Live results for 2020’s marijuana legalization ballot measures

Voters in five states will have a chance to legalize marijuana for recreational or medical use. | Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images

If all of this year’s marijuana ballot measures are approved, weed will be legal for more than one-third of Americans.

If you have trouble viewing the results on a mobile device, try this direct link.

Between the presidential election, governor races, and down-ballot contests, this year’s election features a lot of important choices. Among those, voters in five states will have a chance to legalize marijuana for recreational or medical uses.

In Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota, voters could legalize marijuana for recreational purposes. In Mississippi and South Dakota (in a ballot initiative separate from the full legalization measure), voters could also legalize medical marijuana.

If all these measures are approved, the United States would go from having 11 states in which marijuana is legal to 15. Counting by population, that would mean more than one-third of Americans would live in a state with legalized marijuana, up from more than a quarter today.

The ballot initiatives represent a massive shift in drug policy. A decade ago, zero states had legalized marijuana. Then, in 2012, Colorado and Washington became the first two states to legalize cannabis for recreational use and sales — and many others followed.

Despite the success of state measures, marijuana remains illegal at the federal level. But since the Obama administration, the federal government has generally taken a hands-off approach to states’ marijuana initiatives. There are still hurdles — banking is a challenge for marijuana businesses under federal prohibition — but for the most part the federal government has not interfered in states’ laws since 2013.

That policy may reflect a change in public opinion: As it stands, public opinion surveys show that even a majority of Republicans, who tend to take more anti-marijuana views than their Democratic and independent peers, support legalization.

In that context, legalization advocates are optimistic about their prospects this year, even in historically red states like Arizona, Montana, and South Dakota. If all these measures are successful, the US will have taken a major step forward both in undoing its drug war, and in undoing some of the damage it has done to communities of color.

Below are this year’s marijuana ballot questions, along with live results powered by our friends at Decision Desk.

Arizona Proposition 207

A yes vote on Proposition 207 would legalize marijuana possession and use for adults 21 years and older, and would allow individuals to grow up to six cannabis plants. It would create a framework for legal sales, which would be subject to a 16 percent sales tax. Finally, it would allow people with criminal records related to marijuana to petition for expungement.

A no vote means marijuana would remain illegal for recreational purposes, although it’s already legal for medical use in Arizona.

Montana I-190

A yes vote on statutory measure I-190 would allow possession and use for adults 21 and older, letting them grow up to four marijuana plants and four seedlings for personal use. It would create a legal framework for sales, along with a 20 percent tax. It would allow people with criminal records related to marijuana to petition for expungement.

A no vote means marijuana would remain illegal for recreational purposes, although it’s already legal for medical use in Montana.

New Jersey Public Question 1

A yes vote would legalize the possession and use of marijuana for adults 21 and older, and task the state’s Cannabis Regulatory Commission with regulating sales.

A no vote means marijuana would remain illegal for recreational purposes, although it’s already legal for medical use in New Jersey.

South Dakota Amendment A

A yes vote on Amendment A would legalize marijuana possession and use for adults 21 and older. It would allow individuals grow up to three cannabis plants if they live in a jurisdiction with no licensed marijuana retailers. It would also allow for distribution and sales, with a 15 percent tax.

A no vote means marijuana would remain illegal in the state.

South Dakota Initiated Measure 26

A yes vote on Initiated Measure 26 would create a medical marijuana program for those with debilitating medical conditions. Patients would be able to possess up to three ounces of marijuana and grow three plants or more, depending on what a physician recommends.

A no vote would mean marijuana would not be allowed for medical purposes in the state.

Mississippi Ballot Measure 1

Ballot Measure 1 is broken up into two measures.

A yes vote for Initiative 65 would allow those with qualifying conditions to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana, taxed at 7 percent. The Mississippi Department of Health would be tasked with setting up regulations for distribution.

A yes vote for Initiative 65A would allow those who are terminally ill access to marijuana, and would empower the legislature to refine the specifics set in Initiative 65.

Voting for neither means that medical marijuana would not be made available.

from Vox - All https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/11/3/21546635/marijuana-legalization-ballot-measures
via HDMI Installers

Sarah McBride becomes the first openly trans person elected to a state Senate seat

Sarah McBride has defeated Republican opponent Steve Washington. | Jason Minto/AP

This makes McBride the highest-ranking openly trans official in American history.

Delaware has just made history by electing Sarah McBride — now the highest-ranking openly transgender official in the country — to the state Senate.

McBride’s victory, which was reported by the New York Times, was expected. (The LGBTQ Victory Fund, an organization devoted to electing LGBTQ individuals, also called the race for McBride.) Her Republican opponent, Steve Washington, never gained traction in a district where then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton won nearly 70 percent of the vote in 2016.

McBride, 30, has built on a career that’s been focused on securing LGBTQ equality, working in roles at the Human Rights Campaign and Equality Delaware, in addition to the campaigns of former Delaware Gov. Jack Markell and former Attorney General Beau Biden.

But while she has drawn on her work with the HRC and on nondiscrimination legislation, she told Vox that her campaign has been focused on health care affordability, universal paid family and medical leave, universal pre-K, and criminal justice reform.

McBride has been the target of transphobic harassment — as well as anti-trans Facebook posts made by her opponent — but she told Vox that the vast majority of voters never bring up her identity. “Voters in this district are fair-minded and they’re judging candidates based on their ideas and not their identities,” she said. “They’re looking for candidates with the imagination and the energy and the experience to meet this moment with meaningful results.”

As German Lopez reported for Vox, McBride came to political prominence in 2016 when she “made history” by becoming “the first openly trans person to address a national party convention.” In her 2016 DNC speech, McBride challenged America: “Will we be a nation where there’s only one way to love, one way to look, one way to live? Or will we be a nation where everyone has the freedom to live openly and equally; a nation that’s stronger together?”

McBride’s victory comes at a time when lawmakers in state legislatures across the country have been introducing laws targeting transgender and nonbinary people — from barring health care for trans youth to banning female trans athletes from competing in girls and women’s sports.

HRC spokesperson Lucas Acosta argues that legislation like this “is backlash from opponents of equality, not backlash from the American people. ... It is so clear that the public is supportive of equality.” Acosta cited the 2017 victory of trans woman Danica Roem to the Virginia House of Delegates and the 2018 victory of Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who is bisexual, as evidence that even Americans in less progressive parts of the country are voting for LGBTQ candidates despite pushback from state legislators.

A June poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation backs Acosta up: When asked about employment and health care discrimination against trans people, “large majorities across partisan lines, including more than 7 in 10 Republicans, think such discrimination against LGBTQ people should be illegal.”

McBride, for her part, is unsurprised at the juxtaposition between the attacks on LGBTQ communities and the commensurate rise in LGBTQ representation in government. “I think that it’s in those moments that change is forged,” she said.

“The story of every movement for justice, and frankly the story of our country, is the story of everyday people making seemingly impossible change through the most significant crises,” she added. “It’s always in our biggest crises that we take our largest steps forward.”

from Vox - All https://www.vox.com/2020/11/3/21535987/election-results-delaware-sarah-mcbride-winner
via HDMI Installers

Why the flood of misinformation in Pennsylvania is a huge problem

We might not know who won Pennsylvania until the end of the week. That leaves a lot of time for misinformation to spread like wildfire — and help Republicans create the impression the election was "stolen" from them. 

Thanks to a Supreme Court decision, the state's 2.5 million mail-in ballots can be counted if they arrive by Friday, provided they're postmarked by Tuesday. That deadline was extended to accommodate voters concerned about the coronavirus pandemic. 

Here's the problem. Pennsylvania is the target of a flood of misinformation. Twitter labeled an Election Day tweet from Mike Roman, Trump’s director of election day operations, as possibly misleading. The Philadelphia District Attorney's office called another one of his tweets "deliberately deceptive." Read more...

More about Donald Trump, Misinformation, 2020 Election, Tech, and Politics

from Mashable https://mashable.com/article/pennsylvania-misinformation-2020-election/
via Middlesbrough

New top story on Hacker News: Carmack on doing the right things and doing things right

Carmack on doing the right things and doing things right
11 by tosh | 4 comments on Hacker News.


Middlesbrough

New top story on Hacker News: When Computers Were Cool

When Computers Were Cool
7 by aphrax | 0 comments on Hacker News.


Middlesbrough

Live results for 2020’s criminal justice ballot initiatives

In California, voters will consider three separate criminal justice ballot initiatives. | Al Seib/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Voters are being asked whether they want to scale back mass incarceration.

If you have trouble viewing the results on a mobile device, try this direct link.

The United States incarcerates more people than any country in the world — even more than authoritarian regimes like China, Cuba, and Russia. Over the past decade and a half, criminal justice reformers, led by leaders of both political parties, have moved to scale back the country’s system of mass incarceration. Voters have a chance to continue that work on Election Day.

In Oklahoma, voters could ban harsh sentencing enhancements that can keep people in prison longer for nonviolent crimes. In California, voters will consider three measures: one to affirm the end of cash bail, another to let people vote while on parole, and a third to roll back recent criminal justice reforms. In Nebraska and Utah, voters could prohibit slavery as a criminal punishment, including forced prison labor. And in Kentucky, voters could approve a controversial crime victims’ rights law.

Not all of these are for reform as many people think of it today. Some of the initiatives, particularly in California and Kentucky, have been criticized by activists seeking to end mass incarceration and the war on drugs.

But depending on how voters decide on these initiatives, they could continue the broader work of the past decade to fix America’s punitive criminal justice system.

Oklahoma Question 805

A yes vote would ban harsh sentencing enhancements for people with a record of nonviolent crimes, which in some cases could add years — up to life — to a prison sentence.

A no vote would leave current sentencing enhancements in place.

California Proposition 17

A yes vote on Proposition 17 would restore the right to vote for people on parole — which could have allowed nearly 120,000 people in the state to vote in this year’s election.

A no vote would mean those on parole would continue to be prohibited from voting.

California Proposition 20

A yes vote on Proposition 20 would roll back recently passed criminal justice reforms, elevating several crimes — particularly types of theft and fraud — so they can be charged as felonies, rather than only misdemeanors. It would also make it harder for certain inmates to qualify for parole, and make it easier to lock people up for a probation violation.

A no vote would keep the recently passed reforms on the books.

California Proposition 25

A yes vote on Proposition 25 would end the use of cash bail and replace it with a risk assessment system.

A no vote would mean cash bail remains in the state.

Nebraska Amendment 1

A yes vote would ban slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishments.

A no vote would mean slavery and involuntary servitude could still be used as criminal punishments.

Utah Amendment C

A yes vote would ban slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishments.

A no vote would mean slavery and involuntary servitude could still be used as criminal punishments.

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1

A yes vote would mean the adoption of Marsy’s Law, a controversial measure that would enshrine specific crime victims’ rights into law.

A no vote would mean Kentucky would not adopt Marsy’s Law.

from Vox - All https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/11/3/21546831/criminal-justice-ballot-initiatives-live-results
via HDMI Installers

Live results: Ballot initiatives on democracy reform

Cheryl Longtin, chair of the “No on 2” committee, rallies in Westford, Massachusetts, on October 31. | Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Ballot initiatives on ranked-choice voting, neutralizing the Electoral College, and more.

If you have trouble viewing the results on a mobile device, try this direct link.

Alaska and Massachusetts both have major voting reforms on the ballot this year, including whether to use ranked-choice voting in future elections.

In general, ranked-choice voting means that instead of voting for a single favorite candidate, voters will be asked to order the candidates from most to least preferred. The losing candidates are eliminated and their votes redistributed among other candidates.

Proponents say ranked-choice voting and other alternate voting measures combat the political polarization caused by the dominant “first past the post” voting system, where people are discouraged from voting for a third-party candidate if they have a strong preference between the major-party candidates.

Opponents, however, have warned it could be a logistical headache, though so far the cities and states that have adopted ranked-choice voting (like Maine) have conducted their elections without major problems.

In Alaska, the question of whether to adopt ranked-choice voting is part of ballot initiative Measure 2, which also asks voters whether to abolish party primaries in favor of an open primary where the top two candidates proceed to the general election.

In Massachusetts, the question is on ballot initiative Question 2, which asks voters whether to introduce ranked-choice voting in primaries and general elections for state and federal congressional seats, state executive officials, and county offices.

Should both states adopt the reform, they will become the second and third states to do so. While ranked-choice voting is used in many places around the world, it is not commonplace in the US. But a successful implementation of ranked-choice voting in two more states could change that — encouraging others to begin using a system that has been found to make campaigns more civil, and that may make them more diverse.

Missouri voters have a chance to make changes to their state’s elections as well, with Amendment 3, which would limit campaign contributions to state Senate candidates and prohibit state lawmakers and their staff from accepting gifts from lobbyists. It would also change the makeup of the state’s redistricting commission, moving from a nonpartisan to a bipartisan system.

Redistricting is also at issue in Virginia’s Amendment 1, which would implement a commission to draw legislative districts in that state. Eight seats on the commission would be held by state lawmakers, and the maps would have to be approved by the state legislature, or else they will be drawn by the state Supreme Court — which is currently controlled by Republicans.

And voters in Colorado have the opportunity to advocate for changes to the US election system by joining the National Popular Vote Compact, a multi-state scheme that would effectively neutralize the Electoral College. States joining the compact pledge their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote. This means once enough states join that the compact represents 270 or more electoral votes, the Electoral College will be effectively dead.

Colorado has signed on to the compact, but a referendum called Proposition 113 seeks to withdraw the state.

Alaska Measure 2

A yes vote would abolish party primaries in favor of an open primary where the top two candidates proceed to the general election, and would introduce ranked-choice voting in primaries and general elections.

A no vote keeps the current system in place.

Massachusetts Question 2

A yes vote would introduce ranked-choice voting in primaries and general elections for state and federal congressional seats, state executive officials, and county offices.

A no vote keeps the current system in place.

Missouri Amendment 3

A yes vote would limit campaign contributions to state Senate candidates and prohibit lawmakers, and their staff, from accepting gifts from lobbyists. It would also change the state’s redistricting commission from a nonpartisan one to a bipartisan one.

A no vote would mean none of these changes would go into effect.

Virginia Question 1

A yes vote would create an eight-seat commission of state lawmakers and task them with drawing the state’s legislative districts; their maps would have to be approved by the state legislature, or else they will be drawn by the state Supreme Court.

A no vote leaves redistricting in the hands of the state legislature.

Colorado Proposition 113

A yes vote would keep Colorado in the National Popular Vote Compact.

A no vote would remove it from the compact.

from Vox - All https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/11/3/21546902/live-results-ballot-initiatives-democracy-reform
via HDMI Installers

Mitch McConnell gets 6 more years

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell defeats Amy McGrath to keep his Senate seat. | Jon Cherry/Getty Images

Mitch McConnell just defeated Amy McGrath to win his Senate race.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has defeated Democratic challenger Amy McGrath in the 2020 battle for his US Senate seat.

Even with McGrath’s stunning fundraising numbers and in a year widely expected to be good for Democrats, McConnell was a favorite in the race. Kentucky is a very conservative state, which President Donald Trump won by nearly 30 points in 2016. The polling consistently showed McConnell ahead, sometimes up by double digits, and FiveThirtyEight’s election forecast gave McConnell a 95 percent chance to win.

Still, McConnell could lose in another way: With other Senate races across the country, it’s possible — even likely, based on the FiveThirtyEight forecast — that Democrats could win control of the Senate. That would effectively demote McConnell from majority leader to minority leader. That’s not a role McConnell is unfamiliar with, given that he was minority leader from 2007 to 2015, but it’s a role that gives McConnell much less power.

McConnell did a lot with the power of the minority during President Barack Obama’s time in office, leveraging the filibuster — which effectively requires a supermajority of 60 out of 100 senators to get major legislation done — to block much of Obama’s and Democrats’ agenda. This time, it might be different: Democrats have talked about repealing the filibuster if they take the Senate. That would greatly diminish any hold that McConnell and his caucus have over the body as the minority.

As majority leader, McConnell’s most notable accomplishment was packing the courts with Republican nominees. By blocking Obama’s 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland to the US Supreme Court, and soon after getting Trump nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the bench, McConnell helped secure Republican control of the court. Then, after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, McConnell rammed the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett through the Senate — giving conservatives a 6-3 majority.

While the Supreme Court was the most visible example of McConnell’s victory over the courts, the Trump administration and McConnell teamed up to fill lower court seats too — largely thanks to McConnell’s earlier refusal to fill judicial vacancies with Obama nominees. When Fox News commentator Sean Hannity said in October that he was “shocked” Obama failed to fill so many court openings, McConnell responded, “I’ll tell you why: I was in charge of what we did the last two years of the Obama administration.”

McConnell also shepherded key elements of Trump’s agenda. Most notably, he helped pass an unpopular tax bill, which disproportionately benefited wealthy Americans, by using a legislative maneuver known as “reconciliation” to bypass the filibuster. He tried to use the same strategy to repeal the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), but that failed to get enough Republican votes to pass.

All of this could now backfire as Democrats are now discussing institutional changes and reforms that would have been nonstarters a decade ago. All the talk of ending the filibuster reflects that. Democrats are also considering other steps that could help erase McConnell’s achievements, including making Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico states — which would bolster the Democratic majority — and adding more seats to the Supreme Court, creating new vacancies Democrats could fill.

In that sense, McConnell may see the political backlash to his leadership style and the undoing of much of what he’s done in the next few years. As Ezra Klein explained for Vox:

Under McConnell, the Senate has been run according to a simple principle: Parties should use as much power as they have to achieve the outcomes they desire. This would have been impossible in past eras, when parties were weaker and individual senators stronger, when political interests were more rooted in geography and media wasn’t yet nationalized. But it is possible now, and it is a dramatic transformation of the Senate as an institution, with reverberations McConnell cannot control and that his party may come to regret. Indeed, McConnell’s single most profound effect on the Senate may be what he convinces Democrats to do in response to his machinations.

So with the Election Day results, McConnell will keep his seat. But that may not be enough, if Democrats take the Senate, to save his legacy.

from Vox - All https://www.vox.com/2020/11/3/21530514/senate-2020-results-kentucky-mitch-mcconnell-winner
via HDMI Installers