Ballot Measures from Abortion to Property Tax

TOPICS DISCUSSED

  • Abortion Referendums in Ten States

  • Ballot Initiatives:

    • Election Reform

    • Crime

    • Legalization of Marijuana

    • Immigration

    • Taxes

    • Prison Labor

  • Kentucky Amendment 2

  • Outside of Politics: Invitations

Want more Pantsuit Politics? To support the show, please subscribe to our Premium content on our Patreon page, or share the word about our work in your circles. Sign up for our newsletter on Substack or follow us on Instagram to keep up with everything happening in the world of Pantsuit Politics. You can find information and links for all our sponsors on our website. To search past episodes of the main show or our Premium content, check out our content archive.

EPISODE RESOURCES

BALLOT CLUB

This podcast and every episode of it are wholly owned by Pantsuit Politics LLC and are protected by US and international copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. We hope you'll listen to it, love it, and share it with other people, but not with large language models or machines and not for commercial purposes. Thanks for keeping it nuanced with us.

TRANSCRIPT

Sarah [00:00:07] This is Sarah Stewart Holland.  

Beth [00:00:09] This is Beth Silvers.  

Sarah [00:00:10] You're listening to Pantsuit Politics.  

Beth [00:00:12] Where we take a different approach to the news.  

[00:00:14] Music Interlude.  

Sarah [00:00:29] Thank you so much for joining us today. On Tuesday's episode, we spent some time looking down the ballot, specifically those races that may determine control of the Senate. Today, we're going to look at referendums and ballot initiatives. 41 states have more than 140 measures on everything from abortion to property taxes on their ballots this November. So we're going to talk about all of that today. And there are initiatives and referendums. We're going to use that language a little interchangeably. But just know initiatives usually start with the people. It's a citizen draft proposal that's petitioned to add to the ballot; whereas, referendums usually originate with the government or the legislature that submits these proposals for the approval of the people.  

[00:01:12] And then Outside of Politics, we're sharing a conversation we had on invitations. What are we doing, guys? What are we doing? Are we mailing them? Are we emailing them? Are we texting? Because are we doing Facebook invites? I don't think we know anymore. I think we've lost the plot on invites, so we're going to workshop a little bit of that.  

Beth [00:01:31] Before we do, we want to remind you that the vice presidential debate between Governor Tim Walz and Senator J.D. Vance is coming this Tuesday. Sarah, I just saw some polling on J.D. Vance's favorability with young people. It was an 18% favorability for the senator from Ohio with young people. So I think it's going to be very interesting to watch. And we will watch it in community because that's how we like to do things around here. I will be on Patreon in the chats. Sarah will be on Substack if you would like to join us there in real time. And let's just hang together and observe this ritual of our democracy.  

Sarah [00:02:06] Once again, we will be delaying our Tuesday episode because of the debate next week so that we can bring you our thoughts as quickly as possible. You'll get a new episode in your feed sometime on Wednesday instead of that normal Tuesday morning episode. So just don't freak out if it's not there on Tuesday, it'll be there on Wednesday. All right. Next up, let's talk about ballot initiatives.  

[00:02:25] Music Interlude.  

[00:02:35] A hundred and forty, Beth. One hundred and forty. And that's just California. I'm kidding. It's not just California. I just like [inaudible] California because they usually have so many. But we do have a lot. I thought we could break them down by category. And, of course, the category top of most everyone's mind is the 10 states that have certified a referendum on abortion rights. It's the most for a single election cycle since Dobbs.  

Beth [00:03:02] Well, it makes sense, especially because we have some history to draw on now. There have been states across the normal red blue spectrum considering these types of amendments. And every single time the voters have said we do not like the New World Order and would like to see some protection for women in terms of access to this care.  

Sarah [00:03:24] You mean everybody didn't want to see it go back to the States?  

Beth [00:03:28] That's not what I'm hearing.  

Sarah [00:03:30] No, that's what I'm hearing from Donald Trump. That was just not my lived experience.  

Beth [00:03:34] I'm just saying that's not what I'm hearing from the voters, that they wanted it to go back to the states.  

Sarah [00:03:39] I like how even the people who perpetuate the myth that we all wanted it to go back to the states, then it goes back to the states and they use every single way available to them to keep these referendums off the ballot. That's my favorite part. My favorite part is let's let the people decide. Except for JK, we just meant send it back and let the state legislators decide, but we don't actually want the voters to have a say.  

Beth [00:04:10] Yes, I think that it is really difficult to make a federalist argument about this topic. I would love to. I love federalism. I'm all about the states doing their things, being the laboratories of democracy reflecting the will of their people. But it seems to me that as Republican controlled state legislatures have gotten more and more radical on their interest in restricting access to reproductive care, at the same time, they have gotten less and less interested in hearing from voters on that topic. So I'm happy that voters have done the really hard work to put this directly on the ballot so that we can figure out where we go from here.  

Sarah [00:04:54] Also, the lived reality of post Dobbs is playing out more and more across the country. Women are dying. ProPublica had a piece on a woman specifically in Georgia who most medical professionals agree would have lived to raise her other child had she received better care. If she had received an abortion early in her failed pregnancy. We have people being arrested. All the things that again on Facebook in the moments after Dobbs came down, I had all these (primarily men) assuring me that wouldn't happen. No one's going to get arrested. No one's going to die. Doctors will still be able to provide the care they've always been able to provide. You're being hyperbolic. You're being emotional. And I just think people are loving it and they know it's a lie. And people who really tuned the stuff out, who were not political, who were adverse to any really conversation or even acknowledgment of abortion rights or the abortion rights controversy in this country, now cannot avoid it.  

[00:06:08] It's everywhere. It's in everybody's lives that you either know someone, you've heard of someone, you're seeing the stories in your newspaper, you're seeing the political ads of women saying this is what happened to me. Even that jerk from the personnel guy from the Trump White House who was like, can someone show me one woman who's bled out in an emergency room bathroom and all these women were like, "Hi, presidents, it's me here. Hello. This is what happened to me." That one woman who went on and on about all the health repercussions she's still having, that her heart's not working correctly because the infection she had to fight because they couldn't give her the care, it's shocking. And it's shocking as a person who anticipated this stuff coming.  

Beth [00:06:49] Nothing has made me angrier than that Johnny McEntee video. If you have not seen it, this is the man who in the Trump administration, late in the game, was put in charge of personnel in ensuring that everyone was sufficiently loyal to Donald Trump. I think it is almost certain that he would be part of a new Trump administration. And he is eating chicken tenders or something and has the gall to say who are the women who are suffering because of this? And then, again, woman after woman after woman feels like, well, I have to stand up and publicly announce this deeply painful personal chapter of my life so that you can understand, Mr. chicken tenders, that there are real stakes attached to what we're talking about here. And I sincerely hope, sincerely hope, that these ballot measures are worded clearly so that people understand exactly what they're voting on, especially in Nebraska, where you have two competing amendments. I hope people really understand what each of those does and that they are in tension with each other so that we can show up and express how we feel about that John McEntee video specifically, as well as all of this just disastrous, unnecessary suffering that has rolled out over the past couple of years.  

Sarah [00:08:14] Yeah. What' s so interesting to me is that, I mean, you have the usual suspects like New York, Maryland further expanding and putting into print a right to reproductive freedom. But to watch some of the red states and purple states use different language where it seems like everyone is settling around like an end of second trimester viability framework-- because that was always the critique of Roe. This viability is such a terrible framework. It's a terrible legal decision. But it's interesting to watch as these states put language and try to flesh out the specifics of this, that they are settling back around viability, back around second trimester. I think it is South Dakota. They have no restrictions in the first trimester. Abortion in the second trimester only when the reason for the abortion is reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant person. Abortion in the third trimester only when determined by a physician to be necessary to the pregnant person's life or health. So it's really interesting to me to watch the specifics play out in the language of these ballot measures.  

Beth [00:09:23] Well, there's a little bit of mythology in this return to the states idea because it never left the States. Roe did not decide so specifically that there was nothing left for state legislatures to do. They did a lot. They chipped away at it. Some expanded it, some put in some context around it that I think a lot of people feel is about right, which is what you're seeing in these initiatives. But it never left the states. That's not how it works. This is not a light switch. And even if you pass something-- Kentucky defeated a measure that would have said to our Supreme Court, you cannot find a right in our Constitution to abortion. We still do not have legal abortion access here. The work is not done any way around this. But when Trump talks about this as though we should be happy that the states have it, not the federal government, that's divorced from the reality of the situation as it has existed for the last 50 years.  

Sarah [00:10:24] And look, some of these ballot measures are in places where the elections are very competitive. We have competitive Senate seats in Montana and Maryland where there are abortion measures on the ballot. We have abortion measures on the ballot in the swing states of Nevada and Arizona. So this stuff matters as far as turnout. And states worked through this stuff and the fight isn't over. It's also has huge repercussions not just for access to health care for women, but to turnouts and to down-ballot races as well. Speaking of elections, there actually are quite a few measures having to do with elections.  

Beth [00:11:02] This makes me very excited. I love this.  

Sarah [00:11:04] Yeah, I like this a lot. So we have measures in Idaho, Montana, Nevada and South Dakota that would create open primaries, which I think it's super interesting. These are primarily red states. So I don't know if this is motivated by keeping some of the crazies off the primary ballot. I'm sorry, that feels like that's what this has got to be. I'm fine. I don't care what the motivation is. I like an open primary, so let's do it.  

Beth [00:11:29] That's how I feel. But whatever the reason, open primaries are to me the next most logical step in having better people running for office and not feeling the stranglehold of the base no matter what party you're in. So I am very, very excited about this. Wish Kentucky were on the list.  

Sarah [00:11:47] So interesting to me, though, is that we have also felt this way about ranked choice. And then Alaska and Maine have it and now Alaska's considering whether to repeal it. They don't like their ranked choice voting even though Idaho, Nevada and Oregon are proposing ranked choice voting with ballot measures. So there's a continued and ongoing conversation about ranked choice voting, which I think is fascinating as well.  

Beth [00:12:11] And important and good. This this is what we want states to do. Try different things, learn from what other states have done, correct course if you don't like the path that you're on. This is the perfect place for states to kind of exercise that power and voice. I'm going to be very interested to see what happens in Alaska. Also, recognizing Alaska is a really unique state.  

Sarah [00:12:32] Very unique.  

Beth [00:12:34] It's enormous, sparsely populated, richly resourced. It is a totally different culture than many of the other states. So learn what we can learn. But it makes sense that Alaska might have a very different experience with this than Maine has had.  

Sarah [00:12:49] Yeah. And Ohio is the next state considering whether to form a citizen commission to handle redistricting-- yay, please, let's do this-- for the U.S. House and state legislative seats. Taking it away from the politicians and the Partizan perspective on redistricting, which you got to believe, as shown in other states, would at least slow down and reorient and hopefully-- (God, should I use this word?) fix gerrymandering.  

Beth [00:13:18] Just a personal note here. If you ever need someone on a citizen commission, I'm the girl. I will do all the homework. I will read all the things. I can't imagine ever running for office. But serving on a citizen commission, yes, this makes me so excited. And again, like Michigan, Ohio's neighbor-- I know that Ohioans often don't like to say we're doing what Michigan did. But it seems like this has gone really well in Michigan, and so there is a blueprint now. You're not starting from scratch.  

Sarah [00:13:46] Back to that continued conversation. This doesn't feel like a conversation. This feels like a little bit of a cheat to me. I'm just being honest. In Utah the voters approved a redistricting initiative, then the lawmakers limited it. They went to the state Supreme Court, and the state Supreme Court said they had exceeded their authority. So now they're trying to put forward an amendment that would let them repeal or revise voter approved initiatives like this redistricting. I hate that. And it feels like some of that's going on in Florida. They put it to the people, they don't like the results, and so they try to undercut it.  

Beth [00:14:21] We had on our ballot in the last election cycle in Kentucky, a real power grab by our legislature and it was voted down. And I don't know if it would have been voted down in a year when we did not have abortion on our ballot, too. I think a lot of people were voting no on the abortion amendment, and so they just decided I'll go ahead and vote no on the other one as well. Because these are often really hard to understand what you're voting for. Legislative procedure changes are tough to know what we're even talking about. So I hope that the folks in Utah are able to get that this is a power grab by your legislature. This is a chance to, at the expense of what voters have directly expressed, change the game. And so I also think that seems like not the healthy direction that we want to be going in.  

Sarah [00:15:10] Feels a little cheating to me. That's all I'm saying.  

Beth [00:15:12] Because it's your responsibility to craft the language in a way that works. I get that you cannot do good legislation via direct democracy. There's a lot of sophistication and subtlety. It's hard, but you're not powerless as a legislator in terms of fine tuning what gets to the ballot, what gets to the voters. And once the voters have spoken, I think you need to respect it.  

Sarah [00:15:40] Well, of course, we also have a lot of voting measures. Connecticut's going to authorize no excuse absentee voting. Nevada's going to require photo ID to vote in person or the last four digits of a driver's license or Social Security number to vote by mail. So we have some let's make it harder, some let's make it easier. A couple of citizen voting. Eight freaking states are proposing amendments declaring that only citizens can vote. Even though, back to our fun discussion of federalism, the U.S. law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections. Why are we still talk about this? I don't get it.  

Beth [00:16:19] And, look, I think this will pass and I don't think there's any reason to be up in arms about them. You know what I mean? This is one where I'm willing to say, yeah, agreed, only citizens should vote. That's already the rule, pretty much everywhere.  

Sarah [00:16:32] But it's expensive to do this stuff. You know what I mean?  

Beth [00:16:34] It is, but they're doing it. I'm just not going to spend a lot of emotional energy around this one, is what I'm saying.  

Sarah [00:16:42] Well, let's take a break because we do have quite a few ballot initiatives on crime, which is a good and worthwhile devotion of our emotional energy.  

[00:16:49] Music Interlude.  

[00:17:00] So speaking to that ongoing conversation, really feels like we're having one around crime. Tough on crime. Should we be tough on crime? What are we doing? Because especially in California, in 2014 they had an initiative that reduced penalties for nonviolent crime and property crime to address prison overcrowding. And since then, there has been an intense situation. I don't want to just call it a conversation. It's not just a conversation going on in California. It's a situation with smash and grabs in businesses, with homeless encampments, with drug crime. I mean, this is a real concern to the citizens of California. We have heard from listeners in California that say, "I don't feel safe. I struggle. I'm not trying to throw everyone in prison, but everyone deserves to feel safe and to feel like their property and not just their safety is being protected." And so now the proposal in California would toughen punishments for repeat shoplifters, fentanyl dealers and create a new drug court treatment program for people with multiple drug possession convictions. So now it feels like they've got their hands on the dials and like, okay, we overcorrected. We need to go back this way a little bit.  

Beth [00:18:14] I think creating drug court treatment programs is really effective and has, again, a demonstrated track record across the country. If you look at the data from the past few years, you're starting to see what we know how to do. So there are cities that have used data and they know how to do better policing now. They look at what part of the city do we get the most 911 calls from? What time of day? And they send police there during those windows and that drives crime down. Just the presence of an officer drives crime down. We have seen a serious decrease in the murder rate across the country. We have seen a serious decrease in carjackings because those issues have gotten focus and they've been measured, and police departments across the country have taken action to deal with them. We see drug deaths going down for the first time in a very, very long time. Now, I don't know how much of that is that drug use has declined or if it is things like Narcan being available over-the-counter that the FDA approved putting Narcan out there.  

Sarah [00:19:19] I don't think anybody does. 

Beth [00:19:21] So we have some question marks. But we do see some things that have been successful. What we don't see as a success metric is tougher mandatory minimums. Punishing people more has not been shown to be an effective deterrent of crime or an effective way to bring people out of the system and put them back in their communities in a healthy way. It doesn't lower recidivism. Drug courts do. We know what does. So I understand where this is coming from. I am very sympathetic. If you don't feel safe in your community, that's the baseline job of government. You have a right to complain about that. I just want to make sure that we're doing things that are, as the vice president would have said during her time as a prosecutor, smart on crime. That are actually effective and that reduce the risk that somebody is going to spend their life in the system because that's not necessary. People can screw up and have an experience with the criminal justice system that puts them back in their communities in a really healthy way. And I want to see more of that, not more of judges having their hands tied no matter what circumstances walk into their courtroom. And they're told you have to at least sentence at this level.  

Sarah [00:20:33] Yeah. In some ways you look at these initiatives and you can just see where people have a lot of anxiety. And an absence of treatment or not enough treatment, the drug court type approach is absolutely what most people point to as the problem in places like Oregon that really try to decriminalize. And so you look at Arizona, they're requiring life imprisonment for child sex trafficking. Colorado has some that where you would deny bail for first degree murder. There's parole eligibility. You can see that people feel like people are getting out when they shouldn't be sooner either on bail or parole. That they have a lot of concerns about violent crime and about trafficking. And I get all that. The only place I have a real question mark is the smash and grab and the group shoplifting. Just because I don't know to what extent, at least in my lived experience, that was a problem where we would have data over decades to see what works, because it seems like such a new problem and it seems like a very new and unique situation.  

[00:21:38] I'm still thinking about this Twitter thread I found where this girl was like, I just got an apartment for me and my mama because I smash and grab basically. Like I go and I shoplift and I sell it. As her whole entire career. And so I was like, whoa. It was just such a wild thing to kind of see so open on the Internet. And so that part, the toughening the sentences for that, just to sort of break this viral grip it has on people, I'm a little more open. Just because it does seem like such a weird and unique manifestation of our time. I don't know if it was like the pandemic. I don't know what happened, what scenario came together in such a unique way to create this situation. Because it's not across the country, but there are parts of the country that really struggle with it, particularly in metro areas. And so that part I'm a little more sympathetic to. Sure. If you want to try to toughen the punishment to just break the cycle, like I said, just get it out of people's for you pages, I don't know, but I'm open.  

Beth [00:22:44] I'm sympathetic to the motivation behind all of these. I understand that tougher on crime measures usually pass when put to the population because people don't want crime. And if this is the question being presented, most people are going to say yes to it because we don't want crime in our communities and we shouldn't. We shouldn't have it in our communities. So I'm sympathetic to where everybody's coming from. It is to me that the punishment side makes most of these problems worse in the long run instead of better. And we spend an awful lot of money. Punishment is so much more expensive than prevention. I don't know how to deal with this smash and grab. You're right, it is new. What I would hope, and I'm not a policing expert, is that some of what was learned about carjacking could translate. Because police learned a lot in that period when TikTok was showing people this is the type of car and this is how you do it. And it was popping up just in certain areas. And they have largely been quite successful in pushing back against that wave. So I hope that that information might translate, too.  

Sarah [00:23:50] And then, of course, a lot of states are having conversations through ballot initiatives about legalization. Legalization around marijuana, psychedelics, even assisted suicide. Now, this is a whole entire show I would like to do. West Virginia is proposing an amendment to ban medically assisted suicide. Godspeed on that. I think they're trying to prevent something that is going to become increasingly a topic of conversation and desire in our country as our population ages. So I think that they can try, but I think that's going to be a tough one because I think that conversation and that sort of discussion is coming for all of us. And hopefully we'll do a show on that soon.  

Beth [00:24:30] It will be very interesting to see what they decide here as the other part of the abortion national discussion. Because for many people who talk about this as a matter of sincere religious belief, it is natural birth to natural death. And really interested to see what comes out of West Virginia. And I agree, this is a long, difficult, nuanced discussion that we need to have in a longer form sometime soon.  

Sarah [00:25:00] For sure. But there are other legalization conversations. Florida has Amendment three to legalize marijuana. Trump has come out in favor of that, Beth, in case you were wondering where he stands as a Florida voter. North Dakota and South Dakota, these two I'm so fascinated. You guys, this is the third time marijuana has been on the ballot in the Dakotas. That's a lot. Maybe we just let it go. Maybe we just say the Dakotas don't want recreational marijuana. I mean, it's kind of interesting. In North Dakota, they approved medical in 2016, rejected recreational in 2018 and 2022. Then in 2021, the Republican led state House-- I should hope I don't have to remind you that the state house of the great state of North Dakota is Republican led. But either way, they passed bills to legalize it and then the Senate defeated it. There's just some real persistent people on this and the Dakotas, as far as I can tell.  

Beth [00:25:54] I have a really different reaction to this. I think it's great. I think a lot of ideas have to keep coming around before their time comes and you have to kind of build on the movement and persuading people over time is important. And I could see how your experience with medical marijuana might change your perspective on what to do with recreational. So I applaud the persistence of the people who feel that this is important in the Dakotas, and I wonder if it will be rewarded in time.  

Sarah [00:26:21] I would give you two attempts in the middle of this national conversation about recreational marijuana-- or like three, four. I don't know. I just think maybe they don't want it. They just don't want it right now. It's not like it's that many people you got to persuade. Not only people living in Dakota. Just saying.  

Beth [00:26:38] Well, I wonder what it does with turnout, too, if more people come out to vote just when this is on the ballot one way or another.  

Sarah [00:26:44] Maybe that's what it is. Well, Massachusetts is going to be voting on legalizing psychedelics like psilocybin. Just read a really interesting article, Beth, on why the research on psychedelics has not turned out the way people have wanted it to. And too long do not read is because the researchers are high on their own supply. That was the conclusion of the article. Some of the problem here is that you do not have objective researchers who aren't using the product. And so it colors their lots of things. Colors their perceptions, their design of the studies. Thought that was fascinating.  

Beth [00:27:17] That makes a lot of sense to me.  

Sarah [00:27:19] Yeah. And whatever happens in these research studies, I do not think Massachusetts will be the last state to put this on the ballot to legalize psychedelics. And then, of course, Missouri's joining the-- I'm fine because y'all know how I feel about this. Missouri's going to vote to legalize sports betting. I think we're up to like 38 states somewhere in there. I'm sure they'll approve it because everybody thinks it's fine except for Sarah. It's okay. I've come to accept my luck in life.  

Beth [00:27:47] I think it's fine, too. What do you think about the psychedelics legalization? Would you want that to be legal in Kentucky?  

Sarah [00:27:54] Yeah, I think that I totally understand that that's the problem for the researchers. And I was surprised myself it went up before the FDA and didn't get approved because you hear so much. Because they're evangelicals about it. They think it'll save the world, which I don't think is true. I don't know. I don't think criminalizing is the right approach for drugs. I'm including alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and psychedelics in this group. I don't think criminalizing is the right approach. And also, I don't think we found the right approach because I think that access and freedom of choice is not always outweighed by the cost to the populace of these substances. And so I don't think that we've quite perfected the balance there between, yeah, people should have access to this and maybe you shouldn't go to jail if you get caught up in it. And also that they are addictive substances with a profound impact on society that we all bear. And actually I would include sports gambling in that as well.  

Beth [00:29:02] I'm reading the Louise Penny series of books about Inspector Gamache and Three Pines. It's a delight, and I don't want to spoil anything about it. But in one of the books there is a plot line that involves the main character saying, "We've lost the war on drugs. We've lost it." Everything that we have tried has failed here. And what does it mean to step back and admit that you've lost the war on drugs? And that has really stuck with me, because I agree. I don't think criminalization has served us. We've spent so much money and taken a lot of people away from their families. And the long tail of consequences of criminalizing drugs, I think, has been as devastating as much of the loss incurred because of addiction. It's devastating all around. So I don't know what the new approach is. Even with marijuana, I am for marijuana being legal. I have no judgment about a problem with people using marijuana responsibly in the privacy of their homes. I do kind of worry. When I'm out and about and see so many people who are obviously stoned while they're at work. Over the weekend were parking in a parking garage before a football game, and it was clear that the person working there was impaired. And I see a lot of that. And so I don't know what works here to try to help us find some kind of equilibrium. But I don't think it's criminal law. I do want to continue to ask that question.  

Sarah [00:30:38] I think what we're really talking about is a scale or a spectrum between criminalization and normalization. I don't want it to be criminalized, but I got a problem with the normalization of it. I really do. Because the truth is with marijuana, with sports gambling, with alcohol, the profit is made on the addicts. That's just the truth. You can be mad about it if you want, but they make money off people who are consuming at a massive rate. It's like 30% of the users who go to marijuana shops every day account for like 70% of the profits. Pretty similar with alcohol. I would guess it's probably pretty similar with gambling, too, and I'm just not comfortable with that as a society. I don't like that. I don't think that feels good. I don't think that seems right. And I would like us to talk about that. I would like us to figure out a balance where just because it's not criminalized, it's not normalized in a way that the people who the product is exacting a real toll on are basically paying for the rest of us to use it when we want to. I don't love that. I just don't love it. I don't think it's great. I'm not sure you can solve that with a ballot measure, but it makes me really uncomfortable.  

Beth [00:32:00] I think that's a good articulation of where I am for the most part. I want to figure out what we do alongside laws to try to come to a healthier place with all kinds of addictive behaviors.  

Sarah [00:32:13] Well, we're really taking a tour through the top concerns of the presidential race. We got crime, check. We got democracy, check. We got abortion, check. And where would we be without immigration? So in Arizona, they have a big ballot measure that would make it a state crime for non-citizens to illegally cross from Mexico into Arizona outside an authorized port of entry. So basically, this would enable their local police to arrest violators and state judges to order deportations, which is really stepping all over this idea of federalism and whose job that is to police the borders. Interestingly enough, the proponents of this measure are not even spending money on it. They expect it to pass with flying colors. So even though I read one expert talking about law enforcement, the business community, the people who are dealing with this do not think this is going to solve anything and that this is not the answer. So I think that this is sort of the limit of ballot measures. It's a good way to give voice to what people are concerned about, but it doesn't always get to the complexity of the problem. In fact, often it does not.  

Beth [00:33:17] And I think immigration has the same risk as crime, where people look at something and say, hey, this is a problem. Do something. The system is failing. The option that you put in front of them, if it makes sense on any kind of gut level, intuitive level, people will go, yeah, great, do that because you need to do something. Because you're doing nothing, obviously, because it's not working. Even though it's not that you're doing nothing. And it's often that what makes intuitive sense on the ballot will not be effective in practice. And the risk of all of this stuff-- and I'll circle back around to I'm not spending emotional energy on the citizen voting initiatives. I do hate that they're out there because I think it further dehumanizes people who come into the country through a variety of ways.  

[00:34:01] What I would like is for citizens to vote and for becoming a citizen to be a saner process. A saner, more orderly process for everyone involved. A process that upholds the dignity of communities as well as the dignity of people who are trying to come to the United States. We're not going to get to that through a ballot measure either. And the risk of this stuff where lawmakers are saying, people are really concerned about this and I'm going to be super responsive to it by putting the most draconian thing possible in front of the voters directly, is that what voters are expressing is not do this. They're saying do something to try to fix it. And I guess this is what you've offered me, so go for it.  

Sarah [00:34:44] Yeah, this probably gets to my overall sense of unease a lot with ballot measures. I think it can perpetuate an idea about direct democracy, a very reductive idea about government in a way that does not get through the skepticism, cynicism and distrust that we are experiencing with our institutions right now. It's not that I don't want all these abortion measures to pass. And also, I don't think that's how we're going to get at that either.  

Beth [00:35:18] No.  

Sarah [00:35:19] I don't think that this is how we solve problems. Maybe this is how we articulate or better manifest the will of the people. But it's like you see all this all the time. The progressive stuff passes. Even in Florida, raising the minimum wage, legalizing marijuana, protecting abortion, the super progressive social stuff passes. It doesn't change the way these legislators act, and it doesn't even change the way people elect them. It's not like we passed this super progressive minimum wage hike in Florida and it became a blue state. So I just don't know how much this really cracks things open. I guess if it's the last avenue available to you, take it. But I don't think it's almost ever the best avenue available to you.  

Beth [00:36:05] Well, sometimes it doesn't even change the experience of people's lives on the ground. It is really, really discouraging to have a situation like we have here in Kentucky on the other side of abortion, where people voted in a very progressive way on the referendum and it didn't change anything. I just don't think there is any reality in which we can feel better about our country that doesn't run through state legislative bodies. We must have better state legislators if we want to feel happier about the conditions that we live in. But that's where it is. When push comes to shove, we could have the most phenomenal president in the history of the country. We could even have a responsible House of Representatives. But until our state houses are populated by people who are there to take their work seriously, to listen to their constituents, to dig into the details of those jobs, we are going to have a lot of disillusionment about government and a lot of it is earned.  

Sarah [00:37:12] I think that that's the problem. If you look back on the progressive era when they were trying to do big changes like change the way we elect United States senators, they were linking this stuff with the people on the ballot. I will not vote for you unless you pledge to support this ballot measure. I will not vote for you unless you pledge to change X, Y, Z condition inside our state. And I think we're so locked into partisan identity you can't enforce that transparency and accountability on state legislators because, one, people barely pay attention, and two, so many of them are not competitive. It's why the biggest hope I have on this list is the open primary and the citizen commissions and where we can really start to chip away at that partisanship because I think that just disconnects people from holding these people account as individuals. Well, I saved the best and the worse for last. Which would you like first?  

Beth [00:38:13] I would like to start with the worst. Always. 

Sarah [00:38:17] Okay. So we have some taxes initiatives. Did you know that North Dakota is considering eliminating property taxes?  

Beth [00:38:30] Okay. Is there a part B to that plan? They don't need the money.  

Sarah [00:38:37] They don't want the money no more. Three billion dollars biennially that they'd have to replace. And Colorado, Florida, Georgia and New Mexico are considering capping property taxes.  

Beth [00:38:50] Okay.  

Sarah [00:38:50] I got one more. Sorry, I'm not done with the bad things. Arizona is going to link property taxes with responses to homelessness. So if you feel like that they declined to enforce illegal camping, loitering, panhandling, public urination, you name it, you can seek refunds on your property taxes. She's struggling. Y'all can't see this because this is audio environment. But she is struggling with this information, and she should.  

Beth [00:39:18] Yeah, we will need Jerusalem Demsas to come back and talk to us about this because I feel like there are a lot of layers here. Fundamentally, I think it's bad that a lot of places fund schools through property taxes. I think that leads to a lot of bad outcomes. I think we have a housing problem, in part born of our desire to make property our most valuable asset, that many of us look at our house and see our retirement or whatever. So maybe there are layers to this that in the long term could be good. I need someone to walk me through all of that. I do wonder, though, if this is just another like pandering thing where there would be, in the short term at least, some pretty negative consequences to losing this much revenue. But, of course, if you ask people, do you want to continue to pay property taxes? We're going to say no, thank you.  

Sarah [00:40:19] I appreciate your carefulness. I don't feel careful about it all. I hate these. Here's why. This reminds me very much of our Amendment in Kentucky, which we haven't even gotten to. We're not going to have time to get to it because we care about too much and it's going to get its own show. So just put a pin in that. Which is like you get your money for the public schools and take your money. It's like your money for the schools and you can go spend it on your private schools. It's this transactional idea that the taxes you pay are for something. I cannot for the life of me convince my father that his Social Security payments went to people already. It's done. It's over. Someone else is paying-- it didn't go in a savings account. It's gone. That's not how this works. The idea that you would get a refund because you didn't like the way this go, this is Donald Trump trickle down bullshit. Where we're all paying our money in to China or whatever and we want our money back. The way he talks about NATO, this transactional thing, this philosophy about taxes and government and being a citizen. And I hate it. I hate it so much.  

Beth [00:41:36] I agree with all of that. I think the Arizona proposal kind of makes me look at the other proposals more carefully. Because I do think that idea of my property value has led us astray in many different areas. I am for private property ownership. I'm not jumping off the deep end here, I promise. I believe in private property ownership. I care a lot about my property. But societally, I think that it has had some really negative fallout. And the idea that we perpetually forever want to raise the value of our property I think has been bad. And I can see where property taxes going up, up, up, as we have been striving to perpetually raise the value of our property forever, is a problem for people. So I just do feel like there are-- not the Arizona one. I would just vote that down and not think twice about it. But the others, I would like somebody to help me think through what in the very long term would the consequences of this be. And then I would like to know, in the short term, what's going to be lost with this revenue going out the window. Do you have a replacement plan? Are there programs you're cutting? What's the effect here?  

Sarah [00:42:49] They don't have a replacement plan, Beth. I don't even need to Google that. I'm telling you right now, these people don't have a replacement plan.  

Beth [00:42:55] They're just like $3 billion goodbye.  

Sarah [00:42:58] We'll see. Winging and prayer. We'll figure it out. I'm sure they're going to raise tariffs because that's the only policy proposal on the right as far as replacing revenue. Now, I will say capping property taxes in the great state of Florida where people can't get home insurance. Insurance is a real choice. It's a real choice. Axios just did this big thing about the increasing reality of unprotected investments, of homeownership that doesn't build wealth because you can't get insurance yet. You can't get homeowner's insurance. And we all know this is slow rolling. It ain’t slow rolling in Florida. It's just plain old rolling at this point. And we're all just fighting about God knows what. And the idea that this is how they want to get at this, you guys have real problems in the state of Florida about this. You are not the only one. I don't want to pick on them, but they have real problems around homeownership and the value of your home and insuring your home. So the idea that capping property taxes is the best and brightest idea you have it's something.  

Beth [00:44:23] Again, state legislators have to be serious people, engage seriously in serious work, or we're going to be in a world of hurt. Okay, well, give me the good news. You said there was good news.  

Sarah [00:44:34] I didn't know about this. So apparently we have a trend. It started with Colorado in 2018 where they banned slavery and involuntary servitude. Utah and Nebraska followed in 2020. And wait for this list from 2022. Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont. And now we have proposals in California and Nevada that would repeal constitutional provisions that allow for involuntary servitude, which means-- of course and this is why people are seeking to pass this-- that you would enforce prison labor. I did not know there was this slow building movement to end prison labor, but here we are.  

Beth [00:45:20] I just think this is so important because, again, we have to think more about what happens when someone has finished their sentence. We want people to work while they're in prison so they have something to do and they have purpose and they're building skills, and we want them to be paid for that work so that when they leave prison they can get sustainable housing and a job and transportation and all the things that you need to come back into society as a contributor, as a healthy, lasting contributor. I know people will sometimes look at things like this and say, well, why? That's part of paying your debt to society. No, we as a society have to figure out what happens next. What happens next? And paying people for this work could help them be set up to come back in a really healthy, positive way. So that is good news. Thrilled about that.  

Sarah [00:46:13] Very good news. That's a good one to end on. We did want to say, as a wrap up, if you're encountering a lot of these measures on your ballot, this would be a great use of our ballot clubs that we have talked about in previous election cycles. Invite your friends and neighbors over and just walk through your ballot. Do you know this person? Do you know anything about this office? What do you think about this ballot measure? Have you had experience in that? Listen, it can be a little more low key in every state except for California. They get an actual textbook. There's going to be a little bit more involved.  

Beth [00:46:45] Maybe a couple of meetings. A couple ballot club meetings.  

Sarah [00:46:47] Maybe a couple meetings, maybe have lots of snacks. Just saying.  

Beth [00:46:50] Yes.  

Sarah [00:46:51] But everyone else, it is such an a positive and encouraging experience to just sit down with your friends and family and neighbors and go through your ballot and just go through it and talk about the offices and what they do. Look it up if you don't know. We have examples of the PowerPoint presentations Beth and I used at our ballot clubs in previous cycles. So you can see what we did beforehand. That's an excellent opportunity. There's 140 measures. There's plenty out there for everybody to talk about. And including the offices themselves, not just the measure. So definitely encourage you guys to think about doing that as we get closer and closer to Election Day. And then next up, we're going to talk about invitations.  

[00:47:30] Music Interlude.  

Beth [00:47:40] A theme that we tend to return to this time of year is gathering with our people. And today, Sarah, I want to ask you about invitations. I want to know your invitation philosophy. When you're getting people together, are you sending a text message? Are you doing a Facebook invitation? Are you doing an Evite? I feel like I haven't gotten an Evite in a long time, but that was really a thing for a while. Are you doing a paper invitation? What occasion merits a paper invitation for you? So many questions.  

Sarah [00:48:11] I feel like my approach to invitations has evolved. I love paper products. So for many years when I was child's birthday planner extraordinaire, I was really into paper invitations. And then I decided, this is too much work. And it's so much easier to gather RSVPs on a Facebook event, that I shifted to that. So that's how I how I do my Christmas open house. I used to always send paper invitations, but I've discovered the list is bigger and better if I just do Facebook. I don't forget people. For one thing, I can just scroll through my Facebook friends. It takes a hot minute, but make sure I get in everybody. And I've noticed on Facebook if I do it that way and I invite like 200 people, the regulars come every year, but I get like a different kind of revolving set of newbies, which is sort of fun. But that's a real strength in numbers invitation situation. I'm trying to reach a lot of people for an open house. But I have to be honest. Outside of the open house, I think I'm evolving more towards paper invites, or at least one on one communication via text message. I think text message you get the best responses. Let's just be honest. There's a reason every retailer on planet Earth wants us to give them our cell phones, right? So I feel like if you really want people to come, the best one to punch is a paper invite followed by a text message RSVP request. I think that's the gold standard.  

Beth [00:49:53] I think that makes sense as the gold standard. For most of the gatherings I hosted, which are just super casual, I'm texting people. And mostly I'm texting people who know and like each other, so a group text is fine. If I'm texting people who do not know and like each other, I'm absolutely not doing a group text because the worst thing in the world is to be on a group text where numbers you don't recognize are like, sorry, we can't make it. We'll be there. What time was that again? Stop. Make it end. So I would never do that. But I do think a text message is the best way to reach people. For kids birthday parties, I have two very different situations now. I have a 13 year old daughter who wants to be in charge of texting her own invitations. She wants to design the invitation herself. She wants to give it to people herself.  

[00:50:45] Sometimes she makes them, sometimes she texts them, but she wants to handle that. That is very stressful for me because I like to have account early and accurately of who is coming. So we're working on those skill sets, but she wants to take it. With my nine year old. She has a summer birthday. And I feel like that is really tough with the elementary school set. It's so much easier to be able to hand out the invitations at school. So my approach for the past couple of years has been even though her birthday is not until mid-June, to end the school year with paper invitations to hand out to her class and just try to get it on everybody's calendars right away.  

Sarah [00:51:26] Well, you invite the whole class, though. See. The last few times I haven't done that because I've been at a venue that limits the attendees like a jump park.  

Beth [00:51:34] Yeah.  

Sarah [00:51:35] And that's really complicated because then I'm tracking down parents I don't know. They won't let you hand out individual invitations at school anymore, which makes sense. I get it. But again, I'm playing the role of FBI out there, hunting people down, trying to figure out what their mom's name is and if their moms are on Facebook. I feel like more than any time like the Internet was supposed to make our lives easier. But I don't know, guys. I think your personal Rolodex plus the phone book was easier than what I'm doing now.  

Beth [00:52:07] We are allowed to hand out individual invitations at school, which I appreciate.  

Sarah [00:52:11] That's interesting.  

Beth [00:52:12] We have conversations about how to do that gracefully when we do it. And then sometimes we do just survive the whole class because it's so much easier. I think it's so much easier to just invite everybody if you're going to do a big party. And if not, then we kind of limit it and are strategic, you're right, about hunting down the people and how do we get to the people. And that is a challenge. And I agree with you, the phone book did have a lot of utility. It really, really did.  

Sarah [00:52:39] It did. Wasn't that easier to just open up the phone book and look up the person's last name and see their address and move on with your life as opposed to Facebook, friends search, checking their mutual friends to make sure this is the right person. Do they even check in anymore? Are they going to see the message? I don't know. I don't know if that was better.  

Beth [00:52:54] That's why I don't do Facebook invitations. Because when I receive Facebook invitations, it is like it's gone into a filing cabinet that I will never open again. I really struggle to get back to them to make sure that I have actually RSVP'd, to then get it on my calendar and ensure that I'm going to show up. I don't know why, but I am very incompetent at translating a Facebook event that I've been invited to, to a real life thing that I attend.  

Sarah [00:53:23] Yeah, there used to be a setting where once you RSVP'd yes it showed up in your calendar, but I don't think it does that anymore. And so I have to be like, if I see something-- I feel like I don't know as much about community events because I'm not on Facebook anymore and everybody's just moved to Facebook events. And so I have to really remember to check it, do I want to go to that? Because it's all online. Again, I don't know if that was an improvement. I did Evite, and every once in a while I'll get a paperless post or an Evite, but not as much as I used to. And I do feel like those were better because there was a social aspect where you could see who was coming.  

Beth [00:53:57] I think that's true. And a text message is so nice because the RSVP is so easy and obvious. With email, hopefully, it doesn't get caught in the junk folder. Hopefully I open it and respond to it right away so that I am RSVPing in a timely manner. Hopefully I get it on my calendar. But it is a lot of steps. I can manage it. But it's a lot of steps, that's why I think the text messages is the superior form of communication. Just not a group text unless everybody really likes each other and knows each other.  

Sarah [00:54:25] But sometimes even with text messages I forget to put it in my calendar.  

Beth [00:54:29] Do you?  

Sarah [00:54:31] Yeah. Sometimes I just forget to switch over in the app, especially if I maybe look at it at a stoplight.  

Beth [00:54:36] I feel like AI will help us with this. I think our phones will get to a place where they'll be like, "Do you want this on your calendar?" Yes, I do. Thank you. Just put it there now.  

Sarah [00:54:45] Yeah, it will just ask us. That would be nice. I could be into that.  

Beth [00:54:47] I think that would be very helpful. We would love to hear your best invitation tips, how you like to receive them. If different types of events merit different invitations for you-- of course they do, we're not talking about weddings, but just social gatherings that you have. And we hope that you're getting together with people often and that you're getting an early an accurate count of who's going to be there so you can plan accordingly.  

Sarah [00:55:11] Thank you so much for being with us today. We'll be back in your ears on Wednesday. Join us for the debate on Tuesday- the vice presidential debate. And until then, keep it nuanced y'all.  

[00:55:19] Music Interlude.  

Sarah: Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production.  

Beth: Alise Napp is our Managing Director. Maggie Penton is our Director of Community Engagement.  

Sarah: Xander Singh is the composer of our theme music with inspiration from original work by Dante Lima.  

Beth: Our show is listener-supported. Special thanks to our executive producers.  

Executive Producers: Martha Bronitsky. Ali Edwards. Janice Elliott. Sarah Greenup. Julie Haller. Tiffany Hasler. Emily Holladay. Katie Johnson. Emily Helen Olson. Barry Kaufman. Katherine Vollmer. Laurie LaDow. Lily McClure. Linda Daniel. The Pentons. Tracey Puthoff. Sarah Ralph. Jeremy Sequoia. Katie Stigers. Karin True. Onica Ulveling. Nick and Alysa Villeli. Amy Whited. Lee Chaix McDonough. Morgan McHugh. Jen Ross. Sabrina Drago. Becca Dorval. Christina Quartararo. Shannon Frawley. Jessica Whitehead. Samantha Chalmers. Crystal Kemp. Megan Hart. The Lebo Family. The Adair Family. Genny Francis. Leighanna Pillgram-Larsen. The Munene Family. Ashley Rene. Michelle Palacios. 

Sarah: Jeff Davis. Melinda Johnston. Michelle Wood. Nichole Berklas. Paula Bremer and Tim Miller. 

Alise Napp2 Comments