Ballot Initiatives, Constitutional Amendments, and Referendums

Ballot+Initiatives%2C+Constitutional+Amendments%2C+and+Referendums.jpg

We discuss the issues on state ballots across the country. Ever wondered about specific initiatives, constitutional amendments, and referendums? This episode is for you!

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do what we do without you. To become a tangible supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, purchase a copy of our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook for daily news briefs, GIF news threads, and our real time reactions to breaking news. To purchase Pantsuit Politics merchandise, check out our TeePublic store and our branded tumblers available in partnership with Stealth Steel Designs.

Episode Resources

Transcript

Sarah: [00:00:00] Hello, everyone. Welcome to another episode of Pantsuit Politics. 

And today is the day! Tonight on loop we're going to have a live virtual event, which we are calling Pre-Election Political Therapy. We're going to be in our comfty clothes. We're going to talk about our hot takes from the last presidential debate, which is taking place tonight as recording today's episode.

And we're just going to process our big feelings. I think big feelings is becoming the theme of the 2020 presidential election and we need a safe space to talk through all that. So we hope that you will join us tonight. 

Beth: [00:00:33] I'm really excited about today's episode. We're going to be talking about ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments on state ballots, but before we do,

 Clara reached out to make sure that if you are in Missouri, you know that you have an option for early in person voting. Lots of lists that Clara has seen have excluded Missouri and she was afraid they were just out of luck, but she learned that you can request an absentee ballot at the County clerk's office and complete it onsite and put it right back in the ballot box.

Beautiful. Yes. So hooray for that. Thank you, Clara. She said Missouri does require you to have a specific qualifying reason, but they're allowing concerns about COVID as a qualifying reason. So thank you for that information. Thank you all for sending us your pictures of voting. Oh my God. I love it. It's the highlight of every single day.

Thank you so much. It keeps that. Keep those coming. 

Sarah: [00:01:21] We had one listener who likes stood in line and an hour and a half. They told her to go somewhere else. She stood again. It was like, she took her day off. She did it for four hours. It just stories like that make me want to burst into patriotic song.

Beth: [00:01:35] Well, let's burst into patriotic thoughtfulness and discernment 

Sarah: [00:01:40] you can't burst into thoughtfulness. 

Beth: [00:01:42] I burst in to thoughtfulness all the time. What are you talking about? We're going to talk about what's on your ballot besides choose this candidate or that one. This is where lots of people get confused. So many of you on Patreon shared what's on your ballot with us.

I made a spreadsheet of it. I really enjoyed that exercise. And we're going to give you some trends and then talk about three big initiatives that we think everyone ought to be aware of. 

Sarah: [00:02:05] Okay. So. On the ballots. You usually have an initiative which is a law or constitutional amendment introduced by the citizens usually through a petition process, either to the legislature or directly to the voters, or you have some times a referendum when the voters are petitioning to demand a popular vote, like on a new law, or to reverse a law. Now 24 States have this process. So not everybody sees this stuff on their ballots, but the people who have a real easy process.

Looking at you, California have lots and lots of these things on their ballots. And as you look across all 24 States, you do see some trends. Beth, would you like the good news first or the bad news first? 

Beth: [00:02:50] I'll start with the good news. Good news first. 

Sarah: [00:02:52] Okay. Well you like this trend. We see a lot of language changes to state documents.

We're seeing States like Alabama and Utah and Rhode Island vote on removing racist language, parts of their constitution that reference slavery from their founding documents 

Beth: [00:03:08] and gender inclusivity as well in Utah. And what I really love about this is it shows that our constitutions are supposed to be documents that we keep working on.

And having that happen in the States, I think makes it easier to contemplate this changes at the federal level. So it's really great to see that kind of work being done in the States. 

Sarah: [00:03:27] Yeah, I love that. I think we, you know, I'm running to upend all the numbers, constitutional amendments representatives, Supreme court justices, like, and so I think again, States are the laboratories of democracy.

And so seeing States do this stuff, I think I agree. I think it's really, really great. Okay, well, let's move quickly onto the bad news about language, which is we are seeing changes in Alabama, Florida, and Colorado, where they're adding language that only citizens can vote. This changes the law, not at all.

Only citizens could already vote. This seems to be a purely, politically motivated strategy to turn out Republican voters or voters concerned with undocumented people, undocumented people being able to vote, which is again, not a concern, not legal and not a big problem. So I don't know why all these language changes are popping up on these ballots or maybe I do.

Beth: [00:04:30] Where you see it, it's usually going to look like a change from every citizen to only citizens. 

Sarah: [00:04:36] It's stupid. 

Beth: [00:04:36] What bothers me about it is that our documents should be aspirational, right? We should look at those words and feel good. And I like stating it in the affirmative instead of in the exclusionary. Yep. But that's on the ballot in a couple of places. So be aware that it is not trying to solve an actual problem. 

Sarah: [00:04:57] You know what it reminds me of, it reminds me of our friend of the pod Bree saying we should be the door openers, not door keepers. That's I think, I think that's what that language should aim for. I totally agree. 

Beth: [00:05:13] Now what's nice is that we still have good news. We weren't done with all the good news. We see some really positive trends around States, looking at rank choice voting, um, Alaska, Massachusetts, looking at this as well as five cities. There are some other election reforms on ballots that are kind of weird packages of ideas. So in some places you'll see rank choice voting packaged with a nonpartisan primary.

So just everybody runs and the top two vote getters move forward. That's been criticized by both parties. It's also been criticized I think in Florida, the legislative black caucus has come out against that saying that kind of field makes it harder for minority candidates to advance in the process. So.

It's a mixed bag on some of these election reforms, but we are happy to see rank choice voting, just becoming part of the broader lexicon. The more people are exposed to that idea. I think the more momentum it can gain, 

Sarah: [00:06:09] we also have two States, Arkansas, and Virginia with redistricting commissions on their ballots. Now we love redistricting commissions. We think that they should be nonpartisan and they should draw districts, oh, I don't know that don't look like somebody threw a blob of spaghetti on the ground, but what's interesting is in Virginia, it's actually split the democratic party. This question, the transferring the power to a congressional and state legislative districts, the power to draw those districts to a 16 member, redistricting commission, composed of eight legislators and eight citizens.

So I think it's actually the composition of the commission that seems to be up for debate here. In Colorado, they're voting on whether or not to approve a 2019 law that entered the state into the popular vote interstate compact, which we both really love. Beth, tell the people what that compact does.

Beth: [00:06:57] That compact is a way for States to say our electoral college votes should not differ substantially from the winner of the national popular vote. And so if we were in a scenario where a candidate had won the electoral college vote, but not the popular vote, these States, assuming there are enough of them to change the outcome, would cast their electoral college votes for the winner of the popular vote.

So it's a way to deal with the electoral college's impact without actually changing the constitution. It would just be States saying, we get to decide how we cast those electoral college votes, and we're going to decide to do it for the winner of the popular vote. 

Sarah: [00:07:39] And so they have to get to 270 electoral votes in the compact. And even with Colorado, they're only at 196. This is interesting because it's the first time that voters have weighed in on this interstate compact. And so. You know, I hope Colorado approves it. I know that there are still legal challenges on the horizon, but I think talking about and thinking about the electoral college this way and putting it to voters is still positive movement.

Beth: [00:08:03] It's a lot like rank choice voting. These structural ideas being in front of people is good. Whatever happens with them in this election, it's just good to have people talking about this stuff. 

Sarah: [00:08:13] I agree. I agree. Now we are also seeing the movement to legalize cannabis growing. We see initiatives in New Jersey, Arizona, South Dakota, Montana, Mississippi.

Now some of these are for medical marijuana. Some of these are from recreational. I sure hope if we get a democratic administration, we can just move on. Clearly the United States of America has decided that it is okay to have legalized marijuana, both recreationally and medically. I think we'll just see if it doesn't become from the federal level I think we're just going to see more and more and more of these initiatives because who wants to be left out of the weed economy? 

Beth: [00:08:50] Well, and I think this is another place where you just have to stand back and say, there are some good things about our system. Because we would not have gotten here on a federal level.

Clearly we're not even close on a federal level, but States have just said, we are going to take our sovereignty and do what we will within our borders on this, despite the federal ramifications for that. And I think that's just really a positive trend. And I think it's weird that marijuana is the thing has caused States to stand up a little bit more, but, um, hooray for that.

Okay. We have some do-overs. So, like we were just talking about things can fail. Things can succeed either way we're never really done. In Missouri, we have a, what seems like a do-over. And that many of you all who are on our Patreon page are very skeptical about. Amendment three in Missouri is an attempt to change what Missouri voters approved two years ago around the way your elections happen.

Two years ago in 2018, Missouri voters overwhelmingly supported an amendment that would create a nonpartisan process for redistricting that would limit campaign contributions. There were just lots of aspects of that amendment about better and more ethical elections. There were aspects of that, that Republicans felt favored Democrats too much.

And so now we have Amendment three, which sounds a lot like what Missouri voters approved in 2018, but it takes the state backwards in terms of redistricting. 

Sarah: [00:10:39] This really makes me mad on a lot of levels. Look, I understand that often part of putting something on the ballot, Is just public education and you have to do it more than once.

That happens a lot with like city County mergers. You have to do it a couple of times for people to get used to the idea, to learn about the idea. It's not like I want to limit how many times something can be on the ballot. Even though I am frustrated that Marsy's law is on the Kentucky ballot again, because the voters rejected it. And I don't think it was a lack of education.

Beth: [00:11:07] No we didn't we approved it. The court overturned that. 

Sarah: [00:11:10] Oh, is that what happened? 

Beth: [00:11:11] Yeah, the court said 

Sarah: [00:11:12] I thought it lost.

Beth: [00:11:13] No, it lost in court because it, we approved it with like 60 something percent of the vote. But the court said that the language on the ballot was not specific enough.

Sarah: [00:11:23] Oh, well, that's good. So you look a little voter education right here on the show. I get though, that part of this is public education, but this is to be deliberately misleading. The part that I think is the grossest about amendment three in Missouri, is that the people supporting, taking Missouri backwards, back to bipartisan commission drawing or commission district drawing, which they should not do, they lower the campaign contribution limit by a hundred dollars, but they don't say that.

 They dress it up as we are lowering the comp campaign contribution limits. Don't you want to lower that campaign contribution limits and like not talking about it in the other stuff. It's deliberately misleading. Not that most of these campaign ads could be qualified as if not deliberately misleading some partially misleading, but that part just really bugs me 

Beth: [00:12:13] It's a big clue when the lowered limit is by a hundred dollars, they're lowering the limit from 2,500 to 2,400, which I think just tells you. We're not really seriously trying to work on that problem through a constitutional amendment. There's something else going on here. And look from my perspective, I don't live in Missouri, but I think you've got to give a structural change like this more than two years to work. And I actually don't even think the structural change had been fully implemented.

It's like, you're, they're just stopping this in its tracks. And that seems to me to be unwise, but we'll see what Missouri voters think. 

Sarah: [00:12:48] Okay. Then in Florida back to the. Do overs or are you sure they're calling Question Four the, are you sure referendum? Cause they're trying to pass something where everything has to be vote passed twice by the voters, which I think is insulting as a voter and really about, they're still mad that the voters of Florida decided to enfranchise former felons. That's what I think 

Beth: [00:13:11] the real problem to me with this question is that if you require something to be passed two times, what you're saying is we only want the best funded, the most special of special interests amendments to make it through the process, because it is so expensive to even get something to the ballot and then to do that voter education you were just talking about.

And so you're basically saying we only want amendments to our constitution that can be bought at a very high price. To make it through. And, and that is just the opposite of the direction I think we need to be going. 

Sarah: [00:13:49] Yeah, because then what is it going to be? It's going to be people with tons and tons and tons of money buying their initiatives that can get stuff through.

Beth: [00:13:55] In some Western States, we're seeing ballot initiatives on environmental issues. Renewable energy requirements came up in several places. So th there's a lot of specificity, local issues involved in those. We're not going to spend time on them today. We will tell you that if you want to research that stuff on your own, we cannot adequately recommend Ballotpedia

 it's so helpful. It's so thorough. You get a nice history of where amendments are coming from. It's easy to start tying amendments together to see like what other States have done this. And then often you can find the groups that are pushing those amendments throughout the United States.

So if you are looking to do your own homework, start with Ballotpedia, they do a fantastic job on this. 

Sarah: [00:14:41] So we have some very specific ballot initiatives we wanted to talk about instead of just the trends that we see across the country. First, Colorado is voting on a abortion viability limit so that no abortions past the age of viability, which shifts constantly, um, would be legal in the state of Colorado.

And, you know, this is something that I feel very passionately about. I think that as I wrote about in, uh, in a recent newsletter that the language around abortions in the second and third trimester is deliberately political. Even the term partial birth abortion, which is not a medical term, that is a political term.

And it really, to me affects women at their most vulnerable. Specifically, you know, women having abortions in the second and third trimester are often making very difficult decisions about wanted pregnancies after they encounter, um, genetic abnormalities or fetuses that are not compatible with life. And, you know, as somebody who has had to face a really hard pregnancy loss, Later in my pregnancy, I feel so emotionally connected to women that have to face that.

And the idea that for political gain, we would interfere in some of the most tragic and traumatic medical decisions a woman could face in her life, having to end a pregnancy in the second or third trimester due to medical necessity, is infuriating to me. I want to be clear that not all abortions that take place in the second and third trimester are medically necessary.

That's not true, but some of them are. And for those women facing that, I am ready to go to the mat to protect them. And, you know, we have a lot of resources on this. I listener actually posted her personal story with an abortion in the third trimester, which is really medically a delivery is how a doctor would describe it.

I really, we're going to put the links in the show notes. I really recommend everybody read them, but particularly people in Colorado facing this initiative, because I think that these are some of the most medically complex and emotionally fraught abortions, and they are used as a political football and it breaks my heart and it makes me mad. And I hope that the voters of Colorado can see through that and not put women in the, an even more traumatic and impossible position. 

Beth: [00:17:11] Two things from me on this. Number one, just as a person who prefers limitations on government intrusion into our lives, the idea that we have a law that depends on calculating time from the date that my last period ended bothers me enormously. That we would determine someone's rights based on something so personal. I just think that's unconscionable. 

Secondly, if we ask what problem this is trying to solve in Colorado, the rate of abortions is going down. The best estimates that we have are that out of the total number of abortions that happen in a year, 1% of them happen after this 22 weeks of gestation mark. 

So this is not an attempt to solve something that is happening in massive numbers across the state, such that we should all be concerned that there's a problem. It's just putting one foot down the path of trying to roll back protections around reproductive rights. And I think we should all be aware of that as we go vote on this.

So I would be a no on that one. Sarah would be a no on that one. Let's move from Colorado to Illinois, where we have a very different kind of amendment being considered. Illinois constitution says that the state will have a flat tax. The idea is that in, enshrined in the constitution is the notion that, as to the state's income tax, everyone will be treated equally.

So we will all pay the same percentage of our income. Illinois is in bad, bad financial trouble. And needs to raise more revenue so income taxes are going to have to go up. And what the governor has proposed with the support of the state's legislature is taking out of the constitution the sentences that say we are always going to have a flat income tax.

And joining the majority of us States and the federal government by implementing a progressive income tax scheme. And then the legislature separately has passed what that progressive income tax scheme would look like. And. It's complicated because you would pay the flat tax level up to a certain threshold of income.

And then if you make more money than that, the difference, once you subtract out that flat tax level, then you would pay a little bit more. But if you make the top top income, all of your income would be taxed at the same rate, which is something like 7.9%. So it's a little bit difficult to understand the details of what happens statutorily if this amendment passes.

 It seems to me, Sarah, from everything that I've read, that if the amendment doesn't pass, the citizens of Illinois should expect an income tax increase just all across the board. I don't think there's a scenario where there's no more like where the income tax doesn't go up in Illinois.

Sarah: [00:20:15] And look, I reached out to a friend of mine who I really trust and respect and who lives in Illinois and has for most of her life. And, you know, her perspective was, I just don't, I don't trust them. I don't trust our government. You know, they've, they're notorious for our financial problems. They're notorious for corruption and, you know, any tax increase makes me uncomfortable because I don't trust them to do it fairly. 

And I get that and I understand that, but I think you're right. It's coming anyway. And I think sometimes, and I'm going to talk about the same approach with California's initial about Uber and Lyft. Sometimes I think when we're looking at it initiative for me, my, my philosophy is instead of getting mired in the specifics, what does this say about the functioning of government? 

What does this say about how things are going to work or about the rules, about how things are going to work and why? I understand a distrust and I would have it to an Illinois government. I am opposed to flat taxes. They are regressive and, you know, no matter who's enforcing them. I think that they're wrong.

 I think flat, it should not be a flat tax. It should be a progressive tax and the people at the top should pay more. And I think you're right, even if you are so distrustful of them like that, and you don't want them, you don't trust them to spend the money. Well, they're going to come and get the money anyway.

So it might as well be a fair tax instead of an increased coming anyway, and it's going to be a flat tax across the board. 

Beth: [00:21:52] And I, I mentioned the, I think the framing of this question is important. Because the question is not. Are you excited about the rates proposed in the legislation? The question is, do you want it to be a flat tax or a progressive tax framework?

Yep. And, and when I look at everything that's out there on the internet about this particular amendment, the question doesn't get framed that way, the question is more about the results of this. What will everybody pay? Those are important, absolutely matters to your checkbook. I just don't want people to be under the impression that you're voting thumbs up or thumbs down on those percentages.

Sarah: [00:22:28] Right, right. No, I think you're right. And I think that, look, I don't know the solution to Illinois tax problem. And in, in many, many, many ways, My bigger philosophical, um, sticking point with these initiatives is I think, we shouldn't have to. We elect people to do the research, to understand the complexities of things like the gig economy and progressive taxes.

And sometimes when you are presented with something that you're supposed to sum up in something that fits on a ballot, things are going to get lost. And so that's when I just try to think through the big picture of like, what does this say about how the government is going to run or how we want our legislative process to function.

You know, that was my opposition to Marcy's law because I don't think that the criminal justice system, is it's built to, to punish. Now I have problems with that, but it's built really in the framework of the perpetrator. And I understand the desire to formulate a system that works better for the victims.

But the harsh reality of the criminal justice system is that the victim is not a party. It is the government and it is the perpetrator or the accused and, you know, trying to take zoom way out and say, yeah, that sounds nice but is that how the system is working? Is that the way the system we want the system to work?

Yeah, it sounds nice. As some of these telling you, they're going to raise your taxes and I'm not, but let's talk, let's zoom out and think about how do we want taxes to work. It sounds nice when they, when they scare you about partial birth abortions. Quote unquote, but let's zoom out and think about who else might've be affected by it.

That's what our legislators are supposed to do. I think voters are capable of that, but I think that there needs to be some real civic engagement and thoughtfulness about what's the bigger picture when we talk about these initiatives. 

Beth: [00:24:13] There's probably not a satisfying conclusion to talking about Illinois ballot initiative because no one wants to hear, probably gonna pay higher taxes one way or another.

Just depends on what system you want to pay them under and how much you're willing to personally sacrifice under that system. But I've been thinking a lot about how we live in a time period, where we're going to have to have a new balance of how much income we keep and how much income we put into our governments.

And that is true, even putting aside the pandemic. If you drive much around this country, you can see the need for greater infrastructure. You can see the need for modernization of many of our systems. I don't love paying taxes any more than anyone else does. And I am for fiscal restraint where it's possible.

But I also see right now that we're not doing any form of fiscal restraint and we're also not making any investments in our country. We're spending lots and lots of money, but most of that money is not having the kind of return that you get when you make real investments. And so it just may be that for a while, we have to balance our interests in pertaining as much of our own money as we can with that need to really invest in our communities.

And so the more I studied Illinois proposition, the more I would be inclined to vote in favor of it if something similar were on Kentucky's ballot. Now we already have a progressive income tax in Kentucky. But I don't think I would want to go backwards from progressive to flat tax given the time that we're living in.

There's probably a time when I would have felt differently about it, but given the time that we're living in, I just think this is the necessary approach.

Sarah: [00:26:25] To me, what I'm feeling with a lot of these initiatives is you can think there is a problem and still recognize this is not a solution. I think the framing around a lot of the marketing and the push on the advocacy for these initiatives is, well, if you think this is a problem, vote this, if you don't think it's a problem, vote this.

 No, sometimes we agree there's a problem. We're just disagreeing about the solution, which brings us to California Proposition 22, which is the very controversial Uber Lyft proposition regarding the gig economy.

Now, California passed a bill. It was called AB five and it expanded on a California Supreme court decision that was decided last year known as Dynamex. What this tried to do is set out a more intense test for when a business must prove that a worker is an independent contractor. It's ABC test that the worker is free from the company's control, is doing the work that isn't central to the company's business and has an independent business in the industry.

And if they don't meet all three of these conditions, they're classified as employees. It's a very blunt test. That's a very blunt object trying to fix this problem. And they had to carve out all kinds of exceptions for journalist and physical therapist, and people swept up in this and it's been intense.

 The entire time all these small businesses were looking for carve-outs. Uber and Lyft were just, was just ignoring this law altogether, refusing to follow the guidelines. And now under proposition 22, they are sending hundreds of millions of dollars to create a carve out for themselves. This proposition creates an exception to this legislation for Uber and Lyft.

That's what it does. It just creates an exception and for the legislators to try to regulate them again, they'd have to get a seven eighth majority, which is bananas, in order to to try to regulate this industry again. So needless to say, this has been intense in the state of California, watched nationwide because California is often a leader in labor law. As you know, lots of people and lots of legislators around the country, including the federal government are trying to decide what to do about gig workers.

 And to make sure, you know, the pandemic in particular brought this into sharp relief, that these people have protections, that they are not abandoned, that they are not used for cheap labor without any benefits. I mean, I think there's a lot of labor issues here at issue with Uber and Lyft and other gig economy companies.

The question is, you know, was this bill the best approach. And if it wasn't is the solution to just carve out an exception for Uber and Lyft, 

Beth: [00:29:20] while there are lots of labor issues to be sure, there are also lots of employment issues because Uber and Lyft are not designed to have people doing this work full time.

And that's in some cases, a benefit to the drivers as well. One of the main issues on the driver's side of this equation, and you know, this from life experience, so many people drive for both Uber and Lyft. If they become an employee, the next question is could Uber or Lyft say, you can't do that anymore.

You have to be exclusive with us. If you become an employee, then you start to have, um, hour restrictions and could Uber and Lyft, that, what they say is that there were, they would massively restrict the number of people who could drive for them and control those hours because now they are in a completely different world.

My problem with proposition 22, is that it does what we so often do with legal codes and just tries to hammer on something else without fixing the underlying structure. And I think our underlying structure is broken and it has been even before the gig economy. The independent contractor test is something that you spend all kinds of time advising clients on if you work in employment law. 

It's a test that is always a little bit squishy. When you're a company and you're engaging people to do things for you, there's always kind of this issue hanging over your head about how close can we get here, especially if you're engaging someone who doesn't have 15 other clients.

So I just think we have a fundamental classification problem in labor law and that the way to get at that is not a specially designed measure that people have spent millions of dollars getting passed to deal with a couple of businesses. And those businesses are big, important businesses. We, we have to figure out Instacart and Uber and Lyft and all of this stuff because there are definitely abuse is going on, but I just don't think this is the answer. 

I think the answer is a more studied approach to fixing the entire classification scheme, which I think California started to try to do and it hasn't worked yet. And that's just how it goes too. Right. Sometimes we have to have some experimentation and failure and we fix it and we just keep iterating and try to get a little bit better over time.

Sarah: [00:31:52] Yeah, it feels like the argument is, well, your solution isn't perfect so we don't need one that means there's not a problem. And that's outrageous to me. What really bugs me is I read about this particular proposition, is how many times I read Uber and Lyft has spent hundreds of millions of dollars. Oh.

And also Uber and Lyft are still not profitable. Like that just sticks in my crawl as we say in the South, like. Why it's cause it feels like so much of the posturing is we have to protect these billion-dollar industries when they're not profitable. What are we doing? Why are we propping them up? Why are they asking, asking to be propped up, asking for this very specific carve out just for themselves when they're not even profitable yet?

Like I thought we were capitalistic. I thought we believed in the market. I thought we sink or swim. And so that part really bothers me. And I think you're right. You look, I don't think this bill is great. I think it's pretty blunt. I think if you immediately need to carve out a bunch of exceptions that you probably have a problem, but I appreciate California tryin.

I can tell you that much. I appreciate them seeing something that is a problem. The gig economy is a problem and it is exploiting people and it is leaving hundreds of thousands of people behind. And so I appreciate them trying, and I don't think the, I would never vote for, well, your solution's not perfect.

So we're done trying, and that's what this feels like. Seven, eight majority to try to do anything like that to me, that's that big picture, you're messing with how government supposed to function and that's not okay. 

Beth: [00:33:19] I think that's right. And I think there is a benefit to California trying, because imagine if California weren't trying, and the first time this got tackled, it was on a federal level and you got something like California's law on a federal level.

And imagine the fallout from that. I mean, I really, I really do want us to all stop in the Midwest, rolling our eyes at California because it's so often is a good indicator of of where we're all going to be and where we are. I mean, these problems with Uber and Lyft, um, and Instacart and lots of gig work have been exposed, especially through the pandemic, in terms of what obligations are owed to people who work here.

It is not that anyone has a uniform perspective on this because the polling of people who actually drive for these companies is pretty split. I read a really good LA times piece about this, that we'll put in the show notes. This is just not a black and white issue. It's not a partisan issue. It's hard.

And so having a state, taking a shot at it, I think is really good. But when you look at the money spent on this proposition and you think about exactly what it's asking voters to approve which is, can businesses who can afford to spend this kind of money get specific legislative carve-outs directly from the people versus going through the legislative process to get there.

I just, I don't think that's what we want. And I really don't think we want the complexity that this adds to a system that's already not well-suited to the way people actually work. Yep. 

Sarah: [00:34:59] I agree. So you and I are no on proposition 22. 

Beth: [00:35:02] Yes, I'm a No on proposition 22. 

Sarah: [00:35:06] Well, I loved this. I love watching the laboratories of democracy across the United States try to work some of this stuff out. I know that it is often who can spend the most money. I don't love that part of it, but I do think, you know, that there has to be places where the people can put things on the ballot because the systems of power are, um, entrenched and sometimes to disrupt them, you need to take it, take it to the streets as they say so.

And you see so much of that here. And I dig it, I can't help myself. I just dig it. 

Beth: [00:35:42] Because I know people will ask us, we are both, we have discussed this separately. We are both a no on the two valid initiatives happening in Kentucky, the two proposed constitutional amendments. We, one of those is Marcy's law, which we talked about a minute ago, which I think does terrible damage to the rights that defendants are supposed to have in our criminal justice system.

It sounds great but in practice, there is lots of evidence that it does not work well, and it actually, prosecutors don't like it um, in addition to it being bad for defendants. The other measure on our ballots this time is about lengthening the term of district court, judges and Commonwealth attorneys and changing the qualifications for district court judges.

And I just think that is also a very kind of special interest, protect incumbency, power play that that is not desirable and doesn't solve any real problem either. 

Sarah: [00:36:35] I think Florida has something similar to that too. There's a couple of these, like, let's change the terms of judges on the ballots. 

Beth: [00:36:41] Yeah. And I don't think we should elect judges period, but I don't think that problem gets better by protecting incumbent judges more.

Sarah: [00:36:55] But before we wrap up, you wanted to talk about the national intelligence briefing we had yesterday announcing that Iran and Russia were meddling in our election. We already knew that, but we had some specificities, specifically that they access voter rolls and we're emailing people pretending to be the proud boys and threatening them and the changing their registration to Republican. 

Beth: [00:37:16] Well, the reason I wanted to mention it is because I don't know how to feel about it. And I imagine that there are lots of y'all that don't know how to feel about it either. I don't understand why a small piece of news related to election interference, because as you said, we knew that Iran and Russia were making efforts to sow discord and to use this information and the election and.

We also knew when the story came out about those proud boys emails, that something wasn't right about that story and that more would come out. So why that became a kind of emergency, last minute, press briefing I want to understand. I want to understand why it was ten-ish minutes and the FBI director said nothing specific at all in it.

The FBI director gave a very reassuring speech about the FBI's diligence around the election and and saying to people your vote matters. Your vote is secure. We will have confidence in this election because of the work that we're doing, but he said nothing about Iran, Russia, the proud boys, anything. And I thought that was very strange and.

They took no questions. And I felt like director Ratcliff, who I have not been shy about saying I think should never have been confirmed to this post, I felt that he undermined his credibility from the beginning by talking about these efforts as attempts to undermine president Trump. 

He framed this in a partisan way, and that is so scary to me because director, Ratcliff and director Ray are two people well that, when they come to the microphone, we need to have confidence in what they tell us. And I absolutely do with director Ray, but that also makes me think that what he didn't say spoke volumes in this briefing. So I just wanted to mention that I have lots and lots of questions about this and lots of concerns.

And the reporters that I trust most on Twitter are mostly tweeting questions about it instead of actual information. And that's troubling. 

Sarah: [00:39:29] There was a lot of coverage at the top of the news today about it. And, you know, they talked about the emails, but there did seem to be a reinforcement that like, this is not about getting somebody elected.

This is about disrupting the confidence of our elections, what election meddling is always about. It's trying to sow discord, it's trying to undercut our faith in our institutions. And, you know, I don't trust director Radcliffe. I'll be honest with that. And so, you know, any partisan spin he put on it, I didn't see that bubble up into the coverage. I will say that. 

Beth: [00:40:01] I think all we can say here is that we'll keep an eye on this and keep updating you. But I guess what I want to share is we should all be really careful looking at how this is reported, because I do think there is so much that's not being said that raises some red flags for me. 

Sarah: [00:40:17] Well, thank you so much for joining us for another episode of Pantsuit Politics.

We look forward to hearing from all of you about any initiatives. I, especially like we didn't even get down to the city initiatives. I'd love to hear about that. This is a really exciting opportunity to engage with democracy and we love to hear from you guys about how you're doing that. Keep sending in your voting pictures.

They are amazing. They are filling us with so much hope and until Tuesday, keep it nuanced y'all.

Alise NappComment