Winning Progressive

This is part 2 of our progressive voters guide to initiatives that will be on state ballots this November.  Part 1 of the guide is available here.

If you live in a state with one of the ballot initiatives, please get involved by speaking with your family, friends, and colleagues; by volunteering; and by writing a letter to your local newspaper editor.  If you live out-of-state, please contribute what you can to support the efforts of the progressive organizations who are working on these initiatives.

Worker’s Rights

Michigan Proposal 2 – vote Yes on the the “Protect Working Families” ballot proposal, which would grant both private and public sector employees a state constitutional right to bargain collectively through labor unions, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements.  At a time of continued assault on the rights of working people, Proposal 2 would provide working Michiganders with protection from right-wing attacks, and would be a strong statement in favor of union rights.

* Protect Working Families

* Contribute

* Volunteer

* Facebook page

* Michigan newspapers

Michigan Proposal 4 – vote Yes on the “Home Health Care Amendment” to help improve the quality and availability of home health care services. The proposal would amend the state constitution to create the Michigan Quality Home Care Council, which would create a registry of qualified home health care providers, run background checks on providers, establish job training programs for home health care providers, establish wage and condition of employment standards for providers, and grant providers a limited right to collectively bargain over wages, benefits, and working conditions.

* Keep Home Care Safe

* Contribute

* Volunteer

*Facebook page

* Michigan newspapers

California Proposition 32 – vote No on Proposition 32, which would vastly restrict the ability of working people and labor unions to engage in political advocacy.  The proposition is billed as an effort to get special interest money out of politics in California. But the reality is that while the proposition would stop unions from spending their members’ dues on political action and restrict campaign contributions from “special interests,” it includes a long list of exemptions that allow hedge funds, investment firms, real-estate developers, insurance companies, and other corporate interests to continue buying elections at will.

* No On 32

* Contribute

* Facebook Page

Campaign Finance

Montana Corporate Contributions Initiative, I-166 - vote Yes on ballot initiative I-166, which: (1) would establish a state policy that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, (2) calls for restoring Montana’s ban on corporate campaign contributions (which was struck down in June 2012 by the U.S. Supreme Court), and (3) urges the state’s Congressional delegation to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would overturn Citizens United and other Supreme Court decisions that establish that corporations have a free speech right to spend unlimited amounts on campaign contributions.

* Stand With Montanans

* Contribute

* Volunteer

*Facebook page

* Montana newspapers

Education

Idaho Propositions 1, 2, and 3 – vote No on Idaho propositions 1, 2, and 3, which seek to approve anti-teacher legislation passed by the Idaho legislature in 2011.  Proposition 1 would forbid teachers from collectively bargaining about anything except wages and benefits.  In other words, teachers would no longer be able to raise their voices about classroom size, funding for classroom supplies, student safety, etc.  Proposition 2 would link teacher pay to standardized testing.  Proposition 3 would try to divert students and funding away from public schools by requiring local school districts to spend money providing laptops to students who pursued on-line schooling.

* Vote No on Props 1, 2, and 3

* Contribute

* Volunteer

* Facebook page

* Idaho newspapers

Oregon Measure 85 – the Corporate Tax “Kicker” Funds for Education Initiative – vote Yes on Oregon Measure 85, which would provide that certain higher than expected tax revenues from corporate taxes would go towards K-12 education funding, rather than being refunded to corporations.  Under Oregon law, the Governor must, every two years, estimate the amount of tax revenue the state expects to receive. If actual revenue from corporate taxpayers exceeds the estimate by more than 2%, the excess amount is refunded.  Measure 85 would provide that such excess amounts are, instead, dedicated to K-12 funding.

* Our Oregon

* Contribute

* Volunteer

* Facebook page

* Oregon newspapers

Washington Charter School Initiative 1240 – vote No on Initiative 1240, which would start chipping away at public education in Washington State by allowing 40 charter schools to be formed over the next five years.  Washington is currently one of only eight states in the US that has no charter schools.  Initiative is the fourth attempt by charter school advocates to bring charters to the state of Washington.

* No on 1240

* Contribute

* Volunteer

* Facebook page

* Washington newspapers

While re-electing President Obama should be the top priority for progressives throughout the country this fall, we must also remember that there are many important candidates and issues that will be found further down the ballot on November 6.  One of the most important categories of down-ballot issues is ballot initiatives, which provide voters the opportunity to have a direct say on major policy matters.

This year, states have a plethora of ballot initiatives pending for a vote in November.  Below is Part 1 of our two-part guide to the initiatives of biggest importance to progressives this fall, along with links for how to get involved in supporting the progressive position on each initiative.  Here in Part 1, we will address ballot initiatives regarding marriage equality, reproductive freedom, criminal justice, estate taxes, and death with dignity.  In Part 2, we will highlight initiatives regarding worker’s rights, government, and education.

If you live in a state with one of the ballot initiatives, please get involved by speaking with your family, friends, and colleagues; by volunteering; and by writing a letter to your local newspaper editor.  If you live out-of-state, please contribute what you can to support the efforts of the progressive organizations who are working on these initiatives.

Marriage Equality

2011 was a banner year for advancing the cause of LGBT equality. However, the issue of marriage equality has yet to win majority support any time when it has been placed on the ballot.  We have a great opportunity to change that track record this November in Washington State, Minnesota, Maine, and Maryland.

Washington Referendum 74 – vote Yes to uphold the state legislature’s approval of marriage equality

* Washington United for Marriage  * Contribute  * Volunteer  * Facebook page  * Washington newspaper links

Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Initiative – vote No on constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality

* Minnesotans United for All Families  * Contribute  * Volunteer  * Facebook Page    * Minnesota newspaper links

Maine Same-Sex Marriage Question – vote Yes on 1 to repeal Maine’s ban on marriage equality

* Mainers United for Marriage  * Contribute   * Volunteer  * Facebook Page   *Maine newspaper links

Maryland Question 6 - vote Yes to uphold the state legislature’s approval of marriage equality

* Marylanders for Marriage Equality  * Contribute  * Volunteer  *Facebook Page  * Maryland newspaper links

Estate Tax

Oregon Measure 84 – vote No on this proposal that would eliminate Oregon’s estate tax, which applies to estates valued at greater than $1 million.  As we’ve explained previously, the estate tax is the fairest and most meritocratic kind of tax there is. For more on why Oregon’s estate tax is good for that state, check out this fact sheet from Tax Fairness Oregon. And then send a letter to your local Oregon newspaper urging people to vote No on Measure 84.

Reproductive Freedom

Florida Amendment 6 – vote No on this proposal, which would prevent state courts from reading the Florida Constitution’s right to privacy to provide any rights to choice that are broader than provided under the federal Constitution, and forbids the use of any state funds for abortion except as required by federal law (i.e., in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother).

* Vote No On 6   * Contribute   * Volunteer    * Facebook Page    * Florida Newspapers

Criminal Justice

California Proposition 34 – vote Yes to help California become the 16th state to abolish the death penalty and replace it with life in prison without parole.  As we’ve explained previously, the death penalty is barbaric, ineffective, biased, and costly.  The evidence shows that the death penalty costs taxpayers more than life in prison without parole,  does not deter violent crime, and is marred by significant racial bias and far too frequent ineffective legal representation for those who are charged with capital crimes.

* Yes on 34     * Contribute     * Volunteer    *Facebook Page

California Proposition 36 – vote Yes to reform California’s three-strike law.  Under the current three-strikes law, individuals who have been convicted of two previous “serious or violent” crimes automatically receive a sentence of life in prison if they are convicted of a third crime, even if that third crime is non-violent.  Proposition 36 would reform the law by requiring life in prison only if the third crime is “serious or violent,” thereby saving the state approximately $70 – $100 million per year due to reduced prison populations.

* Committee for Three Strikes Reform   * Contribute   * Volunteer   *Facebook Page

Civil Liberties

Massachusetts Death With Dignity Initiative  - vote Yes on Question 2 to make Massachusetts the third state that allows terminally ill patients to choose to end their lives with dignity.  As we’ve explained previously, our current system that forecloses death with dignity in all but two states is simply unbearable for far too many people facing terminal illness.  One way to help reduce or alleviate these painful situations is to allow a terminally ill individual to get medical assistance in hastening their death, but only through a highly regulated system that includes multiple doctor sign offs, waiting periods, and other precautions to ensure that sick people are not being pressured into assisted suicide.  The Massachusetts ballot initiative would do exactly that, thereby allowing Massachusetts to join Oregon and Washington State in authorizing death with dignity.

* Dignity 2012    * Contribute   * Volunteer   * Facebook Page   * Massachusetts Newspapers

Voting Rights

Minnesota Voter Identification Amendment – vote No on the proposal in Minnesota to require individuals to obtain and present photo identification in order to be able to exercise their right to vote.  Supporters of the voter ID proposal pretend to be responding to rampant voter fraud, but a five-year long investigation by the Department of Justice under President W. Bush found “virtually no evidence of any organized effort” to fraudulently impact federal elections and other analyses have similarly found no evidence of fraud.  What the proposal, which would continue conservative efforts to restrict the voting rights of as many as 758,000 eligible voters, is actually designed to do is to make it as difficult as possible for Democratic-leaning groups to vote.

* Our Vote Our Future  * Contribute   * Volunteer   * Facebook Page  * Minnesota Newspapers

In the wake of the death of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, Ross Douthat had a New York Times column earlier this week entitled Dr. Kevorkian’s Victims in which he argued that the argument in favor of assisted suicide is poised on a slippery slope that could lead a right to assisted suicide for more than just the terminally ill.   Douthat contends that:

Once we allow that such a right exists, the arguments for confining it to the dying seem arbitrary at best. We are all dying, day by day: do the terminally ill really occupy a completely different moral category from the rest? A cancer patient’s suffering isn’t necessarily more unbearable than the more indefinite agony of someone living with multiple sclerosis or quadriplegia or manic depression. And not every unbearable agony is medical: if a man losing a battle with Parkinson’s disease can claim the relief of physician-assisted suicide, then why not a devastated widower, or a parent who has lost her only child?

But this issue seems far more complex than Douthat contends.   In particular, we are not limited to a black and white choice between forbidding all assisted suicide versus allowing anyone to demand help offing themselves whenever they want.  Instead, it is a question of where should we draw the line between our societal desire to promote and preserve life, and our societal desire to avoid unnecessary suffering and to allow people free will.

Right now, with a few exceptions like Oregon and Washington State, we draw that line at an extreme, disallowing any sort of assisted suicide.  As a result, we end up with significant unnecessary suffering, as people whose bodies and minds are riddled with the often unbearable pain of end-stage cancer, ALS, Alzheimers, and other diseases are unable to find any relief from their suffering.  Such situation subjects not only the individual to unnecessary pain, but is also deleterious to their family and friends who have to watch them suffer for days, months, and even years on end with no chance of relief.

The opposite end could also be highly troublesome.  If we allowed assisted suicide whenever anyone wanted it, people may kill themselves when they are going through a relatively short rough patch in life, and may find themselves pressured toward suicide if, for example, they face an illness and don’t have health insurance to pay for treatment.

What we need to do is find a middle ground, where people with terminal illnesses can seek assisted suicide, but only through a highly regulated and regimented system.  For example, require any such suicide to occur either in an established hospital or in the care of specially accredited doctors who work at such a hospital.  In addition, require multiple doctors to sign off on a requested assisted suicide, and have an independent board review the requests.

It is important to note that the slippery slope that Douthat envisions has not occurred in the handful of places where assisted suicide is allowed.  For example, in the 13 years that Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act has been in place, the most number of people in a year who have requested the lethal dose of medication that doctors are allowed to prescribe under the law is 96, and no more than 65 people have actually ended their lives in any year under the Act.   Similarly, under Washington State’s new assisted suicide law, only 63 people requested lethal medication, and only 36 actually took the medication and died in 2010.  And even the example that Douthat singles out as troublesome – the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland – has assisted approximately 1,000 people over 15 years.  In short, where assisted suicide has been allowed, there has not been a stampede toward death.  Instead, the levels of people seeking assisted suicide suggest that the system is being used appropriately by people seeking to avoid unbearable physical and mental pain due to terminal illness.

No system if perfect, and any system is going to lead to some unnecessary pain and heartache.  But the current system is simply unbearable for far too many people facing terminal illness.  Rather than fearmongering about slippery slopes towards rampant assisted suicide for anyone, let’s work to develop a system that allows for terminally ill patients to choose to end their lives in dignity and that includes the checks and balances necessary to help ensure that such system is not abused.