California Proposition 1 (2022): Amends the state constitution to protect abortion rights, guarantee reproductive freedom

California Proposition 26 (2022): In-person sports betting regulation and tribal gaming expansion

California Proposition 27 (2022): Legalizes online sports betting, funds homelessness and mental health programs

California Proposition 28 (2022): Art and music K-12 education funding

California Proposition 29 (2022): Dialysis clinic requirements

California Proposition 31 (2022): Banning flavored tobacco products

Voters’ guides for other states and policy issues can be found here.

The post Voters’ guide to the 2022 California ballot propositions appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The states where Reason has produced voters’ guides on a number of statewide propositions and initiatives include:

California

Colorado

Florida

Georgia

In addition, Reason Foundation has done a large amount of relevant policy research on some topics that are being voted on in multiple states. As such, we have analyzed the ballot measures pertaining to these policy issues, including:

Consumer Freedom—Sports gambling, wine and alcohol sales, flavored tobacco bans, and more

Additional voters’ guides for other states and issues can be found here.

The post Voters’ guide to 2022 statewide ballot initiatives appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida Amendment 1 (2022): Disregard flood resistance improvements in property value assessments

Florida Amendment 2 (2022): Measure to abolish the Constitution Revision Commission

Voters’ guides for other states and policy issues can be found here.

The post Voters’ guide to Florida’s 2022 ballot measures appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The Nevada Legislature referred Question 1 to the voters as a proposed constitutional amendment appearing on the 2022 ballot. As a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, the measure had to be approved by lawmakers in two consecutive legislative sessions, and it would be ratified by gaining a majority of voters’ support in the November 2022 election.  In 2019 and 2021, state senators approved the measure by a vote of 18-3, while the state assembly approved it by votes of 33-8 and 30-12, respectively.

Question 1 would enshrine a modified version of the federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) into the Nevada Constitution. The Equal Rights Amendment grew out of the suffrage movement from the early 20th century and was approved by the U.S House of Representatives in 1971 and the U.S. Senate in 1972. It proposed to amend the U.S. Constitution by inserting a clause stating, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Although the proposed amendment was passed by Congress, it was never ratified by the required two-thirds of state legislatures to secure adoption. Only 35 state legislatures ratified the amendment ahead of the 1982 deadline, although the Nevada state legislature also ratified it posthumously in 2017 as a symbolic measure.  Illinois and Virginia followed suit in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

Nevada Question 1 would expand the number of protected classes included in the federal Equal Rights Amendment from one to 10. Whereas the federal proposal included protections based on sex alone, Question 1 proposes to insert the following clause into Section 1 of the Nevada constitution:

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this State or any of its political subdivisions on account of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry or national origin.”

Fiscal Impact

No fiscal notes were submitted to Nevada lawmakers during the consideration of Question 1 as a legislative proposal.

Proponents’ Arguments

Advocates argue that Question 1 guarantees equality under the law for all persons, irrespective of personal attributes or superficial traits.  They also argue that this amendment’s passage will send an important message about the values Nevadans espouse and could inspire others to follow suit.

As a legislative bill, Question 1 amassed five primary sponsors and seven additional co-sponsors. A majority of state senators from both major political parties voted in favor of the measure while the minority opposition included Democrats and Republicans as well. Organizations arguing in favor of Question 1 included the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, the Nevada Women’s Lobby, and the Sierra Club.

Bill sponsor and State Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro wrote of the proposal: 

“The time is NOW to show the nation that we, as Nevadans, lead when it comes to equality for all. At every decision point in history, the quest for equality has met with stiff and obstinate opposition. Equal justice has NEVER been given. We must persist in this effort to achieve equal rights. There are nearly 30 states that have passed or are considering state equal rights amendments to their constitutions. Most provide for the equality of rights to not be abridged or denied because of sex. The measure before you today clarifies that the equality of rights should not only be based upon the sex of an individual, but on the wholistic aspects of all persons, which includes the mind, body, and spirit.”

Opponents’ Arguments

Opponents of Question 1 have argued that the proposal could lead to taxpayer-funded abortions, limit the ability of religiously affiliated colleges and universities to accept students who receive financial aid, and result in fewer opportunities for women. Organizations opposing Question 1 include the Alliance Defending Freedom, Nevada Families for Freedom, and the Pro-Life League of Nevada.  

In written comments to the state legislature, Janine Hansen of Nevada Families for Freedom argued: 

“In both New Mexico and Connecticut, courts used state Equal Rights Amendments to overturn restrictions on abortions and mandate taxpayer funding of elective Medicaid abortions with the rationale that since abortion is unique to women, restricting abortions is a form of sex discrimination.”

Hansen continued by claiming that Question 1’s inclusion of “gender identity or expression” as a protected class would enshrine biological males’ ability to compete in women’s sports and receive athletic scholarships and would “allow biological males in spaces previously reserved for women,” including shelters and prisons, and could threaten women’s safety.

Discussion

Equal rights amendments have been adopted into 25 state constitutions, although the majority guarantee rights based on: sex, race, color, creed, and, in fewer cases, religion. Delaware became the most recent state to modify or adopt an equal rights amendment in 2021 when it added “race, color, and national origin” to “sex” as protected classes. Nevada’s proposal is novel because it includes additional protected classes that do not appear in other state equal rights amendments, including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression.”

Although critics have pointed toward cases in a few states where judges have concluded that a state equal rights amendment confers a right to taxpayer-funded elective abortions, those decisions pertain only to jurisprudence within the states where they were decided. It is unclear how that issue would be adjudicated under Nevada law.  

Question 1 deals exclusively with the treatment of individuals by state and local governments, meaning that it could guide spending rules for state-administered public benefits programs, such as Medicaid, food stamps, or housing benefits, and could result in some individuals gaining newfound eligibility.  However, it does not appear to require private businesses to expend capital on retrofits to facilities to accommodate the particular needs of any class.

A more fundamental question surrounding the proclaimed need for an equal rights amendment is whether the protections they would offer are already accomplished by the Equal Protection Clause within the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Adopted following the American Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment states, in part: “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Through the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, this provision already extends to all states and supersedes any laws or practices that may conflict with the Equal Protection Clause.  

Question 1’s advocates have argued that the Equal Protection Clause is insufficient because the U.S. Supreme Court did not apply it to prohibit discrimination based on gender until adjudicating Reed v. Reed in 1971.  Although this is true, Reed v. Reed may have simply been the first opportunity for the Court to apply the Equal Protection Clause specifically to gender.  The Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion declaring the Equal Protection Clause’s applicability, however, and there are no major ongoing controversies over whether the Equal Protection Clause should be applied or withheld from any of the classes that Question 1 or other state equal rights amendments would purport to protect.  As such, Question 1 and other state equal rights amendments may be symbolic, yet duplicative.

The post Nevada Question 1 (2022): The equality of rights amendment appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida Amendment 2 on the November 2022 ballot would revise the Florida State Constitution to take out the section requiring and governing the Constitution Revision Commission (CRC). The Constitution Revision Commission meets every 20 years to consider and propose ballot initiatives to amend the state constitution. This would eliminate one formal means of putting on the ballot initiatives to change the state constitution, but a number of other ways to get initiatives on the ballot would remain.

Fiscal Impact

We could find no estimates of the cost of conducting the Constitution Revision Commission. Its members are not paid, and it only meets every 20 years, so the fiscal impact of Amendment 2 on Florida taxpayers would be very small.

Proponents’ Arguments

State Sen. Jeff Brandes (R) led the effort in the Florida legislature to put Amendment 2 on the ballot. Brandes has argued that both major political parties detest the Constitution Revision Commission, in part, because its members are appointed, not elected. Thus, they are not accountable to the voters. He tweeted “It’s rediscovered every 20yrs, has no rules, players have no experience, once it starts it can’t stop, crazy things pop out, and you never know how damaging they will be. Election night, you yell ‘Jumanji.’”

Brandes and other CRC critics say that citizens can amend the constitution with proposals from the legislature, citizen initiatives, a constitutional convention, and via the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission. They do not also need the CRC as a fifth mechanism, they say. 

Perhaps the single biggest criticism of the CRC is that many of the measures it proposes are things that should be legislative changes in law, not enshrined in the state constitution. Over the years, the fact that Florida citizens can only vote on ballot initiatives that change the constitution and do not have the option to change the law by initiative, as in other states, means the constitution is full of “issues of the day” rather than timeless rights and rules for the state.

Opponents’ Arguments

The Florida Sun-Sentinel editorial board has pointed out that decades of corruption led the U.S. Supreme Court to force a new state constitution for Florida and that the CRC was included in it “to protect Florida from ever being paralyzed again by the self-interests of an entrenched political empire.”

In that same spirit, the League of Women Voters of Florida opposes Amendment 2 because: 

“The Citizen Initiative process for amending the Constitution has already been significantly restricted by the state Legislature in recent years. Eliminating the Constitution Revision Commission will remove a generational opportunity for citizens to update their constitution. The League opposes any limits on citizens’ abilities to be architects of their own Florida Constitution.”

New College of Florida Professor Frank Alcock told us:

“The CRC is a mechanism that was intentionally built into our current state constitution during its formation in the 1960s. It’s unique among state constitutions and it reflects two important values of its designers: (1) the ability to adapt the constitution to changing times; (2) robust input and final approval of amendments on the part of the citizens of Florida. Like any institutional innovation, however, it can be exploited or used by those that control it. The CRC is what we make of it.”

State Sen. Darryl Rouson (D) served on the 2018 CRC and says:

“The CRC may not be perfect, but as lawmakers, we should work to improve it rather than scrap it. Abolishing the CRC along with other efforts to make it more difficult and more expensive to circulate citizens’ petitions to amend the Florida Constitution will make it harder for citizen voices to be heard in shaping the future of their state.” 

A 2020 poll by the LeRoy Collins Institute at Florida State University found that 87% of Floridians like having a commission do what the CRC does and provide an alternative to the legislature. About two-thirds of them also supported some changes to the CRC to address the concerns of critics.

Professor Alcock concluded:

“Amendment 2 would abolish the CRC entirely. While this would eliminate the political tactics that annoyed many Floridians this past cycle it would also remove an important feature of our state constitution that was deliberately put there by its designers. And let’s not forget that we have another 15 years before the next cycle that could be used to talk about less drastic reforms.”

Discussion

The Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) is a unique Florida institution, a commission that meets every 20 years to consider changes to the state constitution and agree upon ones to put before the voters as ballot measures. It is made up of 37 members. The governor appoints 15 members, the State Senate president appoints nine members, the speaker of the Florida house appoints nine, the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court appoints three, and the attorney general serves on it.

Opponents of the CRC, like Sen. Brandes, argue that this gives the current political establishment too much power to change the constitution. Supporters agree with that, but say that making changes to provide for a more broadly representative set of members to the CRC would be better than abolishing it. 

Floridians have been through three rounds of the CRC since the state constitution was created. In 1978, the commission was appointed all by Democrats, and not even one of the measures they put on the ballot was approved by a majority of voters. In 1998, CRC was bipartisan and all but one measure they proposed met with voter approval. In 2018, Republicans appointed all the CRC members and all seven of their proposals that went to the ballot were approved by over 60% of voters. 

Carlos Beruff, a Manatee County developer who chaired the 2018 CRC, showed that the central goal of the CRC was to put measures on the ballot that people want. He said:

“The first one wasn’t terribly successful. The second one, I think eight of the nine items they put on the ballot passed, so it was pretty successful. So, we are going to be very careful with the taxpayer’s time and money and only bring forward things that we think will pass that 60% litmus test.”

Indeed, in the 2018 election, voters not only amended the state constitution by approving the CRC’s proposed changes but also got to vote on constitutional changes proposed by the legislature and ones put on the ballot by citizen initiatives. 

Discussion about reforming, rather than abolishing, the CRC has been going on for years. Among the organizations and experts engaging in the discussion is the LeRoy Collins Institute at Florida State University, University of Florida Professor Mary Adkins, other legal scholars, and the League of Women Voters.  

Some common reforms suggested include:

• Making CRC members more diverse and bipartisan rather than all being appointed by the party in control at the time the commission happens.
• Creating a simple set of rules and procedures for all CRCs in the future so they do not make up their own each time.
• Imposing a single-subject requirement so that the CRC cannot “bundle” different issues into one initiative. 
• Apply Florida’s open meetings laws to the CRC.

Another possibility would be to create a citizen legislative initiative process where Floridians could vote on legislative changes, not just changes to the state constitution. Most of the issues people bring to the CRC each time it convenes are legislative issues they are frustrated the legislature has not addressed. Lacking a direct democracy mechanism to change the law, they take the only route they have, addressing the issue via the state constitution. A constitutional amendment to create a citizen legislative initiative process and require the CRC to focus on issues appropriate to address in the constitution would both improve the CRC process and answer many of its critics and give citizens a more appropriate outlet for change.

Voters’ guides for other states and policy issues can be found here.

The post Florida Amendment 2 (2022): Measure to abolish the Constitution Revision Commission appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Ohio’s Issue 1 on the November 2022 ballot requires a court to consider public safety concerns, such as the seriousness of the alleged offense, a person’s criminal record, and the likelihood a person will return to court when determining bail amount. The amendment would eliminate the Ohio Supreme Court’s current authority to determine the procedures for establishing the amount and conditions of bail.

Amendment 1 was advanced in response to an Ohio Supreme Court ruling, DuBose v. McGuffey. In that case, the state Supreme Court determined a $1.5 million bond for a Cincinnati man accused of fatally shooting a man during a robbery was too high. Through their ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court decided that only the defendant’s risk of non-appearance could be considered in determining bail amounts. This change in guidelines animated prosecutorial, judicial, and victim-rights interests to propose a constitutional change ensuring factors of public safety must once again be included in setting bail conditions.

Proponents’ Arguments

Those supporting the constitutional amendment believe courts should consider public safety, among other factors prescribed by the Ohio General Assembly, when determining bail amounts. They say these public safety factors include the seriousness of the individual’s alleged offense, the individual’s criminal history, and the likelihood of the individual reappearing in court for trial. Advocates believe Issue 1 will clearly and unambiguously guarantee courts include such factors in the financial conditions of bail. 

Proponents of Issue 1 are concerned that career criminals may exploit the justice system’s presumption of innocence to commit additional crimes, if not disappear from law enforcement, before the adjudicating process. They further citte public safety as a historical and appropriate consideration when setting reasonable bail.

Longtime Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters claimed that pretrial defendants languishing in jail is largely a myth. According to Deters: “Prosecutors are required to bring their case to trial within 90 days if a defendant is locked up. If we do not do that, the case is dismissed, unless the defendant requests a continuation.”

Additionally, Deters contends that the criminal justice system does not target those in poverty. He suggests crime is more rampant in poorer neighborhoods, requiring the need to prevent offenders from easily accessing the street prior to trial. 

Opponents Arguments

Opponents of the constitutional amendment argue the Supreme Court should maintain authority over determining bail procedures. The alternative could create a risky mosaic of policies and standards determined, no longer by the Supreme Court, but by individual judges.

Opponents of Issue 1 also suggest that low-income, non-violent offenders are often casualties of excessive bail practices, while violent offenders, such as those with access to illegal cash, have the means to buy their way out of jail. Furthermore, Sen. Cecil Thomas has argued that “good prosecutors in Ohio already know how to keep dangerous suspects in jail pending trial…They request a detention hearing and present evidence about the risk to public safety.” Thomas further noted that judges may also decide to hold a defendant without bail.

Advocating against the merit of the amendment’s language, the ACLU of Ohio suggested that “cash bail creates a two-tiered system of justice in which people who can afford their freedom go home to their families, and those who cannot are forced to suffer in jail.” The ACLU further notes that “[o]n any given day in Ohio, there are as many as 12,000 people held pretrial.”

Opponents have additionally cited a U.S. Department of Justice study of the country’s 75 largest counties, including two in Ohio, that found 33% of felony defendants were charged for at least one type of misconduct between being released and the disposition of their case. A warrant for failing to appear was issued for 23% of released defendants, and roughly 17% were arrested for a new offense. 

Discussion 

The debate around Ohio’s Issue 1 centers on the proper role and function of cash bail. The primary goal of setting bail is to ensure that defendants show up in court. Concerns about the threat that individual defendants pose to public safety are more appropriately dealt with through the decision of whether or not a defendant is eligible for bail, or pre-trial release, to begin with. The Ohio Constitution already provides for automatic pre-trial detention without bail in three circumstances:

1. When a person is charged with a capital offense “where the proof is evident or the presumption great;”
2. When a person is charged with a felony “where the proof is evident or the presumption great;”
3. When a person “poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community.”

Ohio law also allows judges to consider “the nature and circumstances of the offense charged,” the “history and characteristics of the accused,” and “the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release” when determining whether or not an individual will be granted bail. 

These provisions already provide judges with adequate tools to detain individuals who pose a credible risk to the community. In DuBose v. McGuffey, the Supreme Court of Ohio took issue with the fact that Mr. DuBose’s bail amount was set at an excessive level with the intention of ensuring his detention pre-trial. As explained by Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael P. Donnelly, the “issue is that the amount set by the trial court was clearly calculated to be at a level that DuBose cannot possibly afford to pay,” and that the “trial court has the power to order that such defendants be held without bail, but as clearly explained in the majority opinion, the way to do that is to follow the procedure in R.C. 2937.222, not to set a bail amount so high that the defendant cannot afford it.”

Issue 1 would unnecessarily alter the procedures in setting bail in ways that threaten to undermine the legitimacy of the justice system by making an individual’s ability to pay more relevant to their pre-trial status than their likelihood of appearing in court. Existing provisions in the statute and the Ohio Constitution are sufficient to ensure that public safety is considered when determining whether or not a defendant will be detained.

Ultimately, if an individual poses a credible threat to the community, no amount of money should be sufficient to secure their release. For that reason, public safety should not be a relevant factor when setting bail amounts. Instead, factors of public safety should be considered, as is the current practice, as part of a judge’s decision regarding an individual’s eligibility for bail.

This voter guide was updated on September 30, 2022.

The post Ohio Issue 1 (2022): Determining bail amounts based on public safety appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida Amendment 1, the disregard flood resistance improvements in property value assessments measure, would revise the state’s constitution, allowing the state legislature to pass laws exempt property improvements designed to protect against flood damage from property tax assessments.

For example, a homeowner could put drains and buried culverts on his property to improve the drainage of heavy rains or build a berm to protect against a wetland overflow. But, under current law, these improvements would increase the value of the property and the property taxes the homeowner must pay, which might be a disincentive to make the improvements.

The state constitution currently allows the legislature to exempt property improvements to protect against wind damage, but not from flood damage. So, Amendment 1 would simply add flood damage protection to the list of things the state legislature can exempt from property taxes. 

Fiscal Impact

Amendment 1 would result in small reductions in property tax revenues to the state for flood protection improvements that would be taxed under current law. But that may be offset by lower losses to Citizens Insurance, the state-owned insurer of last resort that has to cover flood damage to hundreds of thousands of properties across Florida. It could also reduce some need for public expenditures on flood control.

Proponents’ Arguments

Florida House Speaker Chris Sprowls (R) argues that the state has to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on flood control to protect properties and Amendment 1 would allow the state to incentivize private property owners to take on more of that responsibility. State Rep. Linda Chaney (R) says, “Homeowners who are taking proactive measures to protect their property from flooding should not only be rewarded but they should be incentivized.”

Opponents’ Arguments

There is no organized opposition to Amendment 1. 

Discussion

Florida’s state constitution currently allows property tax exemptions for wind damage protection improvements to properties. Since hurricanes tend to destroy properties by both wind and flood damage, extending property tax exemptions to flood damage protection improvements makes sense. It would incentivize property owners to reduce the damage storms inflict on their properties, and could reduce property insurance claims when the state property insurance market is in a crisis, and reduce the risks of expensive taxpayer bailouts. 

Voters’ guides for other states and policy issues can be found here.

The post Florida Amendment 1 (2022): Disregard flood resistance improvements in property value assessments appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Question 4 on the Maryland ballot is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that would legalize the use of marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older. It would add a new article—Article XX—to the Maryland Constitution stating this policy would take effect on July 1, 2023, and charge the General Assembly to pass laws governing the “use, distribution, possession, regulation, and taxation of cannabis.” 

Fiscal Impact

Question 4 is not directly associated with any fiscal impact on state or local governments. It would simply establish a new constitutional right for adults to use marijuana.  However, Maryland House Bill 837, which would become effective upon passage of Question 4, does have an estimated fiscal impact. The major effects include general fund allocations for the initial capitalization of two new special funds plus administrative costs to implement the automatic expungement of prior convictions. These total $46.5 million in the state’s 2023 fiscal year.

Separately, House Bill 837 would allow companies engaged in the cultivation, manufacture, or distribution of marijuana to claim business deductions for ordinary and necessary expenses that they are not currently eligible to claim. Legislative staff estimates this would reduce Maryland’s general fund revenues by $5.6 million in the 2023 fiscal year, although no licensees currently exist, nor does House Bill 837 even set forth a licensing process. Other data collection and studies required by the bill are estimated to cost $5.75 million in 2023.

At the same time, legalized marijuana sales seem likely to generate tax revenues of various sorts that could more than cover those costs. 

Proponents’ Arguments For

The Yes on 4 campaign argues: “Legalizing cannabis would stimulate Maryland’s economy and create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs, while allowing Maryland residents to benefit from vital investments in education, public health, and public safety funded by cannabis taxes.” 

In committee hearings, Marland Delegate Luke Clippinger (D) said his top priority in introducing House Bills 1 and 837 was to “address the overwhelming disparities that have impacted people of color, especially Black and brown people throughout Maryland.”

The bills would require an analysis of barriers faced by Black and brown people to establish a licensed marijuana business in order to provide for an equitable marketplace that would allow the participation of Black and brown entrepreneurs. House Bill 837 would also provide public support for the capital and operating expenses of minority-owned and women-owned marijuana businesses.

The legislation was also designed to address public health concerns by requiring the collection of data and completion of studies relating to “the patterns of use, incidents of impaired driving, prenatal health [and] hospitalizations.”

Opponents’ Arguments Against

There is no organized campaign against Question 4. In committee hearings, Delegate Brenda Thiam (R) expressed concern about the motivation behind the introduction of House Bills 1 and 837. She noted the sponsor’s argument that Black citizens are disproportionately impacted by the prohibition of marijuana through arrest rates and argued that Black Marylanders were “being used as a scapegoat to drive these very controversial conversations around cannabis.” She elaborated, “We’re being baited…that we’re going to expunge your record…You can become multi-millionaires…It’s just smoke and mirrors to entice us to buy into this.”

Delegate Susan McComas (R) argued in hearings that there appeared to be a rush to legalize marijuana prior to having knowledge of potential unintended consequences. She questioned whether the state should complete studies of the potential impacts on public health prior to making a substantial policy change.

Luke Niforatos of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), an anti-legalization advocacy group argued that the legalization of marijuana in California and Colorado has failed to drive away black-market actors and related crime.

Discussion

Medical marijuana is currently legal in Maryland and the possession of 10 grams, or less, of marijuana has been decriminalized. Question 4 would enshrine a very simple new constitutional right for Marylanders above the age of 21 to use marijuana if they choose. The way in which Marylanders could exercise this right is far less clear.  

As a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, Question 4 began as House Bill 1 in the 2022 legislative session sponsored by State Delegate Clippinger. To proceed to the ballot, the bill was required to receive at least 60% support within each chamber of the legislature. The final version passed the Maryland State Senate by a vote of 30-15 (66.7%) and the House by a vote of 89-41 (68.5%).

The amendment itself would only guarantee a constitutional right to the use of marijuana for adults subject to future regulation by the General Assembly. However, the General Assembly also passed companion legislation during its 2022 session that would become effective upon passage of the amendment. House Bill 837, also sponsored by Delegate Clippinger, provides some additional clarity as to how the constitutional amendment would be implemented and so these provisions should be read in tandem. 

House Bill 837 clarifies that, upon passage of Question 4, the possession of up to 1.5 ounces of marijuana or 10 grams of marijuana concentrate would immediately be decriminalized and subject only to small administrative fines. After June 30, 2023, possession of these amounts would become completely legal.

Citizens would also gain the right to cultivate up to two marijuana plants per household in a secure location at their residence. All prior convictions of marijuana possession that would be legal under these new provisions would be automatically expunged and the currently incarcerated would be able to apply for resentencing of possession convictions to time served. House Bill 837 also sets up a number of new state funds and requires certain studies, but it does not establish any commercial licensing system or regulatory framework to implement a marijuana market, nor does it impose any excise taxes on cannabis sales.

Although House Bill 837 provides some clarity, it fails to authorize any commercial system so that Marylanders could legally acquire marijuana products. This may subject Marylanders who attempt to satisfy market demand to raids or arrests and lead to inconsistent application of the law. The District of Columbia has also legalized the possession of marijuana without providing for a commercial system, and providers have been periodically raided by local police for illegally distributing marijuana that citizens are legally permitted to possess. Without enabling legislation in place to establish a commercial market, Marylanders risk a similar situation if Question 4 passes. This inconsistency has persisted for extended time periods in other states. After Nevada amended its constitution to protect citizens’ right to medical marijuana in 2000, it took 13 years before the legislature authorized a commercial system to satisfy this demand despite requirements for it to do so.

House Bill 837 does make positive strides by allowing for a limited amount of home cultivation, although other states permit as many as 12 plants to be cultivated at a residence. It also would enact intertemporal equity in the application of marijuana laws by automatically expunging convictions for actions that would become legal if Question 4 passes.

Despite failing to establish a commercial system or stipulating any excise tax rates for marijuana, House Bill 837 does begin to allocate money for certain programs. It would reserve 30% of all marijuana-related tax and fee revenue to a system of community improvement grants intended to offer job training and other services to communities disproportionately impacted by the drug war. It would also enshrine a Cannabis Public Health Advisory Council to produce data and provide initial recommendations on the advertising, labeling, and testing requirements for marijuana products that could eventually inform formal commercial regulations. Finally, it would create a Cannabis Business Assistance Fund and seed it with an appropriation from the state’s general fund to provide grants to small, minority-owned, and women-owned marijuana businesses. Eligible businesses could use these grants to finance capital and operating expenses, training, or license application fees. A potential concern is that this direct taxpayer funding of marijuana businesses could potentially implicate the state in federal aiding and abetting charges given that marijuana is still currently banned under the federal Controlled Substances Act and marijuana businesses are technically illegal at the federal level and can be considered criminal enterprises subject to racketeering laws. Further, if grant funding is indeed conditioned on gender or racial status, it may run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Lawmakers should work to address these issues expeditiously should Question 4 pass in Novemeber 2022.

On the whole and, most importantly, however, Question 4 would effectively end the drug war in Maryland. Real-world data has shown that legalization has had no measurably strong effect on crime, road safety, or economic outcomes in the states that have legalized it. Marijuana use by high-school-aged young people has remained flat or fallen in states that have implemented legal, regulated adult-use marijuana markets.

While black market competitors remain prevalent in some states that have legal markets, this result is heavily tied to the impact that overly high taxes and regulations can have on making legal marijuana products more costly than similar cannabis products offered by illegal sellers. Survey data reveals consumers strongly prefer buying legal, tested marijuana products if the prices are close to those of black-market alternatives.

The post Maryland Question 4 (2022): Marijuana legalization amendment appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Prop. 28 would also direct a higher proportion of this dedicated funding to schools with a concentration of low-income students. Larger schools, with 500 or more student, would have to use 80% of the funding for employing teachers and 20% for training and materials.

Fiscal Impact

Proposition 28 would require education funding in addition to the state’s Proposition 98 minimum guarantee. Therefore, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, public school spending in the state would likely increase between $800-$1 billion annually in 2023-24 if passed. The LAO finds, “Beginning next year, Proposition 28 would increase state costs by about $1 billion annually. This amount is less than one-half of 1 percent of the state’s total General Fund budget. The additional funding would be considered a payment above the constitutionally required amount of funding for public schools and community colleges.”

Proponents’ Arguments For

Few places conjure the image of the creative economy like California. Former education policymakers Arne Duncan and Austin Beutner wrote in CalMatters that this status, however, rests on tenuous ground. They claim that only “1 in 5 public schools in California has a dedicated teacher for traditional arts programs like music, dance, theater and art, or newer forms of creative expression like computer graphics, animation, coding costume design and filmmaking.”

The campaign for “Yes on 28” warns that across grade levels, 90% of elementary schools, 96% of middle schools, and 72% of high schools in California are not providing a high-quality course of study across arts disciplines.

A decline in arts programming may be due to prolonged underfunding, supporters of Prop 28 say. Without raising taxes, Prop 28 supporters hope to reserve 1% of combined state and local education spending for developing and maintaining arts education.

Accountability would be ensured through both spending restrictions and reporting requirements. School officials could only spend the new revenue on arts teachers, classified personnel, and teaching aides. Annual reporting from each school district would require details on arts programs, including student participation levels.

Supporters expect Prop. 28 to not only increase student engagement, cognitive development, and creative and critical thinking skills but also equip students for good-paying jobs. This could be especially critical to students from families struggling financially. For this reason, advocates included additional curriculum funding for schools serving low-income communities.

Advocates further argue, that when compared to other high-cost states, such as New York, California lags in education per-pupil spending overall. While there may not be the political will for a tax increase to fund arts education, simply prioritizing existing spending not only reflects the values of California, in their mind but invests in its future workforce, supporters say.

Opponents’ Arguments Against

In 1988, voters passed Proposition 98 requiring roughly 40% of California’s general funds to be spent on public schools and community colleges. Proposition 28, if passed, will require additional education spending on top of Proposition 98’s minimum guarantee.

California already spends $95.5 billion on its public school system, translating to around $17,000 per student. This figure puts California in the top 10 states for per-student education funding. California’s current spending on K-12 education has reached a historic high, while public school enrollment is the lowest in two decades. Prop. 28 opponents wonder whether this level of spending can be sustained, especially if the student population continues to drop.

Prop. 28 opponents such as Reform California further warn of locking in nearly $1 billion of education spending through an earmark that may come at the expense of other education spending priorities. A mandate on arts spending would be unique, as no such mandate exists for math, science, reading, or physical education, opponents say.

Locking in spending requirements could also reduce financial flexibility when leaders respond to education policy under new economic and social changes over time, including public school enrollment decline. Leaders would have fewer resources to address the state’s backlog of debt or the next economic downturn.

Discussion

California is no stranger to financing arts education through its state budget. Tens of millions of dollars are appropriated annually for arts initiatives. Visual and performing arts instruction, including music, is currently required for all students in grades 1-6, and schools are required to provide these courses to 7th-8th grade students as electives.

To graduate from a California high school, students must choose to complete a year’s course work in visual or performing arts, a foreign language, or most recently, career technical education.

Each local school board may set additional graduation requirements. For example, a 2017 study found nearly half of the state’s school districts prohibit swapping a year’s course work in visual or performing arts with a foreign language or career technical education. This change sought to reflect California public university admission requirements, which demand a year of exclusively visual or performing arts education credit.

If Prop. 28 passes, a 1% combination of state spending, in addition to the spending of each locality through property taxes, would be solely dedicated to music and arts education. Based on previous year enrollment figures, 70% of this newly authorized spending would be distributed among California school districts. The remaining 30% would be reserved for school districts based on their proportion of economically disadvantaged students. Among California’s six million public school students, 60% come from low-income families.

While laws in California require arts education to be included, to varying degrees, across students’ public school careers, Proposition 28 would create the first-ever revenue stream dedicated to these programs exclusively. This creates a tradeoff between a value for arts education and a value for local control by schools over how to use resources. If the primacy of local control is retained, students, parents, and other advocates can make the case in their own school communities about spending priorities, including the arts.  There is no guarantee, either, that this new influx of spending will improve student academic or social outcomes. Higher spending in the public school system has largely failed to guarantee greater student achievement. 

Voters’ guides for other propositions on California’s 2022 ballot.

The post California Proposition 28 (2022): Art and music K-12 education funding appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Reason Foundation’s policy analysts are examining statewide ballot initiatives on issues related to consumer freedom, including, sports gambling, flavored tobacco and e-cigarettes, wine and alcohol sales, and more.

California Proposition 26 (2022): In-person sports betting regulation and tribal gaming expansion

California Proposition 27 (2022): Legalizes online sports betting, funds homelessness and mental health programs

California Proposition 31 (2022): Banning flavored tobacco products

Colorado Initiative 96 (2022): Concerning liquor licenses

Colorado Initiative 121 (2022): Sales of wine in grocery stores

Colorado Initiative 122 (2022): Third-party delivery of alcoholic beverages

Maryland Question 4 (2022): Marijuana legalization amendment

Voters’ guides for other states and policy issues can be found here.

The post The 2022 ballot initiatives about consumer freedom issues appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Colorado Initiative 96 (2022): Concerning liquor licenses

Colorado Initiative 121 (2022): Sales of wine in grocery stores

Colorado Initiative 122 (2022): Third-party delivery of alcoholic beverages

Voters’ guides for other states and policy issues can be found here.

The post Voters’ guide to the 2022 Colorado ballot initiatives appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Georgia temporary property tax change for disaster areas amendment

Georgia amendment to suspend compensation for public officials indicted for a felony

Georgia ballot measure to expand tax exemptions for family-owned farms

Georgia measure to make timber equipment exempt from property taxes

Voters’ guides for other states and policy issues can be found here.

The post Voters’ guide to Georgia’s statewide ballot questions (2022) appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Summary

Under current state law, family farms are exempt from paying certain property taxes on a wide range of farm equipment such as tractors, combines, balers, sprayers, and more and farm products such as livestock and crops.  Georgia’s 2022 farm tax exemption measure would expand those tax exemptions to dairy products and eggs. The measure would also allow larger farms that are created by merging two or more family farms to qualify for tax exemptions.  Equipment must be used for farm production and be owned or held under a lease-purchase agreement to qualify for the tax exemptions, and it does not apply to automobiles and trucks.

Fiscal Impact

Georgia’s poultry industry generates $1.3 billion in tax revenue annually.  Information for dairy products and eggs, unfortunately, was not available.  According to a representative of the Georgia Milk Producers, the industry’s impact, economically, on the state is estimated at $1.03 billion for the 2021 calendar year, some portion of which is tax revenue. Complete analysis of how this measure would impact Georgia taxpayers was not available.

Proponents’ Arguments

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp supports the measure. He stated, “There’s no more generational business than a family farm…I know how important small business is to Georgia’s economy, and that’s what Georgia Farm Bureau and the Georgia Agribusiness Council are fighting for in the Capitol every day.” 

The agriculture industry also supports the measure because it would provide their businesses with a considerable tax break.

Opponents‘ Arguments

While there is no active organized campaign against this measure, some members of the legislature expressed concerns about giving a selected group a special tax break that other groups do not get.

Discussion

This tax measure is an initiative promoted by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and is consistent with his efforts to provide tax relief and other favorable policies for the state’s agricultural sector. Support for the agricultural industry, however, extends far beyond just the governor.  Because most of the state’s lawmakers, especially in the Republican Party, also represent constituencies in the rural parts of the state, tax breaks for the agricultural and timber industry have been politically popular.

This measure is very similar to one passed in 2000 that gave a tax exemption for certain farm equipment of family-owned farms for tools and trade implements of manual laborers.  In 2006, voters also approved a measure expanding the homestead exemptions and property tax exemptions for agricultural products.

However, a key principle of good tax policy is that taxes should not pick winners. Broad-based tax cuts are always better than narrowly targeted ones that only benefit a select, politically-connected, or popular group. This measure is not a broad-based tax cut. At best, it would expand an existing tax break the agricultural industry already gets to apply more broadly across that industry.

Tax breaks for selected industries are not without consequences.  They are not necessarily accompanied by state or local government spending cuts to offset any lost revenue, so the tax burden often shifts to taxpayers or industries that are not as favored by politicians.

The post Georgia ballot measure to expand tax exemptions for family-owned farms (2022) appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The Georgia Timber Equipment Exempt from Property Taxes Measure on the November 2022 ballot would change the state’s tax law so that starting Jan. 1, 2023, all timber equipment such as feller bunchers, forwarders, harvesters, chainsaws, skidders, saws, stump grinders, log loaders, and bandsaws would be exempt from ad valorem taxes.  However, this exemption would not include timber itself. 

Fiscal Impact

Data shows the timber industry paid nearly $20 million in ad valorem taxes to the state in 2020. However, the state does not show what percentage of that revenue is derived from timber equipment so it is unknown how this would impact state and local government tax revenues.

Proponents’ Arguments

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp supports the measure, and has argued the measure will “help us treat the forestry industry the same way that we do agriculture as well as protect hunting, fishing, and conservation land, and more.”

The timber industry also supports the measure. Tobey McDowell of C. McDowell Logging claimed, “It takes 8-10 pieces of equipment, including the trucks and trailers, for us to run just one logging crew, and the overall costs for that equipment is increasing every day. So, when you consider the tax bill on our equipment, it determines whether we purchase new equipment, keep running old equipment, or just give up all together. So, right now any break we can get will help.”

Opponents’ Arguments

There is no organized campaign against this measure. State Sen. Lindsey Tippins (R-Cobb County) voted against the measure when it was before the state legislature and told us in a phone interview that he opposes it based upon the potential unfairness of the timber industry being exempt from ad valorem taxes while other industries, such as the construction industry, and many others, still have to pay those taxes.

Discussion

This tax measure is another initiative in Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp’s consistent efforts to provide tax relief for the state’s agricultural sector.  Most of Georiga’s state lawmakers, especially in the Republican Party, also represent constituencies in the rural parts of the state where tax breaks for the agricultural and timber industries have been politically popular. This measure is very similar to one passed in 2000 that gave tax exemption for certain farm equipment of family-owned farms for tools and trade implements of manual laborers.  In 2006, voters approved an additional measure expanding the homestead exemptions and property tax exemptions for agricultural products.

However, a key principle of good tax policy is that taxes should not pick winners. Broad-based tax cuts are always better than narrowly targeted ones that only benefit a select, politically-connected, or popular group. This measure is not a broad-based tax cut. At best, it would expand an existing tax break the agricultural industry already gets to apply more broadly across that industry.

Tax breaks for selected industries are not without consequences.  They are not necessarily accompanied by state or local government spending cuts to offset any lost revenue, so the tax burden often shifts to taxpayers or industries that are not as favored by politicians.

The post Georgia measure to make timber equipment exempt from property taxes (2022) appeared first on Reason Foundation.

This proposed amendment on Georgia’s November 2022 ballot would adjust the state constitution to allow for the suspension of certain public officials’ compensation while the individual is suspended from office for being indicted for a felony. An official who is reinstated to their previous position would receive all pay and benefits that were withheld.

Currently, a public official must be convicted before that suspension of the compensation would take place. This amendment would only apply to the following public positions: 

• Any member of the General Assembly;
• Governor;
• Lieutenant Governor;
• Secretary of State;
• Attorney General;
• State School Superintendent;
• Commissioner of Insurance;
• Commissioner of Agriculture; or
• Commissioner of Labor

Fiscal Impact

This amendment has no immediate fiscal impact on state taxpayers.

Proponents’ Arguments

Proponents argue that public officials should be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, and should not be paid if they are not currently doing their jobs. They also argue that taxpayers’ funds being used to pay for these suspended public officials could be used to hire public workers in other needed fields. 

Opponents’ Arguments

There is no formal opposition to this amendment. The proposed amendment was placed on the ballot by the state legislature with a vote of 51-1 in the State Senate and 169-0 in the House. 

Discussion

This amendment was introduced as a response to former Georgia Insurance Commissioner Jim Beck receiving $343,000 during the period between his suspension from office and his conviction on numerous fraud charges.

All 50 states will suspend the compensation of public officials if they are convicted of a crime related to their duties. Few, if any, states will withhold that compensation before the official is convicted, but there has been a similar proposal in Michigan to do so. Georgia is also one of 30 states that allow for either the garnishment or forfeiture of public employees’ earned retirement benefits if they are convicted of crimes related to their public duties. 

The principle behind this garnishment/forfeiture policy is that taxpayers should not be paying for a corrupt public official’s salary and benefits. This amendment does track with that principle by suspending the official’s compensation until they are cleared of wrongdoing, and in cases where a formal indictment and trial take years to reach a conclusion, could save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

However, this amendment goes against the “presumption of innocence” principle, whose legal basis is typically argued for under the 5^th, 6^th, and 14^th Amendments. Suspending an official’s salary, before they are convicted of a crime, could harm their ability to mount a defense against the charges brought upon them and cause them and their family to suffer while guilt is not yet proven. Removing an official’s livelihood before any crime has been proven to have taken place is a potentially dangerous action in a hyper-politicized environment. 

The post Georgia amendment (2022) to suspend compensation for public officials indicted for a felony appeared first on Reason Foundation.

On August 28, 2020, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products. California Senate Bill 793 bans menthol cigarettes, e-cigarettes in flavors other than tobacco, as well as oral tobacco products. Exceptions were made for hookah, premium cigars, and pipe tobacco. Retailers selling flavored tobacco products may be subject to a $250 fine for each sale. Proposition 31 on California’s November 2022 statewide ballot seeks to overturn that law, SB 793, so that the sale of flavored tobacco would remain legal in the state. 

Fiscal Impact

“Proposition 31 likely would reduce state tobacco tax revenues by an amount ranging from tens of millions of dollars per year to around $100 million annually,” according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO).

If a substantial number of smokers quit because of the ban, it could engender some savings to the state’s health care system. On the other hand, the LAO points out that if these smokers quit and live longer, it could increase the government’s health care costs. “Given the possibility of both savings and costs, the resulting long-term net impact on government health care costs is uncertain,” LAO concludes.

Arguments in Favor

Supporters of a ‘yes’ vote to uphold the law passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor include California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Cancer Society Action Network, California Teachers’ Association, and many others.

Proponents of prohibition argue flavors such as menthol in combustible cigarettes, sweet and fruit flavors in e-cigarettes, oral tobacco, and little cigars are targeted to and disproportionately impact young people and minorities.

In the case of menthol cigarettes, supporters of the law observe that around 85 percent of black smokers use a menthol cigarette, compared to a little more than a third of white smokers, with the tobacco industry gearing its marketing of menthol cigarettes toward black Americans. It’s also alleged that menthol cigarettes are especially appealing to young people because menthol acts as a cooling agent masking the harsh taste of burnt tobacco allowing new smokers to become hooked easier than they would if they tried a regular cigarette.

Regarding flavored e-cigarettes, the sweet flavors and fruit e-liquids are claimed to be responsible for the upswing in youth vaping that California and the rest of the country experienced beginning in 2017. Supporters of prohibition argue these flavors are hooking a new generation of kids on nicotine. Banning flavors, proponents claim, would help reduce the number of young people trying tobacco products and cause a substantial portion of adult smokers and vapers to quit nicotine for good.  

Arguments Opposed

The groups arguing for a ‘no’ vote on Prop. 31 include companies in the tobacco industry, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and the Republican Party of California.

Opponents of the bans argue that the increase in the tobacco age to 21 in 2020 has already substantially reduced youth access to tobacco products. While the desire to protect youth may be well-intentioned, opponents say the laws would primarily affect adult tobacco users who enjoy flavors and argue that adults should have the right to choose whether to use these products just like with alcohol and marijuana.

They also say there is an unfairness to the legislation since hookah, pipe tobacco, and premium cigars are exempted.

The opponents warn that prohibition would have a negative financial impact on small businesses operating on tight margins. The ban would transfer flavored tobacco sales to the black market, which would mean not just a loss of tax revenue for California.

A ban would also entail criminal enforcement, which brings with it the possibility of increased targeting of minorities by law enforcement, opponents note. The ban on flavored e-cigarettes is also problematic from a health care standpoint because e-cigarettes are safer than combustible cigarettes and limiting access to these products could cause many vapers to relapse to smoking and prevent some smokers who would otherwise have switched from doing so, limiting tobacco harm reduction. 

Discussion

The claims made against menthol cigarettes in California mirror the arguments that were made to the Massachusetts legislature when it was considering a ban on flavored tobacco in 2019. To date, Massachusetts is the only state in the country to have implemented a comprehensive flavored tobacco ban.

According to a pre-print (not yet peer-reviewed) analysis by Reason Foundation Policy Analyst Jacob Rich, one year after the ban, menthol sales within Massachusetts did decline dramatically. But the sales of non-menthol cigarettes within Massachusetts increased substantially. There was also a dramatic rise in cigarette sales in the states bordering Massachusetts. The entire six-state region near Massachusetts reported a net increase in cigarette sales of 7.21 million packs compared to the year before the state ban came into effect. According to the Tax Foundation, the ban also cost Massachusetts $125 million in tax revenue in its first year.

When adult products are relegated to the illegal market consumers often respond by seeking out these products or substitutes on the black market, presenting opportunities for criminals to supply these goods as we’ve seen with alcohol and illegal drugs and sex work.

Supporters of a ‘yes’ vote on Prop. 31 are correct that black smokers, young people and adults, disproportionately use menthol cigarettes. But this obscures some important facts. According to the most recent data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System in 2017, California’s black youth have the lowest smoking rates of any group, while black adults have the highest. If menthol cigarettes are as appealing to youth as has been suggested it is unclear why youth who are most exposed to menthol have the lowest smoking rates. The data is however in accordance with a Reason Foundation study published in 2020 showing that states with higher menthol sales, such as California, have some of the lowest youth smoking rates in the country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) most of the young people who do smoke, 61 percent, use nonmenthol cigarettes. While we do not have recent data for youth smoking rates in California, nationally, they’re at a record low of 1.5 percent. Considering California’s smoking rate historically underperforms the national average we should expect the state’s smoking rate to be even lower. 

While the ban purports to target only retailers, the reality is that prohibition creates a significant potential for menthol cigarette smuggling and black market activity. Given that menthol products are disproportionately popular among black smokers it’s reasonable to assume black communities could suffer from further unnecessary contact with law enforcement if menthols are banned. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and law enforcement organizations such as the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) are among the groups that have voiced concerns as it relates to a proposed national menthol ban by the Food and Drug Administration. Similar concerns would exist in California.

The other major target of the flavored tobacco ban is e-cigarettes. As the use of vaping products by young people rose from 2017 to 2019, it’s unsurprising that some legislators saw prohibition as an easy answer to the problem. But it is important to note that e-cigarettes are a much safer form of nicotine consumption than traditional combustible cigarettes and have helped many Americans quit smoking. Because e-cigarettes heat a liquid solution containing nicotine instead of burning tobacco the number and levels of harmful and potentially chemicals are substantially reduced.

The Royal College of Physicians reports that the risks of vaping are unlikely to exceed five percent of those of smoking. There’s also a growing body of evidence showing that e-cigarettes are more effective than traditional nicotine replacement therapies at helping smokers quit. While e-cigarette flavors are portrayed as being targeted at youth, most adult vapers trying to quit smoking use non-tobacco flavors. According to research conducted by Yale University’s Abigail Friedman, vapers using non-tobacco flavors are more likely to successfully quit smoking than those who don’t.

Banning e-cigarette flavors may have the unintended consequence of not just damaging the state’s vape stores, but could push some vapers back to smoking cigarettes. It could also reduce the number of smokers looking to transition to a safer alternative to cigarettes.

While there is limited evidence on the effects of e-cigarette flavor bans thus far, a recent study published in the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research examining seven California cities that implemented flavored tobacco bans found no significant effect on the likelihood that youth would vape.  An earlier study published in 2018 concluded that a comprehensive tobacco flavor ban would reduce overall tobacco use, but there would be more cigarette smoking than the status quo. Fortunately, youth vaping has fallen by 60 percent since 2019, despite there being no federal prohibition of e-cigarette flavors. 

California’s voters have to decide whether banning flavored tobacco products is likely to achieve the intended public health benefits at minimal cost to taxpayers and social justice, or whether a path of using e-cigarettes and flavors as a harm reduction tool to reduce smoking in a regulated market can achieve similar outcomes without the unintended negative consequences we’ve witnessed with previous experiments in prohibition.

Voters’ guides for other propositions on California’s 2022 ballot.

The post California Proposition 31 (2022): Banning flavored tobacco products appeared first on Reason Foundation.

California’s Proposition 1 would add an amendment to the state constitution (Section 1.1, Article 1) prohibiting the state from interfering “with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”

The amendment was drafted and passed by both houses of California’s state legislature in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Clinic decision overturning Roe vs. Wade and other precedents. The ballot initiative must pass with a two-thirds majority to be added to the state constitution.

Fiscal Impact

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office found that Proposition 1 would have no fiscal impact because California’s law already provides these rights. Critics and opponents of the amendment as drafted have proposed scenarios in which adding this right to the state constitution would cost the state more due to litigation, potentially broader interpretations of abortion rights than exist by current law, and the provision of abortions to patients from other states. No estimates of these costs have been circulated, and we discuss such scenarios.

Arguments in Favor

Arguments in favor of the amendment come from advocates of abortion rights and are targeted to the majority of California residents that polls show favor abortion rights and oppose the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Clinic decision. Most of the state’s prominent Democrats, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and majority leaders in the state legislature, have endorsed the amendment, along with groups such as Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, The League of Women Voters of California, and the California Medical Association.

Proponents argue that while abortion rights are already a part of California law, enshrining them in the state constitution would add another layer of protection. State Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon’s endorsement is representative of almost all California Democratic officials: “We know from history that abortion bans don’t end abortion. They only outlaw safe abortions. We must preserve the fundamental reproductive rights of women here in California because they are under attack elsewhere.”

While the political nature of the short and simply worded amendment is often used by opponents to dismiss it, many endorsements and op-eds favoring the amendment also suggest Proposition 1 appeals to the state’s majority voters on political grounds. Gov. Newsom says, “California will not sit on the sidelines as unprecedented attacks on the fundamental right to choose endanger women across the country.”

Arguments Against

Arguments against Proposition 1 fall into two distinct categories. The first are straightforward arguments by those who oppose abortion. The California Republican Party, California Conference of Catholic Bishops, and prominent pro-life groups oppose the amendment on grounds familiar to the debate about abortion that has unfolded over several decades.

The second category of arguments against Prop. 1 are best characterized as pragmatic arguments targeted to pro-choice voters. They begin by arguing the amendment will be of limited benefit, as California law already protects abortion rights, and express concerns that adding these protections to the state constitution could entail additional costs and, potentially, new lines of attack on, or risks to, Californians’ abortion rights.

Of particular concern to these pragmatic opponents of Prop. 1 is the very simple wording of the amendment, which some fear could be interpreted by California’s courts as enshrining a broader right to abortion than California, as well as now-overturned precedent in Roe v. Wade, allow. California’s current law places limits on abortion at the point of fetal viability, whereas the wording of the proposed amendment simply refers to the “fundamental right to choose to have an abortion.” 

If state courts were to hear a case and rule that the new amendment enshrines a right to all abortions, late-term abortions could be legalized in California. This could be of concern to generally pro-choice California voters, opponents of the amendment argue, for several reasons. First, many who support abortion rights generally may not support late-term abortions. In a San Francisco Chronicle column, Joe Matthew notes recent polling indicating that 70 percent of Californians oppose late-term abortion, numbers almost as high as Californians’ supporting abortion rights earlier in a woman’s pregnancy.

A June 2022 article by legal scholars Allison MacBeth and Elizabeth Bernal urged top-ranking state Democrats to add technical language to the amendment referencing past national legal doctrine—specifically “Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, or Planned Parenthood v. Casey.” The authors argue that citing earlier precedent would effectively limit late-term abortions, while not clarifying the language of the amendment could create a new way for abortion opponents to mount a challenge in federal courts.

The authors of the official argument against Prop. 1 also express concern about California becoming a “’sanctuary state’ for thousands, possibly millions of abortion seekers from other states, at a staggering cost to taxpayers.”

Discussion

Many ballot initiatives in California and other states require the informed voter to familiarize themselves with details of fiscal policy and regulation that are not usually at the forefront of political debate, and on which voters may not have strong opinions when walking into the voting booth. California’s Proposition 1 is just the opposite.

Almost all American voters are familiar with this issue, and most Californians will vote according to whether they believe it should be legal for a woman to get an abortion. Recent polling confirms that a majority of Californians consider themselves pro-choice and that, as of this writing, Prop. 1 seems very likely to pass. California’s pro-life voters are likely to vote against Prop. 1 in overwhelming numbers.

California’s pro-choice voters must decide if there are costs or risks to enshrining the language of the proposed amendment in their constitution. The benefits, from a pro-choice perspective, are the reduced risk of a future state judiciary overturning abortion rights, as well as the political benefits pro-choice voters attach to this contentious issue. While quantifying these benefits is not possible, pro-choice voters must weigh them against the costs laid out by those favoring abortion rights but no constitutional amendment.

It is plausible if not likely that the amendment will create new ground for legal maneuvering and political engagement for pro-life activists in California and nationwide. However, those arguing this point broadly undercut the foundations of the argument that pro-choice voters should not support the amendment—that Californians’ abortion rights are already safe. Pro-choice arguments against the amendment appear to simply ignore that political and legal resistance will continue in the absence of an amendment as well as if it is passed. California is already a political and legal lightning rod for this contentious issue. If we can learn one thing from this seemingly circular argument, it is that activists, lawyers, and energized voters on both sides of the issue will find a way to keep these battles alive not just in California but in all 50 states.

The specific concern about the amendment’s language possibly being flawed is potentially of more concern to pro-choice voters. Opening up new battlegrounds on the particularly hot-button issue of late-term abortions could very likely complicate matters in the future. Citing legal precedents as Allison MacBeth and Elizabeth Bernal proposed may have foreclosed that possibility. Instead, California’s top Democrats and pro-choice groups appear to have opted instead for a simple statement of purpose.

A more carefully worded amendment may have served the dual purpose of preventing legal battles in state court (with the amendment itself) as well as federal courts (with the more precise language). But once again, the idea that either side would simply give up in any scenario, especially in the nation’s largest and most progressive state, is not credible. With future political and legal battles almost guaranteed no matter the amendment’s fate, pro-choice voters may simply value the statement in itself.

Voters’ guides for other propositions on California’s 2022 ballot.

The post California Proposition 1 (2022): Amends the state constitution to protect abortion rights, guarantee reproductive freedom appeared first on Reason Foundation.

California’s Proposition 27 on the November 2022 ballot would authorize online and mobile sports betting throughout the state operated by tribal authorities or non-tribal businesses that partner with tribes. Revenue generated from the taxes and fees related to online sports betting would primarily go to fund programs to address homelessness and mental health, with a smaller portion distributed to all tribes in the state.  

Fiscal Impact

Proposition 27 would tax sports betting revenue from online and mobile platforms at 10 percent, which the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates would increase state tax revenue by up to $500 million annually.

After enforcement costs, which LAO estimates could reach up to “the mid-tens of millions of dollars a year,” 85 percent of the tax revenue generated under Prop. 27 would go to the newly-created California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Account to create long-term housing for those in need. The remaining 15 percent of tax revenue from the proposition would go into a fund for distribution to tribes in the state that do not participate in gambling activities. 

Arguments in Favor

Proponents of Prop. 27 include three of the state’s smaller tribes, national gambling companies like DraftKings and BetMGM, homelessness groups, local elected officials, and community leaders. Their coalition in support of Prop. 27 asserts the measure would create a competitive and safe online sports betting market in California and provide significant funding to help address homelessness in the state. They argue Prop. 27 is the only measure on the ballot that would guarantee a large and stable source of funding, an estimated $300 million annually, for homelessness, mental health, and addiction services. They also say that Prop. 27 would benefit the state’s tribal population by allocating 15 percent of the tax revenue from sports betting to non-gaming tribes. 

Arguments Against

Opponents of Prop. 27 include some of the state’s tribes, faith-based groups, political organizations, including the California Democratic Party, several elected officials, and other groups. Some of the arguments are that online and mobile wagering would put the state’s youth at risk, exacerbate problem gambling, and threaten tribal economies. Additionally, some opponents say that Prop. 27 would give large, out-of-state online gambling businesses too much control over California’s sports betting market and would put those tribes who wish to offer online sports betting on their own at a competitive disadvantage against well-recognized national brands. 

Discussion 

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal prohibition on sports gambling in 2018, more than 30 states have legalized the activity in some form, generating more than $142 billion in wagers and over $1.5 billion in tax revenue. California, with its nearly 40 million residents, could be the largest and most lucrative sports betting market in the country, yielding operators between $350 million and $3 billion in profits and the state up to $300 million in new tax revenue, depending on the way it is regulated. 

California’s gaming tribes currently enjoy a state-granted monopoly over slot machines and casino-style games, which nets them around $8 billion in revenue each year. That money is vital for tribal economic welfare as well as tribal political power. Tribes have used that power to deftly defend their control over gambling in the state, expanding the types of games tribes can offer while blocking attempts at encroachment by competitors. Legalizing sports betting represents a significant opportunity to increase foot traffic and revenue for tribal casinos. It is also a threat should the new market bolster its competitors’ profits and influence in state politics. 

That is among the reasons many of California’s gaming tribes, 26 at last count, have thrown their support behind Proposition 26, which would restrict legal sports betting to in-person bets at tribal casinos and the state’s four licensed horse racetracks. Along with those tribes and racetracks, some chambers of commerce, faith-based organizations, and social justice-oriented groups have also backed Prop. 26. Some, but not all of these Prop. 26 supporters have also joined the ballot measure committee in opposition to Prop. 27, which would allow non-tribal entities to offer online and mobile sports betting if they strike a deal with one of the state’s gaming tribes.

Those supporting Prop. 26 argue that limiting sports betting to in-person bets at tribal casinos will mitigate the risks of underage and problem gambling, prevent profits from leaving the state, and bolster tribal sovereignty and self-sufficiency. 

Prop. 26 supporters point to the 20-year history of responsible gaming operated by tribal casinos, arguing that they are better equipped to prevent underage bets than online or mobile businesses, while Prop. 27 offers no such protections. Using the rhetoric long-used by land-based casinos opposed to online gambling, Prop. 27 opponents argue it would turn “every cellphone, laptop, tablet, and even video game console into a gambling device, opening up online gambling to anyone, anywhere, anytime.” However, it is worth noting that at least some of the tribes opposed to Prop. 27 are open to authorizing online and mobile sports betting so long as the tribes control it, with some already lending support to a 2024 ballot initiative that would do just that.

Supporters of Prop. 27 claim allegations about online gaming spurring youth betting are little more than fear-mongering and highlight the successful prevention of youth online betting in other countries that have legalized online gambling, as well as the seven U.S. states with legal online poker, the 20 states with legal online sports betting, and the 45 states with legal daily fantasy sports betting online. In the near-decade since legal online gambling has been authorized, dire prophecies about online youth gambling have failed to materialize, with online operators rarely receiving fines for underage gambling. Furthermore, technology makes it possible for online platforms to be at least as capable of verifying their customers’ age, identity, and location as land-based casinos, which rely almost exclusively on a visual scan of identification cards. In addition to scanning IDs, online gambling platforms typically ask for additional details, which, depending on state regulations, may include Social Security numbers and answering questions about personal history, such as previous addresses at which they lived. Those details are then checked against government databases to verify customer identity. They are also stored so that, if there are doubts about an operator’s compliance with state laws, regulators can follow a digital trail of evidence to prove such violations occurred, fine operators, or shut them down. 

Another fear raised by the ‘yes on Prop. 26’ and ‘no on Prop. 27″ campaigns are that online sports betting would exacerbate problem gambling or “gambling addiction.” Such concerns are an inevitable part of any debate over expanding access to gambling but based on data and real-world experience, these fears are largely unjustified. Despite extraordinary increases in access to gambling, problem gambling continues to be rare, and its prevalence has been remarkably stable in the U.S. since the 1970s. This is not to say that problem gambling should be ignored, only that the risks should not be overblown. 

As with age and identity verification, online platforms can employ technological solutions that can address problem gambling, such as pattern-recognition software, responsible gaming “speedbumps,” which force players to set limits on their spending, and the ability to self-exclude themselves from access to gambling websites. Moreover, whether land-based or online, the risks of problem gambling are better addressed when the gambling occurs in a legal, regulated market, as opposed to illicit markets. And on that note, it is worth pointing out that the absence of legal sports betting has not stopped the activity, with experts estimating that Californians already place an estimated $15 billion in illegal sports bets each year. Most of that money is sent to overseas illicit operators, and those operators do little, if anything, to stop underage or problem gambling. 

Another central argument made by supporters of Prop. 26 is that restricting sports betting to tribal casinos would be more beneficial for tribal economies and welfare. Indeed, a near-monopoly on sports betting would be in gaming tribes’ financial interest. But, supporters of Prop. 27 have controversially argued that Prop. 26 mainly benefits the wealthiest tribes with large casinos while Prop. 27 would spread the wealth more evenly, earmarking 15 percent of the tax revenue it would generate (an estimated $45 million annually) to be split among the state’s non-gaming tribes. 

Prop. 26 and Prop. 27 also impact other industries and communities. Cardrooms in the state, along with many workers’ unions, local elected officials, social justice organizations, and animal welfare groups have joined a coalition against Prop. 26 because they say it would create an unfair advantage for tribal casinos, siphoning customers away from other gambling businesses in the state and putting at risk the entire cardroom industry, along with the 32,000 jobs it supports and the $5.5 billion in economic activity it generates, which could “devastate other communities of color in California.”   

Another argument made by Prop. 27 proponents is that their measure would provide significant funding to address the state’s homelessness problem, earmarking 85 percent of the tax revenue—potentially $250 million annually—to programs aimed at creating long-term housing for those in need, a figure that could total more than  

Proponents of Prop. 26 concede that Prop. 27 would generate far more revenue by allowing large national brands, like DraftKings and BetMGM, to participate in California’s market. Those operators would be subject to taxes, unlike tribal casinos. However, Prop. 27 opponents argue that this would be bad for California and tribal casinos because it would primarily benefit out-of-state businesses and “wall street investors funding Prop 27.” While Prop. 26 would generate less revenue, supporters argue it would keep all that money in the state. 

Prop. 27 would create a more robust and competitive sports betting market than Prop. 26 by allowing online and mobile betting, generating billions in revenue for the state, gaming tribes, and operators under agreement with those tribes. Still, it could divert some revenue from in-person betting at tribal casinos. It might also put those tribes who wish to enter the online sports betting market but do not want to partner with national brands at a disadvantage in the market.

Proposition 26 would benefit the state’s gaming tribes and block out-of-state gambling companies from California’s market. But, the benefits generated by Prop. 26 may come at the cost of Californians having competitive choices of where to gamble and would mean forgoing hundreds of millions in tax revenue Proposition 27 would have generated for other communities, non-gaming tribes, and housing programs.

Voters’ guides for other propositions on California’s 2022 ballot.

The post California Proposition 27 (2022): Legalizes online sports betting, funds homelessness and mental health programs appeared first on Reason Foundation.

California’s Proposition 26 would authorize Indian tribal casinos and four-horse racetracks in the state to offer in-person sports wagering on college sports, amateur athletics, and other competitions. Still, it would prohibit wagering on high school sports and events involving California-based college teams. The measure would also authorize gaming tribes in the states to offer roulette and dice games, like craps. Revenue generated from sports betting would go to the state’s general fund, enforcement costs, and programs aimed at addressing problem gambling. 

Fiscal Impact

The measure would tax sports betting at racetracks at 10 percent. The state’s four licensed horse racetracks would be the only ones to pay that tax since tribes as sovereign entities are tax-exempt. But, gaming tribes contribute funds to the state in other ways, such as fees stipulated in tribal-state compacts that each tribe would strike with the state before offering sports betting. Altogether, Prop. 26 is expected to increase state revenue by tens of millions of dollars annually, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), with 70 percent going into the general fund. The remaining 30 percent would be divided equally between paying for enforcement costs (LAO estimates in the low tens of millions of dollars annually) and programs that address problem gaming. 

Argument in Favor

Proponents argue that giving California’s tribes and racetracks exclusive authority to offer sports betting would bolster tribal self-sufficiency, create jobs, and generate revenue for the state. They point out that sports gambling online is extensive and that Prop. 26 would keep much of that spending in California rather than going to out-of-state online gambling companies. They assert that limiting the activity to in-person betting operated by facilities with long track records of responsible gaming will prevent underage gambling and mitigate problem gambling. 

Arguments Against

Opponents of Prop. 26 argue that the measure is anti-competitive, unfairly granting tribes a near-monopoly on sports betting and an actual monopoly on roulette and craps, in addition to their existing monopoly on slot machines. They allege that the measure benefits a handful of wealthy tribes with large casinos at the expense of smaller tribes, California’s non-tribal gaming industry, and other communities of color in the state, costing them thousands of jobs and millions in revenue. Some also oppose the measure for propping up the horse racing industry and promoting animal abuse. And, as with any measure to expand gambling, some oppose Prop. 26 for concerns that such expansions threaten the integrity of youth sports and could increase problem gambling. 

Discussion 

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal prohibition on sports gambling in 2018, more than 30 states have legalized the activity in some form, generating more than $142 billion in wagers and over $1.5 billion in tax revenue. California, with its nearly 40 million residents, could be the largest and most lucrative sports betting market in the country, yielding operators between $350 million and $3 billion in profits and the state up to $300 million in new tax revenue, depending on the way it is regulated. 

California’s gaming tribes currently enjoy a state-granted monopoly over slot machines and casino-style games, which nets them around $8 billion in revenue each year. That money is vital for tribal economic welfare as well as tribal political power. Tribes have used that power to deftly defend their control over gambling in the state, expanding the types of games tribes can offer while blocking attempts at encroachment by competitors. Legalizing sports betting represents a significant opportunity to increase foot traffic and revenue for tribal casinos. It is also a threat should the new market bolster its competitors’ profits and influence in state politics. 

That is among the reasons many of California’s gaming tribes, 26 at last count, have thrown their support behind Proposition 26, which would restrict legal sports betting to in-person bets at tribal casinos and the state’s four licensed horse racetracks. Along with those tribes and racetracks, some chambers of commerce, faith-based organizations, and social justice-oriented groups have also backed Prop. 26. Some, but not all of these Prop. 26 supporters have also joined the ballot measure committee in opposition to Proposition 27, which would allow non-tribal entities to offer online and mobile sports betting if they strike a deal with one of the state’s gaming tribes.

Those supporting Prop. 26 argue that limiting sports betting to in-person bets at tribal casinos would mitigate the risks of underage and problem gambling, prevent profits from leaving the state, and bolster tribal sovereignty and self-sufficiency. 

Prop. 26 supporters point to the 20-year history of responsible gaming operated by tribal casinos, arguing that they are better equipped to prevent underage bets than online or mobile businesses, while Prop. 27 offers no such protections. Using the rhetoric long-used employed by land-based casinos opposed to online gambling, Prop. 27 opponents argue it would turn “every cellphone, laptop, tablet, and even video game console into a gambling device, opening up online gambling to anyone, anywhere, anytime.” However, it is worth noting that at least some of the tribes opposed to Prop. 27 are open to authorizing online and mobile sports betting so long as the tribes control it, with some already lending support to a 2024 ballot initiative that would do just that.

Supporters of Prop. 27 claim allegations about online gaming spurring youth betting are little more than fear-mongering and highlight the successful prevention of youth online betting in other countries that have legalized online gambling, as well as the seven U.S. states with legal online poker, the 20 states with online legal sports betting, and the 45 states with legal daily fantasy sports betting online.

In the near-decade since legal online gambling has been authorized, dire prophecies about online youth gambling have failed to materialize, with online operators rarely receiving fines for underage gambling. Furthermore, technology makes it possible for online platforms to be at least as capable of verifying their customers’ age, identity, and location as land-based casinos, which rely almost exclusively on a visual scan of identification cards. In addition to scanning IDs, online gambling platforms typically ask for additional details, which, depending on state regulations, may include social security numbers and answering questions about personal history, such as previous addresses at which they lived. Those details are then checked against government databases to verify customer identity. They are also stored so that, if there are doubts about an operator’s compliance with state laws, regulators can follow a digital trail of evidence to prove such violations occurred, fine operators, or shut them down. 

Another fear raised by the ‘yes on Prop. 26’ and ‘no on Prop. 27’ campaigns are that online sports betting will exacerbate problem gambling or “gambling addictions.” Such concerns are an inevitable part of any debate over expanding access to gambling but based on data and real-world experience, these fears are largely unjustified. Despite extraordinary increases in access to gambling, problem gambling continues to be rare, and its prevalence has been remarkably stable in the U.S. since the 1970s. This is not to say that problem gambling should be ignored, only that the risks should not be overblown. 

As with age and identity verification, online platforms can employ technological solutions that can address problem gambling, such as pattern-recognition software, responsible gaming “speedbumps,” which force players to set limits on their spending, and the ability to self-exclude themselves from access to gambling websites. Moreover, whether land-based or online, the risks of problem gambling are better addressed when the gambling occurs in a legal, regulated market, as opposed to illicit markets. And on that note, it is worth pointing out that the absence of legal sports betting has not stopped the activity, with experts estimating that Californians already place an estimated $15 billion in illegal sports bets each year. Most of that money is sent to overseas illicit operators, and those operators do little, if anything, to stop underage or problem gambling. 

Another central argument made by supporters of Prop. 26 is that restricting sports betting to tribal casinos would be more beneficial for tribal economies and welfare. Indeed, a near-monopoly on sports betting would be in gaming tribes’ financial interest. But, supporters of Prop. 27 have argued that Prop. 26 mainly benefits the wealthiest tribes with large casinos while Prop. 27 would spread the wealth more evenly, earmarking 15 percent of the tax revenue it would generate (an estimated $45 million annually) to be split among the state’s non-gaming tribes. 

Prop. 26 and Prop. 27 also impact other industries and communities. Cardrooms in the state, along with a number of workers’ unions, local elected officials, social justice organizations, and animal welfare groups, have joined a coalition against Prop. 26 because they say it would create an unfair advantage for tribal casinos, siphoning customers away from other gambling businesses in the state and putting at risk the entire cardroom industry, along with the 32,000 jobs it supports and the $5.5 billion in economic activity it generates, which could”devastate other communities of color in California.”   

Another argument made by Prop. 27 proponents is that their measure would provide significant funding to address the state’s homelessness problem, earmarking 85 percent of the tax revenue—potentially $250 million annually—to programs aimed at creating long-term housing for those in need, a figure that could total more than  

Proponents of Prop. 26 concede that Prop. 27 would generate far more revenue by allowing large national brands, like DraftKings and BetMGM, to participate in California’s market. Those operators would be subject to taxes, unlike tribal casinos. However, Prop. 27 opponents argue that this would be bad for California and tribal casinos because it would primarily benefit out-of-state businesses and” wall street investors funding Prop 27″ While Prop. 26 would generate less revenue, supporters argue it would keep all that money in the state. 

Prop. 27 would create a more robust and competitive sports betting market than Prop. 26 by allowing online and mobile betting, generating billions in revenue for the state, gaming tribes, and operators under agreement with those tribes.

Still, it could divert some revenue from in-person betting at tribal casinos. It might also put those tribes who wish to enter the online sports betting market but do not want to partner with national brands at a disadvantage in the market. Proposition 26 would benefit the state’s gaming tribes and block out-of-state gambling companies from California’s market. But, the benefits generated by Prop. 26 may come at the cost of Californians having competitive choices of where to gamble and would mean forgoing hundreds of millions in tax revenue Proposition 27 would have generated for other communities, non-gaming tribes, and housing programs.

Voters’ guides for other propositions on California’s 2022 ballot.

The post California Proposition 26 (2022): In-person sports betting regulation and tribal gaming expansion appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The Nevada top-five ranked choice voting initiative, Nevada Question 3 on the Nov. 2022 ballot, would change state primary elections from a closed system in which only party members are allowed to vote in their respective parties’ primaries to a top-two open primary where anyone can vote for any candidate of any party.

The initiative would also change the process by which candidates from each primary advance to the general election. Currently, the candidates receiving the most votes in each party’s primary advance to the general election—one candidate represents each party. Under the initiative, the top five candidates overall would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. 

The initiative would also establish rank-choice voting in the primaries and the general election. Under rank-choice voting, voters rank their preferred candidates rather than selecting one candidate to receive their votes. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. That candidate’s votes are then redistributed based on voters’ ranked preferences. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority.

Proponents’ Arguments For

Proponents of Nevada Question 3 argue that voters should have more choices and that non-party-affiliated voters should have a voice in the primary process. As noted by the Institute for Political Innovation, more than 35 percent of Nevada voters are unable to vote in a primary because they are registered as independent or non-partisan, and “many more [feel] under-represented by their respective party.” 

Supporters of open primary systems generally argue that closed primaries result in polarization because, in closed primaries, candidates are competing for the vote of a partisan minority. Closed primary systems exclude voters who are not members of a major political party from participating in taxpayer-funded elections. The outcome of primary elections is therefore decided by a relatively small group of partisan voters. They suggest that open primaries could result in moderation because it would require candidates to appeal to all voters, not just members of their own political party.

Supporters of ranked-choice voting argue that it allows voters to choose their most-preferred candidate first without worrying about wasted votes or spoiler effects. This would lend voters more choice.  Supporters of the top-five component of the initiative further argue that allowing the top-five candidates to proceed to the general election would provide voters with more choice. According to Sondra Cosgrove, professor of history at the College of Southern Nevada, “We don’t want just two people moving forward from the primary to the general election. We want five people, because oftentimes when you look at the people who move forward, it’s just the people with the most money.”

Opponent’s Arguments Against

Opponents of Nevada Question 3 argue that it would make voting too complicated and that voters could be confused by the new system. According to Emily Persaud-Zamora, executive director of Silver State Voices:

Ranked choice voting makes casting a ballot more time-consuming, more complicated, and more confusing for voters … It will inevitably lead to increased errors. Ranked choice vote ballots are significantly more likely to be thrown out and uncounted because of those voters’ mistakes, ultimately disenfranchising more voters because of an overly complex and burdensome process.

Opponents of Nevada Question 3 and open primaries also argue that political parties are private organizations and should be allowed to determine the process by which their candidates are selected. Building a coalition of like-minded voters and nominating candidates that align with their preferences are among the core functions of political parties. Partisan primaries are an important part of that function. In their view, open primaries would weaken the ability of parties to nominate the candidates that most clearly align with their members’ beliefs. Moreover, they argue that allowing members of the opposing party to participate in their primary process could create opportunities for sabotage.

Discussion 

While expanding voter choice and allowing non-partisan voters to play a more significant role in elections are laudable goals, it is not clear that open primaries and top-five election processes are a good means for achieving those goals. Ranked choice voting, on the other hand, is an effective strategy for offering voters more choices. Because ranked-choice voting alleviates concerns about wasted votes and spoiler effects, such ballots also lend more opportunity for minor party candidates. 

Regarding open primaries, political parties are fundamentally private organizations with the right to set their own rules for nominating candidates. To infringe on that right is to violate the freedom of association. No matter how large or powerful the two major parties may be, the government has no role in determining the process for their primary elections. That limitation does not prevent non-partisan voters from vocalizing their dissatisfaction with major-party nominees. Better alternatives for including non-partisan voters in the electoral process include allowing minor-party candidates to participate in debates and redrawing gerrymandered districts. 

Overall, the Nevada Top-Five Ranked Choice Voting Initiative has some laudable goals and contains some ideas worthy of consideration. However, mandating open primaries and a top-five system both conflict with other long-established goals of primary elections.

The post Nevada Question 3 (2022): Top-five ranked choice voting initiative appeared first on Reason Foundation.