Election 2008: New Laws in Your State
 

A few threads on specific initiatives/propositions have been started, but I thought it would be interesting to see the results of key voting initiatives across the country. What was passed or rejected in your state?

In Washington state, we passed the assisted suicide/"death with dignity" initiative, making us only the second state in the country to enact it. We also approved the biggest transportation funding initiative in the country. And we re-elected our governor, Christine Gregoire.

The state of Maryland has voted in favor of bringing slot machines (no more than 15,000) to the state as a way of funding public education. It'll be intereseting to see how much of that money actually goes toward public education.

Oh, and I also found out that this was Washington state's last election with polls - we're moving to mail-in voting exclusively.

There were two ballot measures in Connecticut.

The constitutional convention measure failed. Every 20 years, the electorate votes on whether a convention should be held. It was voted down in 1986 and again this year (the vote that should have been held in 2006 was pushed off to this year). There was a lot of concern that gay marriage would be constitutionally banned and that abortion rights would take a beating if the convention took place.

The other measure allows 17-year-olds to vote in primaries as long as they would be 18 by the date of the general election. That measure passed.

Well I don't think Texas has any new laws (well because there wasn't any on the ballot).

But I will say that i'm pretty disappointed in California. I kinda wish that I was still registered to vote there, but I don't know if it would have made a difference. California voted Yes on Prop 8.

ETA: In case there is someone that doesn't know, Prop 8 is initiative to amend the California constitution to eliminate gay marriage & to add that marriage is between a man & a woman.

ETA2: Hopefully someone who currently lives in California will come in and talk about it, but according to Wikipedia--as of today there are still 3 million absentee ballots that have yet to be counted. The vote on Prop 8 is currently 52.5% Yes versus 47.5% No.

I've posted this in other threads too, but Michigan passed both proposals: One allowing for the use of medical marijuana (including details about people becoming licensed growers) and Two to allow the use of embryos for embryonic stem cell research if they are the product of in vitro fertilization, no more than 14 days after cells begin to replicate, if the parents agree and if it would just be thrown away if it wasn't used for research. It clarified that nobody could be paid for embryos and embryos could not be created solely for this purpose. It also stated that no other more restrictive laws could be passed in the future.

A very controversial proposal in South Dakota did not pass. It would have made abortion illegal except in the case of rape, incest or for the health of the mother. It was thought that if it passed, it would have gone to the Supreme Court and would be the big Roe v. Wade challenge. I'm surprised, but pleased, that this red state did not pass it. I do not see how it would have been enforceable, which could be why it didn't pass. How would you "prove" that it was a rape or incest that impregnated you? Would someone have to be convicted? Wouldn't it be too late to get the abortion if you waited for a rape trial to happen? Too many issues with it, even if you're against abortion.

Don't forget, we also voted to allow early voting during elections. Both of these were amendments to the Maryland constitution.

California had 12 propositions on the ballot. Excluding bond acts, those that passed are:

Prop 2 - Standards for Confining Farm Animals;
Prop 8 - Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry; and
Prop 9 - Criminal Justice System. Victims' Rights. Parole.
(Links are to the official Voter Information Guide from the CA Secretary of State's website.)

Another one that may pass is Prop 11 - Redistricting, but the vote is too close to call until the absentee ballots are tallied.

Election return results are available here, which show in the case of Prop 8 a total of 5,387,939 votes for and 4,883,460 against (as of the time of this post).

The immediate background on this measure stems from Prop 22 in the 2000 election which passed (61.4% approval) and created section 308.5 of the California Family Code: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court invalidated the statute, ruling it as a violation of the equal protection clause of the state's constitution. Proposition 8 was written to insert the same wording as Prop 22 directly into the constitution.

--ETA: All of the precincts have now reported. Here are the counts apart from any outstanding absentee ballots.

This is the part of that proposal that would have really creeped me out. I probably wouldn't have voted for it anyway (I have a smidgen more regard for Catholic teaching that that*), but it's the attempt to legislate in the future that I would have expected to trip people up rather than the actual permission granted in this case. I think you commented on this aspect before. But honestly, all you'd have to do would be repeal that law if you wanted to change legislation in the future, right?

ETA: I'm not trying to call out any Catholics who voted for it. I just mean that current Roman Catholic teaching about embryonic stem cell research would affect my own vote just enough to prevent me from personally voting for it. I don't think I'd be super troubled that it passed though. I think most people are pretty accepting of what's described. EATA: Isn't it weird though the stipulations they add on. Why would it be wrong to pay people for the embryos? Why would it be wrong to create embryos especially for this purpose if there isn't anything wrong with doing the research itself?

Amendment 1

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to provide that the General Assembly by general law shall encourage the preservation, conservation, and protection of the state's forests through the special assessment and taxation of certain forest lands and assistance grants to local government?"

The voters said yes.

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to authorize community redevelopment and authorize counties, municipalities, and local boards of education to use tax funds for redevelopment purposes and programs?"

The voters said yes.

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to authorize the General Assembly to provide by general law for the creation and comprehensive regulation of infrastructure development districts for the provision of infrastructure as authorized by local governments?"

The voters said no.

I said no to all three because I'm a jerk like that or because I don't really like to see government or government taxing and spending ever expand, you decide. The forest one was the most tempting to me. The second one is going to be really messy. I think it's going to be a way that City of Atlanta Schools (actually Atlanta Public Schools), who don't do a particularly good job with education and schools, will now be able to tax people at some pretty high rates and use the money for things other than education, which I suspect they will also do poorly and probably very self-interestedly if history is any predictor. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure they were the only school district interested in this. Most of the discussion focuses on TADs and no shifting of funds from education to redevelopment, but look at that amendment and tell me where that's made clear.

NY Proposition 1 Passed. I didn't vote yes or no, I didn't know what it was for! I'm a little ashamed for not being educated. If I read it correctly, Veterans do not have to be receiving disability to receive credit for their service for a promotion.

from Vote-NY.org

New York Ballot Measure / Referendum
Amendment to Article 5, section 6 of the Constitution, in relation to additional civil service credit for members of the armed forces of the United States

Description: The proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement that veterans who were disabled in the actual performance of duty in any war be receiving disability payments from the United States Veterans Administration in order to qualify for additional points on a civil service examination for appointment or promotion. Under the proposed amendment, the disability must only be certified to exist by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The proposed amendment would also update the reference to the “United States Veterans Administration” to instead refer to the “United States Department of Veterans Affairs” to reflect current federal government structure. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?

Detail: The purpose of the proposal is to eliminate the requirement that disabled veterans be receiving disability payments in order to qualify for additional credit on civil service examinations.
The State Constitution currently requires that, in order to qualify for additional points on a civil service examination for appointment or promotion, a veteran who was disabled in the actual performance of duty in any war must be receiving disability payments from the United States Veterans Administration, and the United States Veterans Administration must certify that the veteran’s disability exists at the time that the veteran applies for appointment or promotion.
The proposed amendment would change the reference to the “United States Veterans Administration“ currently in this section to the “United States Department of Veterans Affairs” to reflect the Veterans Administration’s redesignation as the Department of Veterans Affairs under federal law.
The proposed amendment would also eliminate the requirement that a veteran who was disabled in the actual performance of duty in any war be receiving disability payments from the federal veterans department in order to qualify for additional points on a civil service examination. Instead, the proposed amendment would only require that the United States Department of Veterans Affairs certify that the veteran’s disability exists at the time that the veteran applies for appointment or promotion.

I'm happy Prop 2 passed. I'm sure I'm going to be paying a little more for meat and dairy but I'm fine with that.

I'm SO anti-Prop 8 that I probably shouldn't even discuss it on here in detail for risk of starting a war. Let's just say that I'm disgusted with 52.5% of my fellow Californians. It's a sad day for civil rights in California.

I'm with you. I'm so angry and in disbelief that people in this state would vote this way. I'm truly disgusted.

I'm celebrating because the state of Colorado cast a resounding NO on Amendment 48. I worked so hard on campaigning against it, and I think I cheered the loudest when they called it at 75% no.

I agree. I was watching Headline News and they had 'statistics' on how people would vote/voted on Prop 8. I guess they polled people, and all but one of the different groups they polled (whites, blacks, college students, asians, etc) voted against Prop 8. The only group that voted in favor of Prop 8 was African-Americans (with 69% wanting yes on prop 8).

Then they made the wild claim that it was because of Obama that "yes on prop 8" succeeded. That because so many African-Americans were going out to vote that it pushed the "yes on prop 8" vote higher. I was just kinda like :confused: