There is now a separate mod-sanctioned thread for discussion of the president's illness:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=492037
More details in the OP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thread Four
Thread Five
Thread Six
Thread Seven
Thread Eight
Well, folks, we're now in Late September, and the recent death of SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has galvanised both sides and could lead to unforeseen changes in how November goes. For the Republicans, it's a rallying cry to ensure that the President has a Congress, or at least one House of it, that will work to ensure their vision of America becomes reality. For the Democrats, it's an angry call to action to ensure that the President, their President, of course, will have a Congress prepared to undo the damage of the Trump presidency as they see it.
Already early voting is happening in several states and many states will start their periods in the next fortnight. In the meantime, the first debate is a week away, and many are waiting to see just how dirty the fight will be on the two podiums. An already chaotic year is shaping up to be more so than ever before with an election that likely will not be settled on that cool November night just six weeks away but could last for two weeks after that. A restless nation is approaching a day of judgement for its leadership, a judgement passed by the American voting public. If you can vote, do so. I don't care who you vote for, just go down and fill your ballot as you see fit. This election is too important for both sides and indeed for all sides to be ignored.
As always, follow the rules, wash your hands, wear your masks, wait and see if any vaccines are safe, try to be civil, and avoid tooth infections. They're miserable, believe me.
Here's something else you can view. A lot of people are asking what states have special elections for Senate vacancies, so here's a handy guide: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections ... enate.aspx
Also now available, the important 538 Election Forecast by Nate Silver: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
Are you confused as to what your state is planning to do? Take a look at this handy guide to how to vote in each state: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/how-to-vote-2020/
Here, for those who may not know the difference, is the difference between absentee and mail-in ballots: https://www.dictionary.com/e/absentee-ballot-vs-mail-in-ballot/
Plebiscite Plaza 2020:
Our first initiative, Amendment 1, will be voted on on Primary Day, March 3(Super Tuesday). It's a constitutional amendment to change the name of the State Board of Education to the State Commission on Primary and Secondary Education. It would also change its eight-member makeup from being completely elected to being completely appointed by the Governor. REJECTED
On to November with our next amendments. Amendment 1 would change language concerning who can vote from "every citizen" to "only a citizen." These amendments tend to pass easily.
Amendment 2 would lead to sweeping reforms in the state's judicial system starting with taking away the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court's job to appoint the Administrative Director of Courts(the executive in charge of the state's court system) and transferring that power to the Supreme Court as a whole. Second, it would take away the legislature's right to impeach judges and place disciplinary action in the hands of the Court of Judiciary(the state court that handle judicial complaints) and the Judicial Inquiry Commission. Third, it would give the JIC, by a 2/3 majority, the right to suspend judges, which can only currently occur when the JIC hands a case over to the Court of Judiciary. Fourth, it would increase the JIC from 9 to 11 members. Fifth, it would shrink the Court of the Judiciary from nine to eight members and how it's set up. Sixth, it would allow counties to make changes to their judiciaries by county constitutional amendments(which now only require the county itself to approve). And seventh, it would require the State Supreme Court to issue an opinion if the legislature wishes to change judicial district boundaries. A lot to take in, I know.
Amendment 3 would allow district or circuit judges appointed to fill vacancies to serve until the next election after at least two years following their appointment, as opposed to the current one year limit.
Amendment 4 would authorise the state legislature to recompile the notoriously massive state constitution during the 2022 session by removing racist language, arranging the state section into proper articles and sections, consolidate economic development clauses, and arrange all country amendments by county in alphabetical order.
Amendments 5 and 6 are part of that unique Alabama phenomenon: County Amendments. Alabama has the largest constitution in the World, and the main reason for that is that counties have very little authority of their own to do anything. Any significant changes in their laws require constitutional amendments. Since 2016, most county amendments only have to be voted on by the county in question as long as the legislature unanimously decides that it's a county matter. Well, these weren't unanimous, so the whole state has to vote on them.
So what are these measures? Both amendments would allow "Stand Your Ground" laws to apply to churches as well as homes. Amendment 5 would do so for Franklin County while Amendment 6 would do so for Lauderdale County.
On to November with our next amendments. Amendment 1 would change language concerning who can vote from "every citizen" to "only a citizen." These amendments tend to pass easily.
Amendment 2 would lead to sweeping reforms in the state's judicial system starting with taking away the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court's job to appoint the Administrative Director of Courts(the executive in charge of the state's court system) and transferring that power to the Supreme Court as a whole. Second, it would take away the legislature's right to impeach judges and place disciplinary action in the hands of the Court of Judiciary(the state court that handle judicial complaints) and the Judicial Inquiry Commission. Third, it would give the JIC, by a 2/3 majority, the right to suspend judges, which can only currently occur when the JIC hands a case over to the Court of Judiciary. Fourth, it would increase the JIC from 9 to 11 members. Fifth, it would shrink the Court of the Judiciary from nine to eight members and how it's set up. Sixth, it would allow counties to make changes to their judiciaries by county constitutional amendments(which now only require the county itself to approve). And seventh, it would require the State Supreme Court to issue an opinion if the legislature wishes to change judicial district boundaries. A lot to take in, I know.
Amendment 3 would allow district or circuit judges appointed to fill vacancies to serve until the next election after at least two years following their appointment, as opposed to the current one year limit.
Amendment 4 would authorise the state legislature to recompile the notoriously massive state constitution during the 2022 session by removing racist language, arranging the state section into proper articles and sections, consolidate economic development clauses, and arrange all country amendments by county in alphabetical order.
Amendments 5 and 6 are part of that unique Alabama phenomenon: County Amendments. Alabama has the largest constitution in the World, and the main reason for that is that counties have very little authority of their own to do anything. Any significant changes in their laws require constitutional amendments. Since 2016, most county amendments only have to be voted on by the county in question as long as the legislature unanimously decides that it's a county matter. Well, these weren't unanimous, so the whole state has to vote on them.
So what are these measures? Both amendments would allow "Stand Your Ground" laws to apply to churches as well as homes. Amendment 5 would do so for Franklin County while Amendment 6 would do so for Lauderdale County.
Ballot Measure 1 would raise taxes on oil production for the three largest oil fields in the North Slope. There would be two new taxes imposed, and they would have to pay whichever is higher. First, an alternative gross minimum tax of 10% gross value when oil prices are below $50 a barrel. As the price goes up, so does the percentage, a 1% increase every $5 until maxing out at 15%($70 a barrel). Second, an additional production tax calculated by subtracting the difference of the average production tax value of oil each month and $50, then multiplying it by how much oil the company produced that month, then adding another 15%. Whichever one of these two is higher in each field at any given month is the tax they would have to pay.
Ballot Measure 2 would lead to electoral reform. First, partisan primaries would be abolished and replaced with a top-four jungle primary where the top four candidates go to the general. Second, the general election would be switched to RCV, and voters would have to rank all four candidates. Third, all people and entities who make campaign donations that were themselves originally gifts to that person would be required to disclose that donation's true source(who gave the gift initially). Basically, it's a way to require people who work via SuperPACs to disclose the people behind them.
Ballot Measure 2 would lead to electoral reform. First, partisan primaries would be abolished and replaced with a top-four jungle primary where the top four candidates go to the general. Second, the general election would be switched to RCV, and voters would have to rank all four candidates. Third, all people and entities who make campaign donations that were themselves originally gifts to that person would be required to disclose that donation's true source(who gave the gift initially). Basically, it's a way to require people who work via SuperPACs to disclose the people behind them.
Prop 207 would legalise the sale, use, and cultivation of marijuana in Arizona. People could own up to six plants of their own as long as they are kept secure in an enclosed, locked area away from public view. A 16% tax on sales would be imposed with money from the tax going to community colleges(33%), municipal police and fire departments(31.4%), highways(25.4%), the justice reinvestment fund(10%) and enforcement by the state Attorney General(0.2%). Local governments could still ban marijuana if they wish, and people with marijuana-related felonies can request expungement starting on July 12, 2021.
Prop 208 would enact a new 3.5% income tax on all incomes over $250,000 filing singly and $500,000 filing jointly, bringing their tax levels up to 8%. This new tax would be used to fund teachers and teachers aides' salaries, career and metoring programmes for teachers, and the Arizona Teachers Academy.
Prop 208 would enact a new 3.5% income tax on all incomes over $250,000 filing singly and $500,000 filing jointly, bringing their tax levels up to 8%. This new tax would be used to fund teachers and teachers aides' salaries, career and metoring programmes for teachers, and the Arizona Teachers Academy.
Back in 2012, Arkansas voters passed Issue 1, a temporary 0.5% sales tax with proceeds going to transportation funding. This is set to sunset in 2023 when transportation bonds that this tax was meant to pay off are...paid off. However, Arkansas voters will be voting in 2020 on another Issue 1 that would make this sales tax permanent.
Issue 2 would change term limits in Arkansas. Currently, there's a 16-year lifetime limit for legislators. The proposed amendment would change it to 12 years with a chance to run again after four years off.
Issue 3 would change how citizen-directed amendments would proceed in the future. It would require petitions to have at least half of the required signatures from 45 counties instead of the current 15, change the petition deadline from early July to January 15, eliminate the current 30-day grace period for additional signatures, limit the time frame for legal challenges to April 15 at the latest, and change the ratification for all amendments from a simple majority of voters to 60%.
Issue 2 would change term limits in Arkansas. Currently, there's a 16-year lifetime limit for legislators. The proposed amendment would change it to 12 years with a chance to run again after four years off.
Issue 3 would change how citizen-directed amendments would proceed in the future. It would require petitions to have at least half of the required signatures from 45 counties instead of the current 15, change the petition deadline from early July to January 15, eliminate the current 30-day grace period for additional signatures, limit the time frame for legal challenges to April 15 at the latest, and change the ratification for all amendments from a simple majority of voters to 60%.
Prop 13 will be on Super Tuesday, but it's just a bond issue vote.
Come November, Prop 14 would pass a law that issues $5.5 million in bonds to go to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which is the state's stem cell research institute. They had to suspend their operations last July due to depleted funds.
Prop 15 would amend the constitution to require commercial and industrial properties to be taxed according to their fair market value as opposed to the current system that taxes them based on their purchase price plus 2% inflation each year. It would also require all revenue collected from these taxes to go to local government and schools.
Prop 16 would amend the constitution to repeal Prop 209 from 1996. This amendment bans discrimination or the granting of preferential treatment to people based on sex, race, ethnicity, colour, or national origin in public hiring. This is seen as a measure to legalise public affirmative action programmes.
Prop 17 would amend the constitution to restore the right to vote to convicted felons who are on parole from prison. Currently, they must finish parole before regaining the right to vote.
There's also Prop 18, which would allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries if they'll turn 18 between then and the general election. California being California, this will likely pass.
Voters will be deciding another real estate redux as well: Prop 19, which is a modified version of 2018's defeated Prop 5. It would allow seniors, the severely disabled, and victims of natural disasters or hazardous waste contamination to transfer their tax assessments from their old house to another anywhere in the state(currently anywhere in the same county), and lift the lifetime limit on doing this to three times(currently just once). Prop 5 meant to abolish the limit altogether, but it was defeated. Other measures include changing how properties are transferred within families. They would now be reassessed at market value when transferred to children or grandchildren(currently, values are inherited without changes). Also, this would require a legal entity's property to be reassessed to market value if 90% of that entity's ownership changes hands without any one person or group owning over 50%(currently, reassessment is only required when a single person or group gets 50% or more).
Prop 20 would bring criminal justice reforms. These would including increasing the number of types of violent offences that restrict early parole to 51 different crimes, change certain types of theft from felonies to wobblers(i.e, it's the judge's discretion as to whether it's a felony or misdemeanour), create new crimes in the form of serial crime and organised retail crime, and require DNA samples for a variety of offences.
After Prop 10's failure in 2018, its creators are trying again to reform Costa-Hawkins, California's rent control law via Prop 21. Instead of repealing it outright, they now plan to change the operative date on when a property can have rent controls imposed. Instead of only allowing it if it was occupied before February 1, 1995, this would allow it if it was occupied over 15 years from the present day, effectively allowing more rent controls as time progresses. There would be exemptions on people who own no more than two homes with distinct titles. It would also end vacancy decontrol practices by requiring landlords to limit rent increases to 15% for the first three years following a vacancy.
Californians will also be voting on Prop 22, a measure to override AB 5, better known as the Uber Law. AB 5 basically changed the meaning of "independent contractor" in California due to the fact that many of them were, in fact, more dependent on a company like Uber than most independent workers are, which led to them being considered full employees. This has seen a lot of fallout from a lot of similar gig economy-based firms(including the firm I work under) with limits being placed on how much work a person can do. This measure would apply only to app-based drivers, declaring them independent contractors and enact new policies just for them. These policies include an earnings floor of 120% of the state's or municipality's minimum wage and 30 cents a mile, limits to work hours over a 24-hour period, subsidies for healthcare, and insurance for occupational accidents and accidental deaths. Companies would also have to implement anti-discrimination and sexual harassment policies.Background checks would be required, impersonating a driver would become a felony, and localities won't be bale to add their own regulations.
Prop 23 would improve standards for dialysis clinics. Clinics would now be required to have at least one physician on-site while treatments are taking place, report all data on dialysis-related infections at each clinic, obtain consent from the Department of Public Heath before closing clinics, and ban discrimination of patients based on payment sources.
Prop 24 would expand the California Consumer Privacy Act by allowing customers to tell businesses directly not to share their personal information, remove the grace period for fixing any violations before being penalised, require permission to be obtained before sharing information from minors(or their legal guardians if under 13), require companies to correct any inaccurate customer information upon the customer's request, and create the California Privacy Protection Agency to enforce the law.
On to the final proposition, Prop 25, a veto referendum. Back in 2018, the legislature passed SB 10, which made California the first state to abolish bail altogether. It replaced bail with a risk assessment system that would determine whether a person could be released from pretrial detention. Low risks could be released, medium risks would be at a judge's discretion, and high risks would be remanded. This law ended up being savaged by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, not to mention bail bondsmen across the state, because there were considered to be too many issues with possible racial disparity and arbitrary decisions. This proposition would decide whether or not SB 10 would be upheld, with a "No" vote meaning a repeal.
Come November, Prop 14 would pass a law that issues $5.5 million in bonds to go to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which is the state's stem cell research institute. They had to suspend their operations last July due to depleted funds.
Prop 15 would amend the constitution to require commercial and industrial properties to be taxed according to their fair market value as opposed to the current system that taxes them based on their purchase price plus 2% inflation each year. It would also require all revenue collected from these taxes to go to local government and schools.
Prop 16 would amend the constitution to repeal Prop 209 from 1996. This amendment bans discrimination or the granting of preferential treatment to people based on sex, race, ethnicity, colour, or national origin in public hiring. This is seen as a measure to legalise public affirmative action programmes.
Prop 17 would amend the constitution to restore the right to vote to convicted felons who are on parole from prison. Currently, they must finish parole before regaining the right to vote.
There's also Prop 18, which would allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries if they'll turn 18 between then and the general election. California being California, this will likely pass.
Voters will be deciding another real estate redux as well: Prop 19, which is a modified version of 2018's defeated Prop 5. It would allow seniors, the severely disabled, and victims of natural disasters or hazardous waste contamination to transfer their tax assessments from their old house to another anywhere in the state(currently anywhere in the same county), and lift the lifetime limit on doing this to three times(currently just once). Prop 5 meant to abolish the limit altogether, but it was defeated. Other measures include changing how properties are transferred within families. They would now be reassessed at market value when transferred to children or grandchildren(currently, values are inherited without changes). Also, this would require a legal entity's property to be reassessed to market value if 90% of that entity's ownership changes hands without any one person or group owning over 50%(currently, reassessment is only required when a single person or group gets 50% or more).
Prop 20 would bring criminal justice reforms. These would including increasing the number of types of violent offences that restrict early parole to 51 different crimes, change certain types of theft from felonies to wobblers(i.e, it's the judge's discretion as to whether it's a felony or misdemeanour), create new crimes in the form of serial crime and organised retail crime, and require DNA samples for a variety of offences.
After Prop 10's failure in 2018, its creators are trying again to reform Costa-Hawkins, California's rent control law via Prop 21. Instead of repealing it outright, they now plan to change the operative date on when a property can have rent controls imposed. Instead of only allowing it if it was occupied before February 1, 1995, this would allow it if it was occupied over 15 years from the present day, effectively allowing more rent controls as time progresses. There would be exemptions on people who own no more than two homes with distinct titles. It would also end vacancy decontrol practices by requiring landlords to limit rent increases to 15% for the first three years following a vacancy.
Californians will also be voting on Prop 22, a measure to override AB 5, better known as the Uber Law. AB 5 basically changed the meaning of "independent contractor" in California due to the fact that many of them were, in fact, more dependent on a company like Uber than most independent workers are, which led to them being considered full employees. This has seen a lot of fallout from a lot of similar gig economy-based firms(including the firm I work under) with limits being placed on how much work a person can do. This measure would apply only to app-based drivers, declaring them independent contractors and enact new policies just for them. These policies include an earnings floor of 120% of the state's or municipality's minimum wage and 30 cents a mile, limits to work hours over a 24-hour period, subsidies for healthcare, and insurance for occupational accidents and accidental deaths. Companies would also have to implement anti-discrimination and sexual harassment policies.Background checks would be required, impersonating a driver would become a felony, and localities won't be bale to add their own regulations.
Prop 23 would improve standards for dialysis clinics. Clinics would now be required to have at least one physician on-site while treatments are taking place, report all data on dialysis-related infections at each clinic, obtain consent from the Department of Public Heath before closing clinics, and ban discrimination of patients based on payment sources.
Prop 24 would expand the California Consumer Privacy Act by allowing customers to tell businesses directly not to share their personal information, remove the grace period for fixing any violations before being penalised, require permission to be obtained before sharing information from minors(or their legal guardians if under 13), require companies to correct any inaccurate customer information upon the customer's request, and create the California Privacy Protection Agency to enforce the law.
On to the final proposition, Prop 25, a veto referendum. Back in 2018, the legislature passed SB 10, which made California the first state to abolish bail altogether. It replaced bail with a risk assessment system that would determine whether a person could be released from pretrial detention. Low risks could be released, medium risks would be at a judge's discretion, and high risks would be remanded. This law ended up being savaged by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, not to mention bail bondsmen across the state, because there were considered to be too many issues with possible racial disparity and arbitrary decisions. This proposition would decide whether or not SB 10 would be upheld, with a "No" vote meaning a repeal.
First, the amendments. Amendment 76 would change language, just like Alabama, to say that "only a citizen" rather than "every citizen" can vote.
Amendment 77 would remove the limits and what types of games can be played in Central, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek, the only three cities where gambling is allowed. It would also get rid of the maximum bet of $100, and a law would be passed to allow the three cities to decide for themselves what games to pay and how much one could bet. It would also expand where gambling revenues go to include retention and credential completion programmes for community colleges, which are already funded by legal casinos.
Amendment B would change how property taxes are levied. Since the Gallagher Amendment was passed in 1982, the state is required to have 55% of all property tax revenue come from non-residential sources with the remaining 45% coming from residences. This measure would strip that requirement from the constitution, allowing any proportions that may arise. A companion bill would freeze tax assessments and prohibit the legislature from changing them, leaving the current levels of 29% for non-residential property and 7.15% for residential property.
Amendment C would allow organisations to hold charitable gaming licences after being in existence for at least three years. lowering it from the current five-year minimum. Organisations could also hire managers and operators of gaming activities provided that they're paid no more than minimum wage for their services.
Amendment EE would raise tobacco taxes. It would create a new tax for non-cigarette nicotine products like vapes, which would be half of what the measure's other taxes would be, raise the tax on cigarettes from the current 20 cents per pack to $2.00 per pack by 2027, raise the tobacco products tax(including chewing tobacco) to 42% of manufacturer's list price from the current 20% by 2027, and create a new tax on tobacco products that would start at 50% of manufacturer's list price and go up to 62% in 2027. The money from this, expected to be $294 million per year, would be used to fund rural schools, healthcare expansion funds, tobacco prevention funds, and cancer prevention and treatment funds.
Now to regular laws. Prop 113 is a veto vote. At the start of 2019, Colorado's legislature passed SB 42, which brought Colorado into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This, once the number of states that top 270 electoral votes is reached, would require Colorado to give their presidential electoral votes to whomever wins the national popular vote. Many people, mostly conservatives, brought up a petition to veto the law, so now it goes to the voters. A "No" vote would lead to SB 42 being repealed.
Prop 114 would require the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to set up a plan that would see Gray Wolves returned to Colorado, on public lands west of the continental divide, by 2023.
Prop 115 would ban abortions after 22 weeks. Doctors who perform them would be charged with a misdemeanour, fined, and have their licences suspended for a minimum of three years unless it's done to save the mother's life.
Prop 116 would lower the state income tax from 4.63% to 4.55%.
Prop 117 would require any future state enterprises(state-owned businesses that charge people for their services) to be approved by the voters if they wish to be exempt from TABOR(Taxpayers Bill of Rights) refund requirements and are projected to make more than $100 million in their first five years.
Prop 118 would create a paid family and medical leave programme for Colorado. It would grant up to 12 weeks paid leave and an additional 4 weeks for pregnancy or childbirth complications at an unspecified cap. Local governments can opt out, but people who work for those governments can opt in at the state level as can self-employed individuals. It would be funded by a new payroll tax of 0.9% of wages or salary up to the end of 2024, whereupon it would go up to 1.2%. Employers would be allowed to split the tax 50/50 as they do with other payroll taxes except for those with 10 or fewer employees. A new Family and Medical Leave Insurance Division would be set up as a TABOR-exempt enterprise within the Labour Department to oversee the programme.
Amendment 77 would remove the limits and what types of games can be played in Central, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek, the only three cities where gambling is allowed. It would also get rid of the maximum bet of $100, and a law would be passed to allow the three cities to decide for themselves what games to pay and how much one could bet. It would also expand where gambling revenues go to include retention and credential completion programmes for community colleges, which are already funded by legal casinos.
Amendment B would change how property taxes are levied. Since the Gallagher Amendment was passed in 1982, the state is required to have 55% of all property tax revenue come from non-residential sources with the remaining 45% coming from residences. This measure would strip that requirement from the constitution, allowing any proportions that may arise. A companion bill would freeze tax assessments and prohibit the legislature from changing them, leaving the current levels of 29% for non-residential property and 7.15% for residential property.
Amendment C would allow organisations to hold charitable gaming licences after being in existence for at least three years. lowering it from the current five-year minimum. Organisations could also hire managers and operators of gaming activities provided that they're paid no more than minimum wage for their services.
Amendment EE would raise tobacco taxes. It would create a new tax for non-cigarette nicotine products like vapes, which would be half of what the measure's other taxes would be, raise the tax on cigarettes from the current 20 cents per pack to $2.00 per pack by 2027, raise the tobacco products tax(including chewing tobacco) to 42% of manufacturer's list price from the current 20% by 2027, and create a new tax on tobacco products that would start at 50% of manufacturer's list price and go up to 62% in 2027. The money from this, expected to be $294 million per year, would be used to fund rural schools, healthcare expansion funds, tobacco prevention funds, and cancer prevention and treatment funds.
Now to regular laws. Prop 113 is a veto vote. At the start of 2019, Colorado's legislature passed SB 42, which brought Colorado into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This, once the number of states that top 270 electoral votes is reached, would require Colorado to give their presidential electoral votes to whomever wins the national popular vote. Many people, mostly conservatives, brought up a petition to veto the law, so now it goes to the voters. A "No" vote would lead to SB 42 being repealed.
Prop 114 would require the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to set up a plan that would see Gray Wolves returned to Colorado, on public lands west of the continental divide, by 2023.
Prop 115 would ban abortions after 22 weeks. Doctors who perform them would be charged with a misdemeanour, fined, and have their licences suspended for a minimum of three years unless it's done to save the mother's life.
Prop 116 would lower the state income tax from 4.63% to 4.55%.
Prop 117 would require any future state enterprises(state-owned businesses that charge people for their services) to be approved by the voters if they wish to be exempt from TABOR(Taxpayers Bill of Rights) refund requirements and are projected to make more than $100 million in their first five years.
Prop 118 would create a paid family and medical leave programme for Colorado. It would grant up to 12 weeks paid leave and an additional 4 weeks for pregnancy or childbirth complications at an unspecified cap. Local governments can opt out, but people who work for those governments can opt in at the state level as can self-employed individuals. It would be funded by a new payroll tax of 0.9% of wages or salary up to the end of 2024, whereupon it would go up to 1.2%. Employers would be allowed to split the tax 50/50 as they do with other payroll taxes except for those with 10 or fewer employees. A new Family and Medical Leave Insurance Division would be set up as a TABOR-exempt enterprise within the Labour Department to oversee the programme.
Initiative 81 would instruct the DC Police to place the non-commercial cultivation, possession, distribution, and use of entheogenic plants and fungi(i.e, magic mushrooms, mescaline, peyote, etc.) on their lowest enforcement priorities, effectively decriminalising such acts.
Amendment 1 would also change language to "only a citizen". Polls show this passing overwhelmingly, and Florida requires a 55% majority for amendments.
Amendment 2 would increase the state's minimum wage from the current $8.46 an hour to $15 an hour by 2026. This is also expected to pass.
Amendment 3 would create a jungle primary system(top two regardless of party) for Florida's state legislators and executives. Right now, polls are leaning against approval.
Amendment 4 would change the constitution to require all future amendments to be passed at two general elections rather than one in order to be ratified, a practice that's already done by some states. The most recent polls in October show it ahead but not with the 55% needed to ratify.
Amendment 5 would change the constitution to extend the time a person may transfer their Save Our Homes benefits(a constitutional provision that limits property tax valuation increases on homesteads to 3% per year) to three years after they get a new homestead. Currently, the time frame is two years afterwards.
Amendment 6 would amend the constitution to allow homestead property tax discounts to be passed on to the surviving spouse of a deceased veteran.
Amendment 2 would increase the state's minimum wage from the current $8.46 an hour to $15 an hour by 2026. This is also expected to pass.
Amendment 3 would create a jungle primary system(top two regardless of party) for Florida's state legislators and executives. Right now, polls are leaning against approval.
Amendment 4 would change the constitution to require all future amendments to be passed at two general elections rather than one in order to be ratified, a practice that's already done by some states. The most recent polls in October show it ahead but not with the 55% needed to ratify.
Amendment 5 would change the constitution to extend the time a person may transfer their Save Our Homes benefits(a constitutional provision that limits property tax valuation increases on homesteads to 3% per year) to three years after they get a new homestead. Currently, the time frame is two years afterwards.
Amendment 6 would amend the constitution to allow homestead property tax discounts to be passed on to the surviving spouse of a deceased veteran.
Amendment 1 would allow the legislature to dedicate revenues, taxes, and fees from hazardous and solid waste collection, including the disposal of scrap automobile tires, to the purposes for which the fees were imposed.
Amendment 2 would amend the constitution to allow residents to seek declaratory relief from any local or state law that's found to be in violation of other state laws, the state constitution, or the US constitution. This means that courts would not be able to award damages to them unless approved by the legislature.
Referendum A would exempt certain charities from paying property taxes if the property in question is owned exclusively in order to build or repair single-family homes and if the charity provides interest-free financing to the individuals purchasing the home.
Amendment 2 would amend the constitution to allow residents to seek declaratory relief from any local or state law that's found to be in violation of other state laws, the state constitution, or the US constitution. This means that courts would not be able to award damages to them unless approved by the legislature.
Referendum A would exempt certain charities from paying property taxes if the property in question is owned exclusively in order to build or repair single-family homes and if the charity provides interest-free financing to the individuals purchasing the home.
This measure would amend the constitution to require that the legislature has 35 districts, which they currently have(Senators get elected in each district, the House elects two from each district). The constitution currently requires between 30-35 districts. I'd say this will pass.
Illinois is voting to amend its constitution to allow for a graduated progressive income tax as opposed to the current requirements for a flat income tax. Polls show it passing with an average of 67%, and we require 60%+1 or an absolute majority of all voters. The tax rates were determined last year and will only go into effect once the amendment passes.
Iowa will be voting, as they must every decade, on whether or not to hold a Constitutional Convention. This isn't likely to pass.
Kentucky will be voting on Amendment 1, which would add Marsy's Law to their constitution...again. They voted for it in 2018, but the Commonwealth Supreme Court struck it down due to what it considered unconstitutional language, so this version is an attempt at fixing that. Like in '18, it'll pass overwhelmingly.
Amendment 2 would extend term lengths for certain judicial offices starting in 2022. Circuit clerks and Commonwealth's Attorneys would go up from six-year terms to eight-year terms, county attorneys and district judges would go from four years to eight, and licencing requirements for district attorneys would be renewed every eight years instead of every two years.
Amendment 2 would extend term lengths for certain judicial offices starting in 2022. Circuit clerks and Commonwealth's Attorneys would go up from six-year terms to eight-year terms, county attorneys and district judges would go from four years to eight, and licencing requirements for district attorneys would be renewed every eight years instead of every two years.
Amendment 1 would say that "nothing in this constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion."
Amendment 2 would require Parishes to take into account how much oil or gas a well produces when levying property taxes, unlike now when they just use the fair market value of the well itself.
Amendment 3 would allow the legislature to use up to a third of the state's rainy day fund (Or Budget Stabilisation Fund to use the official name) to cover the state's costs associated with federal disasters and disaster areas.
Amendment 4 would change how the state decides its spending limit. Currently, state expenditures are capped at the previous year's limit multiplied by the average annual percentage change in personal income over the last three years. This amendment would change that cap to one that's at the previous year's limit multiplied by 5% or less.
Amendment 5 would allow local governments to enter cooperative endeavour agreements with new or expanding manufacturers. These agreements can be made when the transfer or sale of public land is in sync with the governmental purpose that the company can legally pursue, when the transfer or sale isn't seen as unnecessarily gratuitous by the city or parish, and when the company can reasonably claim that they'll receive equal or greater benefits than the cost of the sale. If they enter these agreements, then they can make CEA payments to that authority instead of property taxes to the parish.
Amendment 6 would expand the state's special homestead exemption. People who earn up to $100,000 a year could now qualify for special homestead assessments, whereas the current income limit is $50,000 a year.
Amendment 7 would create an Unclaimed Property Permanent Trust Fund, which would allow the state to set money aside to make payments for claims on abandoned property. It would also allocate funds above necessary administrative costs required by current unclaimed property laws to the UCP fund until the amount reaches the amount of all unclaimed properties, allow any additional unclaimed property receipts and funds that aren't claimed to go into the state's General Fund, and allow the State Treasurer to put 50% of the UCP fund into equities for investment.
Louisianans will also be voting on legalising sports betting...on a parish-by-parish basis. Unlike the other measures, this statewide measure will be directed towards each parish individually, where a majority in each parish will decide if sports betting will be legal in said parish.
Amendment 2 would require Parishes to take into account how much oil or gas a well produces when levying property taxes, unlike now when they just use the fair market value of the well itself.
Amendment 3 would allow the legislature to use up to a third of the state's rainy day fund (Or Budget Stabilisation Fund to use the official name) to cover the state's costs associated with federal disasters and disaster areas.
Amendment 4 would change how the state decides its spending limit. Currently, state expenditures are capped at the previous year's limit multiplied by the average annual percentage change in personal income over the last three years. This amendment would change that cap to one that's at the previous year's limit multiplied by 5% or less.
Amendment 5 would allow local governments to enter cooperative endeavour agreements with new or expanding manufacturers. These agreements can be made when the transfer or sale of public land is in sync with the governmental purpose that the company can legally pursue, when the transfer or sale isn't seen as unnecessarily gratuitous by the city or parish, and when the company can reasonably claim that they'll receive equal or greater benefits than the cost of the sale. If they enter these agreements, then they can make CEA payments to that authority instead of property taxes to the parish.
Amendment 6 would expand the state's special homestead exemption. People who earn up to $100,000 a year could now qualify for special homestead assessments, whereas the current income limit is $50,000 a year.
Amendment 7 would create an Unclaimed Property Permanent Trust Fund, which would allow the state to set money aside to make payments for claims on abandoned property. It would also allocate funds above necessary administrative costs required by current unclaimed property laws to the UCP fund until the amount reaches the amount of all unclaimed properties, allow any additional unclaimed property receipts and funds that aren't claimed to go into the state's General Fund, and allow the State Treasurer to put 50% of the UCP fund into equities for investment.
Louisianans will also be voting on legalising sports betting...on a parish-by-parish basis. Unlike the other measures, this statewide measure will be directed towards each parish individually, where a majority in each parish will decide if sports betting will be legal in said parish.
In May 2019, Maine passed LD 798 into law, which eliminates religious and philosophical exemptions from vaccinations effective September 2021. This, however, was opposed by many, so now the issue will be going up to the voters on Super Tuesday via Question 1. This will likely be a "No" vote to uphold the law. REJECTED, so the law stays in effect.
Question 1 would amend their constitution to allow the legislature to increase, decrease, or add items to the annual budget provided that it doesn't exceed the amount of money that the Governor's proposed. Currently, they're only allowed to cut items from the budget.
Question 2 would legalise sports and event betting at certain licenced facilities. All the money would go to public education. It would also authorise the Maryland Department of Transportation, the State Lottery and Gaming Control Commission, and the Attorney General to review a 2017 study concerning disparities in the numbers of women and minorities in the gaming industry and possibly propose remedial solutions.
Question 2 would legalise sports and event betting at certain licenced facilities. All the money would go to public education. It would also authorise the Maryland Department of Transportation, the State Lottery and Gaming Control Commission, and the Attorney General to review a 2017 study concerning disparities in the numbers of women and minorities in the gaming industry and possibly propose remedial solutions.
Question 1 is a Right to Repair initiative. This would require all manufacturers of vehicles with telemetric and diagnostic systems, starting in the model year 2022, to equip these vehicle with a single standard open data platform instead of the proprietary data platforms many currently use, allowing independent mechanics and vehicle owners to access this data and run diagnostics via a mobile app.
Question 2 would introduce RCV elections for most commonwealth and federal elections.
Question 2 would introduce RCV elections for most commonwealth and federal elections.
Proposal 1 would amend the constitution to change how state and local park money can be spent. Projects that would renovate recreational facilities would now be eligible for state grants and at least 25% of all grants would have to go to it, the State Parks Endowments Fund could now be spent on upkeep and maintenance for the parks, and the Natural Resources Trust Fund's cap would be increased from $500 to $800 million.
Proposal 2 would amend the constitution to require authorities to obtain a search warrant before they could search a person's electronic data or communications.
Proposal 2 would amend the constitution to require authorities to obtain a search warrant before they could search a person's electronic data or communications.
Ballot Measure 1 contains two proposals. First, Initiative 65 would amend the constitution to legalise medical marijuana for people who have one of over 20 different conditions including cancer, HIV/AIDS, or Parkinson's among others. Patients would be able to have up to 2.5 grams worth on them.
Mississippians will also have Alternative 65A to contend with. Mississippi allows the Legislature to pass their own alternative version of initiatives, so they passed this alternative to Initiative 65. Basically, it would also legalise medical marijuana-based products for debilitating conditions, but there would be more stringent regulations limiting their use to terminal patients with debilitating conditions, far fewer than Initiative 65 would allow. Mississippians will have a choice of "Either Measure" or "Neither Measure" on their ballots, and if they vote either, they will get to choose which of these two measures they want.
Ballot Measure 2 would change how elections work. This measure would amend the constitution to require runoffs if candidates for state offices don't receive a majority of votes. Currently, they're required to have both a majority of votes and seats in the House of Representatives, and the House chooses from the top two if no majority is reached.
Now that Mississippi has gotten rid of their old flag, they need a new one. Ballot Measure 3 is part of the law that got rid of the old one. Mississippi now has a nine-member Commission to Redesign the Mississippi State Flag, three appointed by the Speaker of the House, three by the Lieutenant Governor, and the remaining three chosen by the Governor from the various state arts, historic, and economic councils. They have to come up with a new design by September 14 that can't include the old battle jack and must include the state motto: In God We Trust. It must also, according to the law, "honour the past while embracing the promise of the future." This is the flag they chose:
It now goes to the voters via this measure. If the voters reject it, then the Commission will meet again and consider a new flag design to be voted on in 2021.
Mississippians will also have Alternative 65A to contend with. Mississippi allows the Legislature to pass their own alternative version of initiatives, so they passed this alternative to Initiative 65. Basically, it would also legalise medical marijuana-based products for debilitating conditions, but there would be more stringent regulations limiting their use to terminal patients with debilitating conditions, far fewer than Initiative 65 would allow. Mississippians will have a choice of "Either Measure" or "Neither Measure" on their ballots, and if they vote either, they will get to choose which of these two measures they want.
Ballot Measure 2 would change how elections work. This measure would amend the constitution to require runoffs if candidates for state offices don't receive a majority of votes. Currently, they're required to have both a majority of votes and seats in the House of Representatives, and the House chooses from the top two if no majority is reached.
Now that Mississippi has gotten rid of their old flag, they need a new one. Ballot Measure 3 is part of the law that got rid of the old one. Mississippi now has a nine-member Commission to Redesign the Mississippi State Flag, three appointed by the Speaker of the House, three by the Lieutenant Governor, and the remaining three chosen by the Governor from the various state arts, historic, and economic councils. They have to come up with a new design by September 14 that can't include the old battle jack and must include the state motto: In God We Trust. It must also, according to the law, "honour the past while embracing the promise of the future." This is the flag they chose:
First, we have Amendment 2 coming up on August 4. This would expand Medicaid to ACA levels. Like most states, it's likely to pass. APPROVED
Amendment 1, coming in November with the other measures on the list, would amend the constitution to limit all executive offices to a term limit of two terms. Currently, only the Governor and State Treasurer are subject to them.
Amendment 3 would effectively alter 2018's Amendment 1 beyond recognition. Lobbyists' gifts would be outright banned instead of capped at $5, the campaign contribution limit for state senate campaigns would be reduced to $2,400 from $2,500, and the nonpartisan state demographer would be dissolved. Redistricting would be returned to the hands of a bipartisan legislative commission, which would now have additional mandates to keep communities, cities, counties(where possible),or neighbourhoods in the same district, requiring districts to have no more than five sides, and requiring districts to be as equal in population as possible within 1% of the state's population average or within 3% if that means communities can stay together. They will also be required to measure partisan fairness, subordinate to the other requirements, and districts would go through simulated elections using the electoral performance index with statewide swings between 1-5%. If a district's "wasted votes", described as votes that either go to perennially losing parties or overwhelming winning parties, go over 15% of the margin of votes in these simulations, the district can be rejected.
Amendment 1, coming in November with the other measures on the list, would amend the constitution to limit all executive offices to a term limit of two terms. Currently, only the Governor and State Treasurer are subject to them.
Amendment 3 would effectively alter 2018's Amendment 1 beyond recognition. Lobbyists' gifts would be outright banned instead of capped at $5, the campaign contribution limit for state senate campaigns would be reduced to $2,400 from $2,500, and the nonpartisan state demographer would be dissolved. Redistricting would be returned to the hands of a bipartisan legislative commission, which would now have additional mandates to keep communities, cities, counties(where possible),or neighbourhoods in the same district, requiring districts to have no more than five sides, and requiring districts to be as equal in population as possible within 1% of the state's population average or within 3% if that means communities can stay together. They will also be required to measure partisan fairness, subordinate to the other requirements, and districts would go through simulated elections using the electoral performance index with statewide swings between 1-5%. If a district's "wasted votes", described as votes that either go to perennially losing parties or overwhelming winning parties, go over 15% of the margin of votes in these simulations, the district can be rejected.
First, we have LR-130. This proposed law would strip local governments of their ability to regulate or restrict concealed weapons.
Next, we have C-46 and C-47. They both do the same thing; enshrining current signature distribution requirements for initiatives into the constitution, 5% in 34 legislative districts for statues or referenda, 10% in 40 districts for amendments. C-46 does it for constitutional amendments while C-47 does it for laws.
CI-118 and I-190 are two parts of a single initiative. CI-118 would amend the constitution to allow either the legislature or a ballot initative to legalise and set a minimum age for the use of marijuana. If CI-118 passes, I-190 is the legalisation mechanism itself. It would set the age at 21 and impose a 20% sales tax that would go to the Fish, Wildlife, an Parks Department(37.125%), the general fund(10.5%), a drug addiction treatment fund(10%), a fund for local authorities to regulate the trade(10%), a fund for providing service and assistance to veterans(10%), a fund to provide wage increases to Medicaid-funded home health care workers(10%), the nongame wildlife fund(4.125%), the state parks fund(4.125%), and the trails and recreational facilities fund(4.125%). Marijuana would have to be grown in a private, locked space, and marijuana possession could still be fined beyond a certain weight limit. People who were convicted of marijuana-related felonies beforehand could now get them expunged.
Next, we have C-46 and C-47. They both do the same thing; enshrining current signature distribution requirements for initiatives into the constitution, 5% in 34 legislative districts for statues or referenda, 10% in 40 districts for amendments. C-46 does it for constitutional amendments while C-47 does it for laws.
CI-118 and I-190 are two parts of a single initiative. CI-118 would amend the constitution to allow either the legislature or a ballot initative to legalise and set a minimum age for the use of marijuana. If CI-118 passes, I-190 is the legalisation mechanism itself. It would set the age at 21 and impose a 20% sales tax that would go to the Fish, Wildlife, an Parks Department(37.125%), the general fund(10.5%), a drug addiction treatment fund(10%), a fund for local authorities to regulate the trade(10%), a fund for providing service and assistance to veterans(10%), a fund to provide wage increases to Medicaid-funded home health care workers(10%), the nongame wildlife fund(4.125%), the state parks fund(4.125%), and the trails and recreational facilities fund(4.125%). Marijuana would have to be grown in a private, locked space, and marijuana possession could still be fined beyond a certain weight limit. People who were convicted of marijuana-related felonies beforehand could now get them expunged.
Amendment 1 would remove the state's exception clause, a provision that allows slavery or indentured servitude for prisoners, from the constitution.
Amendment 2 would increase the repayment period for TIFs(tax increment financing areas) in areas considered extremely blighted from 15 to 20 years.
Initiative 428 would impose an annual interest cap of 36% on payday lenders in the state.
Initiatives 429, 430, and 431 are all connected to each other. Initiative 429 would amend the state constitution to allow the state to pass laws legalising gaming at racetracks. Initiative 430 would be the legalisation itself, creating the Nebraska Gaming Commission to regulate the practice, and Initiative 431 would impose a 20% tax on gross revenues for gambling operators. 70% of this money would go to the state Property Tax Credit Cash Fund, 25% would go directly to the counties where the racetracks are, 2.5% to the Compulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund, and 2.5% to the State's General Fund.
Amendment 2 would increase the repayment period for TIFs(tax increment financing areas) in areas considered extremely blighted from 15 to 20 years.
Initiative 428 would impose an annual interest cap of 36% on payday lenders in the state.
Initiatives 429, 430, and 431 are all connected to each other. Initiative 429 would amend the state constitution to allow the state to pass laws legalising gaming at racetracks. Initiative 430 would be the legalisation itself, creating the Nebraska Gaming Commission to regulate the practice, and Initiative 431 would impose a 20% tax on gross revenues for gambling operators. 70% of this money would go to the state Property Tax Credit Cash Fund, 25% would go directly to the counties where the racetracks are, 2.5% to the Compulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund, and 2.5% to the State's General Fund.
Question 1 is an amendment that would remove the constitutional status of the Nevada State Board of Regents. This board oversees eight major universities in the state including UNLV, and removing its status would allow the legislature to have more control over higher education in the state. It passed the legislature with wide bipartisan support.
Question 2 would repeal 2002's Question 2, which limits marriage to a man and a woman. A symbolic gesture that nonetheless is a good one for equality, so I think it will pass.
Question 3 is an amendment that would change how the State Board of Pardons Commissioners works. It would require the board, consisting of the Governor, Attorney General, and the seven State Supreme Court Justices, to meet at least four times a year(currently only required by law to meet twice a year), allow any board member to submit an issue for consideration, and make a majority decision sufficient for any measures(currently, it has to be a majority plus the governor).
Question 4 is an amendment that would add the 2002 Declaration of Voter's Rights to the constitution. These rights are the right to vote on a ballot that is written in a clear format and accurately records the person's vote, the right to have questions about voting procedures answered and to have those procedures publicly visible at all polling places, the right to vote without intimidation, the right to vote during an early voting period or on election day if you're in line when the polls close, the right to return and replace spoiled ballots, the right to request assistance in voting if necessary, the right to a sample ballot, the right to instruction on how to use polling equipment, the right to equal access to the voting system, the right to uniform statewide standards for counting ballots, and the right to have complaints about election issues resolved fairly and efficiently.
Finally, there's Question 6. If you're wondering why they've skipped 5, it's because back in 2018, Nevada voted for Question 6, an amendment that would raise the state's renewable energy requirements to 50% of all energy by 2030. Since this was an initiated amendment, it requires a second vote at the next general election, and this is that vote. I don't think the electorate is likely to change that much by November, so it'll pass again.
Question 2 would repeal 2002's Question 2, which limits marriage to a man and a woman. A symbolic gesture that nonetheless is a good one for equality, so I think it will pass.
Question 3 is an amendment that would change how the State Board of Pardons Commissioners works. It would require the board, consisting of the Governor, Attorney General, and the seven State Supreme Court Justices, to meet at least four times a year(currently only required by law to meet twice a year), allow any board member to submit an issue for consideration, and make a majority decision sufficient for any measures(currently, it has to be a majority plus the governor).
Question 4 is an amendment that would add the 2002 Declaration of Voter's Rights to the constitution. These rights are the right to vote on a ballot that is written in a clear format and accurately records the person's vote, the right to have questions about voting procedures answered and to have those procedures publicly visible at all polling places, the right to vote without intimidation, the right to vote during an early voting period or on election day if you're in line when the polls close, the right to return and replace spoiled ballots, the right to request assistance in voting if necessary, the right to a sample ballot, the right to instruction on how to use polling equipment, the right to equal access to the voting system, the right to uniform statewide standards for counting ballots, and the right to have complaints about election issues resolved fairly and efficiently.
Finally, there's Question 6. If you're wondering why they've skipped 5, it's because back in 2018, Nevada voted for Question 6, an amendment that would raise the state's renewable energy requirements to 50% of all energy by 2030. Since this was an initiated amendment, it requires a second vote at the next general election, and this is that vote. I don't think the electorate is likely to change that much by November, so it'll pass again.
Public Question 1 would amend the constitution to legalise recreational marijuana for everyone over age 21. It'll easily pass.
Public Question 2 would amend the constitution to expand New Jersey's $250 property tax deduction for veterans to include veterans who didn't serve during wartime. It would also expand the 100% property tax exemption for disabled veterans to include those who served during peacetime and still got their disability as a result of their service. This is likely to pass.
Public Question 3 would amend the constitution to delay the state's redistricting process if census data isn't received before February 15, 2021. Currently, the new maps have to be certified by February 1 or a month after the data is received, whichever's later. The process would, instead, take place in 2022, and current legislative districts would remain as they are for the 2021 state election.
Public Question 2 would amend the constitution to expand New Jersey's $250 property tax deduction for veterans to include veterans who didn't serve during wartime. It would also expand the 100% property tax exemption for disabled veterans to include those who served during peacetime and still got their disability as a result of their service. This is likely to pass.
Public Question 3 would amend the constitution to delay the state's redistricting process if census data isn't received before February 15, 2021. Currently, the new maps have to be certified by February 1 or a month after the data is received, whichever's later. The process would, instead, take place in 2022, and current legislative districts would remain as they are for the 2021 state election.
New Mexico will be voting on an amendment to change the makeup of the Public Regulation Commission. This commission oversees the regulation of New Mexico's public utilities from water to phones, and it's currently a five-member elected commission. This amendment would change it to a three-member commission appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate. No more than two members may belong to the same political party, and they would serve up to two six-year terms.
The second proposal for New Mexico voters would amend the constitution to allow the legislature to pass laws that would change the dates of elections for non-statewide(read county) office holders and adjust their terms of office to match those dates. These terms could not be shortened or lengthened by more than two years.
The second proposal for New Mexico voters would amend the constitution to allow the legislature to pass laws that would change the dates of elections for non-statewide(read county) office holders and adjust their terms of office to match those dates. These terms could not be shortened or lengthened by more than two years.
Constitutional Measure 1 would amend the constitution to increase the membership of the State Board of Higher Education to 15 members from the current 8, increase term lengths to six years from the current four, and forbid legislators, state officials, or other state employees from becoming members. It would also require the board to meet once a year and forbid anyone employed by one of the universities that the board oversees from joining the board until they've been out of that job for at least two years.
Constitutional Measure 2 would require that initiated constitutional amendments that the people approve be sent to the legislature. If the legislature approves it, then it's ratified, if it doesn't, then the people have to override the legislature at the next general election.
Constitutional Measure 2 would require that initiated constitutional amendments that the people approve be sent to the legislature. If the legislature approves it, then it's ratified, if it doesn't, then the people have to override the legislature at the next general election.
SQ 802, which will be voted on on June 30, would amend the constitution to expand the state's Medicaid to ACA limits. As is usual with this question, it's likely to pass. APPROVED
SQ 805, this time in November, would amend the constitution to prohibit using a person's past felony convictions to impose an enhanced sentence if that person is convicted of a non-violent felony. It would also allow modifications for those people who are already serving or about to serve enhanced sentences under those circumstances.
SQ 814 would amend the constitution to cut the state's Tobacco Settlement Endowment Fund appropriations(a fund made in the aftermath of the 1998 master tobacco settlement that's used on public health, education, and anti-smoking measures) from 75% of all settlement money annually to 25%. The relocated money would instead be transferred to a new special fund that would be used to draw down federal matching funds for Oklahoma's Medicaid.
SQ 805, this time in November, would amend the constitution to prohibit using a person's past felony convictions to impose an enhanced sentence if that person is convicted of a non-violent felony. It would also allow modifications for those people who are already serving or about to serve enhanced sentences under those circumstances.
SQ 814 would amend the constitution to cut the state's Tobacco Settlement Endowment Fund appropriations(a fund made in the aftermath of the 1998 master tobacco settlement that's used on public health, education, and anti-smoking measures) from 75% of all settlement money annually to 25%. The relocated money would instead be transferred to a new special fund that would be used to draw down federal matching funds for Oklahoma's Medicaid.
Measure 107 would amend the constitution to authorise state and local governments to place restrictions on campaign contributions, require disclosure of contributions and expenditures, and require advertisements to identify the people that fund them. It'll pass and then get struck down.
Measure 108 would increase Oregon's cigarette tax by $2 per pack to $3.33, increase the cigar tax cap to $1 from the current 50 cents, and impose a tax on e-cigs, vapes, etc at 65% of wholesale price. All revenue would go to the Oregon Health Authority. Oregon being the state it is, I'll say this will pass.
Measure 109 would effectively decriminalise psilocybin(magic mushrooms) and bring the state into the business. The Oregon Health Authority(OHA) would set up the Oregon Psilocybin Services Programme to allow the regulated manufacture, distribution, and possession of magic mushrooms with a two-year development period before the programme could begin. There would also be an advisory board, an administrative fund, and a requirement that anyone over age 21 who wants mushrooms has to go through a pre-screening process. Finally, there would be a state sales tax on all legal sales.
Next, we have Measure 110, which would effectively decriminalise most drug possession. Possession of a controlled substance found anywhere on Schedule I-IV of the Controlled Substances Act would be reduced from a felony or misemeanour(depending on where the drug lies) to a Class E violation punishable by a $100 fine or a required health assessment. It would also establish and addiction treatment and recovery programme that would be funded using 20% of each quarter's marijuana tax revenues and set up a state organisation to give grants to communities and nonprofits to set up addiction treatment centres.
Measure 108 would increase Oregon's cigarette tax by $2 per pack to $3.33, increase the cigar tax cap to $1 from the current 50 cents, and impose a tax on e-cigs, vapes, etc at 65% of wholesale price. All revenue would go to the Oregon Health Authority. Oregon being the state it is, I'll say this will pass.
Measure 109 would effectively decriminalise psilocybin(magic mushrooms) and bring the state into the business. The Oregon Health Authority(OHA) would set up the Oregon Psilocybin Services Programme to allow the regulated manufacture, distribution, and possession of magic mushrooms with a two-year development period before the programme could begin. There would also be an advisory board, an administrative fund, and a requirement that anyone over age 21 who wants mushrooms has to go through a pre-screening process. Finally, there would be a state sales tax on all legal sales.
Next, we have Measure 110, which would effectively decriminalise most drug possession. Possession of a controlled substance found anywhere on Schedule I-IV of the Controlled Substances Act would be reduced from a felony or misemeanour(depending on where the drug lies) to a Class E violation punishable by a $100 fine or a required health assessment. It would also establish and addiction treatment and recovery programme that would be funded using 20% of each quarter's marijuana tax revenues and set up a state organisation to give grants to communities and nonprofits to set up addiction treatment centres.
Puerto Ricans will be voting for the sixth time on whether or not the territory should be a state. This time, the ballot will consist of a simple Yes or No on the question with no options for other status changes.
Rhode Island will be voting on a constitutional amendment that would change the state's name to just Rhode Island as opposed to Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Although a similar measure was defeated 10 years ago, the current national mood suggests a victory this time around.
Initiated Measure 26 would legalise medical marijuana for those with chronic or debilitating conditions such as cancer or MS, and it would allow the state's Health Department to add other conditions or diseases.
Next, we have Amendment A. This would amend the constitution to allow for recreational marijuana and require the Legislature to pass medical marijuana and hemp legalisation laws by April 1, 2022.
Third, there's Amendment B. This would legalise sports betting in Deadwood and require tax revenue from it to go to Deadwood's historical preservation and restoration like other forms of gambling.
Next, we have Amendment A. This would amend the constitution to allow for recreational marijuana and require the Legislature to pass medical marijuana and hemp legalisation laws by April 1, 2022.
Third, there's Amendment B. This would legalise sports betting in Deadwood and require tax revenue from it to go to Deadwood's historical preservation and restoration like other forms of gambling.
The US Virgin Islands, believe it or not, currently doesn't have a constitution of its own, only the Organic Law that the US imposed in 1954. This year, the Islanders will be voting on whether or not to hold a Constitutional Convention to make that law, with possible changes, the territory's first real constitution.
Amendment A would make all language in the state constitution gender-neutral.
Amendment B would make it so certain qualifications for running for office, such as age, would apply at the time of the election as opposed to the time that the office-seeker would be sworn in. This is already the case for executive branch members, and this would just extend that provision to all offices in the state.
Amendment C, just like in Nebraska, would remove the state's exception clause. Likely to pass.
Amendment D would specify the circumstances when a municipality can distribute water outside of its city limits or cooperate with other cities or counties to provide water, allowing cities to provide water outside their service area if they have enough to do so.
Amendment E would create a constitutional right to hunt and fish in Utah.
Amendment F would allow the Legislature to set the date for the opening of the new legislative session in a state law at any time in January. Currently, it's constitutionally bound to start on the fourth Monday of the month.
Amendment G would allow the state to use property and income tax revenue to support children and the disabled. Currently, such revenues can only be spent on schools and colleges.
Amendment B would make it so certain qualifications for running for office, such as age, would apply at the time of the election as opposed to the time that the office-seeker would be sworn in. This is already the case for executive branch members, and this would just extend that provision to all offices in the state.
Amendment C, just like in Nebraska, would remove the state's exception clause. Likely to pass.
Amendment D would specify the circumstances when a municipality can distribute water outside of its city limits or cooperate with other cities or counties to provide water, allowing cities to provide water outside their service area if they have enough to do so.
Amendment E would create a constitutional right to hunt and fish in Utah.
Amendment F would allow the Legislature to set the date for the opening of the new legislative session in a state law at any time in January. Currently, it's constitutionally bound to start on the fourth Monday of the month.
Amendment G would allow the state to use property and income tax revenue to support children and the disabled. Currently, such revenues can only be spent on schools and colleges.
Virginians will be voting to amend their constitution to allow veterans with permanent, total, and 100% service-connected disabilities to exempt one car or pickup truck from commonwealth and local personal property taxes. This will easily pass.
The next amendment being voted on would create a 16-member redistricting commission composed of equal parts legislators and citizens. All new maps would need at least six members of both groups to be approved.
The next amendment being voted on would create a 16-member redistricting commission composed of equal parts legislators and citizens. All new maps would need at least six members of both groups to be approved.
Washingtonians will be voting on SJR 8212, which would amend the constitution to allow the state to invest money from the state's Family and Medical Leave Insurance Account and the Long-Term Care Services and Supports Trust Account into stocks or other similar ventures. Currently, the state's only allowed to invest such money into bonds or CDs.
Next, we have Referendum 90. Earlier this year, the legislature passed SB 5395, which requires all public school districts to provide comprehensive sex education to students. It also allows parents to excuse their children from these lessons if requested. Many did not like requiring sex ed to all, so they brought enough signatures for this veto measure. A No vote will lead to the law being repealed.
Next, we have Referendum 90. Earlier this year, the legislature passed SB 5395, which requires all public school districts to provide comprehensive sex education to students. It also allows parents to excuse their children from these lessons if requested. Many did not like requiring sex ed to all, so they brought enough signatures for this veto measure. A No vote will lead to the law being repealed.
Because a Plaza wouldn't be complete without one, Wisconsin is voting on an amendment that would add Marsy's Law(a number of victim's rights provisions) to the constitution on their Primary Day, April 7. Like everywhere else that votes for one, this will pass. APPROVED
Amendment A would remove the current constitutional limit on how much debt a city can accrue when working on sewer projects. Currently, they can only go into debt for improvement projects up to a maximum of 4% of the assessed value of all taxable properties, plus an additional 4% for sewer projects. This would remove the second limit and allow the legislature to make its own decision on the matter.
