright lies to be disseminated over their airwaves. I find it intolerable that they value $$$ over truth, and they are using our resources to feed us those lies.
I never once advocated for censorship or indicated I was intolerant of others expressing their views. I did, however, express my extreme hatred toward lies and deception, and the current government's support of that deception through deceptive ballot language. The god-damned ballot says, "This amendment establishes a right under Florida's constitution for consumers to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their own use" when they already have that right through the state legislature. To top it off, the real meat of the bill is the second clause, "while also enacting constitutional protection for any state or local law ensuring that residents who do not produce solar energy can abstain from subsidizing its production." I don't necessarily disagree with this sentiment, but it is burying the lede to put this second.
The freaking ballot then goes on to omit the most important part of the amendment, which is "leaving out the ability for third-party providers to install solar equipment on their homes or businesses and then sell that power directly back to the consumers, bypassing the major utilities." Now, before you go off about 3rd party providers - I think they currently offer a bad deal to consumers. However, I don't want it in my freaking constitution that they are illegal business arrangements! Especially when the freaking ballot initiative doesn't even say a god-damned thing about it!!!!
Frojack, we don't always disagree on details, but I think you were a little knee-jerk in your reaction to me hating everything about the stinking, slimy way this amendment has been proposed to the public
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @02:26PM
In Minnesota there's a state constitution amendment vote asking if legislators should no longer be allowed to vote for their own pay raises, but instead have those be set by a bipartisan board. The sneaky part about it is that they really want this one to pass. It looks bad to vote themselves raises, so they don't like doing it. If some other group is making that decision, then they can get the higher pay without taking the political hit in election years. ("Senator X is just out for himself - he voted to give himself a pay hike! Vote for Senator Y instead!" Ad paid for by the Committee for Statistical Confusion.)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:11PM
A bipartisan board? Raising your own income is a bipartisan position!
The solution is to amend the constitution to allow nobody to raise legislator income except for the voters themselves, by future referendum.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:38PM
"Elected positions shall come with a salary of no more than twice the state's median income, or three times the median income including all benefits and Federally-recognized taxable and non-taxable income, whichever is lower".
Want a raise? Make your people benefit.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 03 2016, @06:07PM
Easy raise: kick all the poor people out.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 03 2016, @06:15PM
I'd like to see every state build a 60-ft boundary wall, and trebuchets to eject their undesirables back and forth... We don't need no stinkin' doors or outsiders!
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday November 04 2016, @10:10AM
It's been done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._California [wikipedia.org]
http://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/VocesNovae/article/view/20/94 [chapman.edu]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:41PM
Or they could do something else effective, like tying their pay raises to some broad index like, "inversely proportional to the number of homeless," or "unemployment rate in their state for households making under $50K/yr." Is that not what they always say about executive pay packages, after all, that they should be structured to align the executive's incentives with the company's?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:45PM
That could lead to perverse incentives to do things like build cardboard shantytowns and declare the homeless problem solved, or create fake employment in the other case. For every loop there is a hole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @09:52PM
These state hacks also get pensions, per diems, travel allowances, free parking spaces, extremely generous vacation and sick day allowances that carry over and can be cashed out, etc. Many of them work only part of the year, so there's plenty of time for a business or private practice on the side.
I'm not talking specifically about Minnesota, that's all over the country.
Then they have the nerve to say they're underpaid. If you're underpaid, step aside and notice how much you're missed.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by WillR on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:02PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:09PM
The problem is that changing the awkward Washington, D.C. name would break things. Protocols, software, tradition, whatever.
What they should do is change the state to "District of Columbia" and call it the city of "Washington". That would fit in with postal stuff (city: WASHINGTON, state: DC). You could even call it "Douglass Commonwealth" if you really wanted to.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:45PM
"Analpolis?" "The Black Hole?" How about the classic, "A bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes?"
Calling that city "Washington" anymore really dishonors the man it's named after.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:49PM
There's a lot of good people in Washington. Well, they tend to be poor and black, unlike Congress.
(Score: 2) by WillR on Thursday November 03 2016, @06:07PM
The stationery lobby killed that one, didn't they?
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Thursday November 03 2016, @05:35PM
The Ga. referendum will add a $2500 fine (yes, two thousand five hundred dollars) for human traffickers and a $5000 annual tax for all "adult entertainment" businesses. Naturally, the amount of the fine and the second part are not talked up very much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @05:57PM
https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia_Additional_Penalties_for_Sex_Crimes_to_Fund_Services_for_Sexually_Exploited_Children,_Amendment_2_(2016) [ballotpedia.org]
I read the linked text of the bill and I don't see that. "Penalties" is open ended.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday November 03 2016, @08:20PM
Naturally, that's the legislation that's waiting for the amendment to pass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @08:37PM
They want to remove civil rights from corporate entities.
... this will make it very hard for, say, unions to take companies to court. Unions get to do that because of corporate access to courts - a factor in their own corporate identity, that lets them represent their members.
Also, the same initiative wants to dictate that the expenditure of money is not speech. Sounds good, right? Bad idea - it gives Congress a lever to interfere with speech.
Poisoned chalice all around.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @09:07PM
You can sue a corporation just as easily as you sue an individual.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @10:22PM
If a corporation is no longer a legal entity, it actually becomes harder.
If the "you" in question is a corporation (such as a nonprofit, a union, or similar) then yes, it does get a lot harder.
Honestly, just doing away with the corporate veil will be bad enough. There was an interesting study (too lazy to look it up, go Google yourself) on how the stipulations of islamic law screwed corporate developments, and hence damaged growth as a consequence of the malallocation of capital across the middle east, compared to the west.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @12:22AM
You can sue a corporation just as easily as you sue an individual.
The law is completely fair and even-handed. It prohibits the rich man from sleeping under a bridge just as surely as it prohibits a poor man.