And if you’re tempted to brush them aside as unimportant, know this: Recent history tells us that electoral policies give us a sense of where the country’s politics are headed. In 1994, California’s Prop 187 foreshadowed a future in which undocumented immigration would become a central rift in national politics. Hawaii‘s 1998 statewide vote to ban same-sex marriages heralded the anti-LGBT ballot measures that swept the rest of the country in the mid-2000s. And a wave of ballot measures to legalize marijuana over the past decade has drastically changed the way the entire country talks about and polices cannabis.
So what’s on the ballot this year, and what does that tell us about the direction American politics is taking in the 2020s? To sort it all out, POLITICO spoke to Amanda Zoch, a policy specialist at the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures, where she follows statewide election policies. A transcript of that conversation is below, condensed and edited for length and clarity.
This November there are around 120 electoral measures across the country. What trends do we see overall?
Amanda Zoch: Taxes and civil/criminal justice are always big issues, and this year is no different: About a quarter of this year’s statewide votes are related to taxes in some way. Similarly, marijuana and abortion have long been voting staples, and this year we have two abortion-related measures and several other marijuana proposals. Health and election-related proposals are also getting a lot of attention this year, which seems appropriate given that presidential elections are on and both are big issues. These might not have gotten quite as much attention a few years ago, but they do now. We’re not really seeing a lot of environmental action this year, which is a bit surprising.
This year, these citizen groups have really been affected by the pandemic.
Because it was much more difficult to collect petition signatures?
Right. How do you get signatures when you’re not supposed to leave the house or see other people? This year’s general election has 38 nationwide citizen groups across the country. And that’s a big drop — it was 60 in 2018 and 72 in 2016. Honestly, that’s a big story.
Let’s start with some election-related suggestions: Alaska and Massachusetts have voting policies in place to implement precedence voting, where voters can rank candidates in their preferred order, rather than just picking one — and that many people think will help third-party candidates because it reduces the likelihood that they are “spoilers”. Maine voters accepted it in 2016. This appears to be the start of a trend.
Definitive. Interest in ranked voting has increased, both through voting action and legislation. We’ll see how Maine goes this year, whether that sparks even more interest or gets daunting. There are actually two ranked electoral polls: Alaska and Massachusetts. North Dakota had planned to have one, but the Supreme Court found that there were, in fact, insufficient signatures. But in Alaska and Massachusetts, these measures are attracting a lot of interest. And the Alaska measure would also establish a top-four primary, where the top four voters in the primary advance to the general election regardless of party. So that, plus ranked voting, would be a big voting change in Alaska.
Another voting trend is the “Only a Citizen” initiatives in Alabama, Colorado and Florida. can you explain that a bit This is a lesser known concept.
That’s kind of weird because it seems like a slight linguistic change from “everyone Citizens can vote” to “only a citizen can vote.” Legally, I don’t think these proposals would change much, but it would actually have ramifications in Colorado. Unlike Alabama and Florida, Colorado allows 17-year-olds to vote in primary elections if they turn 18 at the time of the general election. This measure, if passed, would eliminate that.
Citizenship is already a requirement for voting in the United States, so these proposals seem unnecessary. Some people see them as a measure to avoid voting — exploiting concerns that non-citizens are voting to get people to the polls.
The use of voting measures to rally the base and get the vote is nothing new—certainly we saw it in 2004, when conservatives used proposals to ban same-sex marriage as a means of challenging evangelical voters during George W. Bush’s re-election campaign Campaign. Is there a similar dynamic this year?
The turnout issue is so difficult to analyze. I think claims that policies aim to challenge people should be taken with a pinch of salt. But we see candidates taking action and somehow using it to gain support for their party.
For example, I’m in Colorado and we have an abortion restriction measure on the ballot. Candidates on the right and left cite this as something important, a reason for voters to go to the polls. Proposals on hot social issues can be integrated into campaigns in a way that both raises the profile of the initiative and benefits specific candidates.
Tell me more about Colorado’s abortion restriction proposal. what would it do
If passed, it would ban abortion after the 22nd week of pregnancy. There is currently no age limit for abortion in Colorado; this would attempt to establish one. It allows an exception for cases where the mother’s life is at risk, but there are no other exceptions, such as: B. in rape or incest.
Colorado also has an election proposal on paid family leave. I can’t remember ever hearing of an initiative on this subject. can you go through there
This is actually the first time this type of issue has ever been on a national vote. Eight states and DC have these paid leave programs, but they were all created by law. It would establish a state-operated paid family and medical leave program, and give Coloradans up to 12 weeks of paid leave — possibly more if there are qualifying complications.
To fund this, it’s basically a new tax taken off paychecks – 0.45 percent of your paycheck goes into a nationwide money pool to pay for it. Obviously the opponents are interested in this part. But advocates say paid sick leave is becoming more necessary at a time when people are dealing with the coronavirus. Anecdotally, it’s the measure I see advertised the most in Colorado. It gets a lot of attention.
There have been a number of proposals to decriminalize or legalize marijuana — many in states considered deeply “red.” Is it fair to say that voting measures to liberalize marijuana policy aren’t just a blue trend right now?
That’s correct. Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, Mississippi and South Dakota have voting policies on this issue. The Arizona, Montana, and New Jersey proposals would legalize all recreational marijuana. South Dakota will actually vote on this both medical and recreational marijuana — so this is potentially a big shift in moving from medical marijuana banning to recreational marijuana legalization.
The Mississippi measure only applies to medical marijuana. Voters there will actually have two questions in one: There was a citizens’ initiative to create a medical marijuana initiative, but the state has an indirect citizens’ initiative process, so the proposal went to the legislature, and they proposed an alternative measure , which it will also be on the ballot. The first question on the ballot is essentially, “Do you want one of these measures or none of these measures?” And the second is, “Which do you prefer?”
That’s always a concern with electoral policies – how to make them more readable and easier for people to understand. Here in Colorado, my vote was long. We had 11 measures. It’s in small print and the way things are worded can be confusing, which is what makes voter education such an important part of election campaigns.
There are drug-related measures other than marijuana. Oregon and Washington DC are voting to legalize mushrooms, right?
Yes. This is the first time I know where there have been nationwide mushroom-related initiatives. DC has a citizens’ initiative to decriminalize entheogenic plants and mushrooms – which include psilocybin. Oregon would actually go one step further and not just decriminalize, but actually legalize psilocybin. It would be the first state ever to do so.
I wonder if this is the start of a new trend for drug-related proposals, which until now have mostly focused on marijuana.
So marijuana legalization proposals are potentially “gateway” proposals to other drug proposals?
Right.
One initiative that dates very strongly from this era is California’s Prop 22. It’s also by far the country’s most expensive election campaign this year. What is it and why has it garnered so much attention?
Prop 22 is really the first smartphone app-related measure we’ve seen. In 2019, California lawmakers passed Assembly Bill 5, which required drivers for app-based ridesharing and delivery companies — like Uber and Lyft — to be classified as employees of those companies and not independent contractors. This proposal would do the opposite: it would exempt these drivers from the provisions of this law and enact some other labor laws specific only to these drivers – a net earnings floor, a limit on working hours of 12 hours in a 24-hour period, etc.
You mentioned the cost of this campaign – around $200 million was spent on it. This is a citizens’ initiative that really opposes what we consider the “citizens” part because we see such a large amount of financial support from companies like Uber, Lyft and DoorDash. It’s not uncommon for companies to support electoral measures; we know that happens. But here we see that this leads to really massive spending. It’s hard to say how any individual will feel when there’s so much corporate money at stake.
Let’s turn to another great state: Florida. Considering setting up a “jungle elementary school” like the system used in California?
Yes. We don’t really use the term “jungle” primary at NCSL, but it would be an open Top 2 primary. Florida currently has a closed primary system. This means that as a voter you must belong to a political party in order to be able to vote in their primaries.
This move would bring about two really big changes. First, it would allow anyone to vote in the primary — you wouldn’t have to belong to a particular party to do so. Second, it would mean that the top two voters in those primaries, regardless of their party affiliation, would advance to the general election. So there could be a situation where the general election is between two Republicans or two Democrats.
Comments are closed.