Nevada adds proposed constitutional amendment for abortion rights to 2024 ballot
Nevada adds proposed constitutional amendment for abortion rights to 2024 ballot
A ballot question to enshrine Nevada’s abortion rights in the state constitution has met all of the requirements to appear in front of voters in November, the Nevada Secretary of State’s office announced Friday, and Democrats across the nation hope similar measures mobilize supporters on Election Da...
A ballot question to enshrine Nevada's abortion rights in the state constitution has met all of the requirements to appear in front of voters in November, the Nevada Secretary of State's office announced Friday, and Democrats across the nation hope similar measures mobilize supporters on Election Day.
You're viewing a single thread.
More states need to do this.
This is also exactly why Roe v Wade made sense – not just because it was the morally correct decision. It ensures that you don't have radical changes in laws from one jurisdiction to another. How can you have something be legally regarded as a felony in one state and standard healthcare a five minute drive away.
State constitutional enshrinement is already on the November ballot for Florida, Maryland, South Dakota, Colorado, and now Nevada.
Montana and Missouri aren’t far behind with submitted signatures.
Nebraska, Arkansas, and Arizona are still gathering signatures.
Pennsylvania is awaiting legislative approval.
Are you sure that Florida and SD don't have potential amendments to ban abortion? And we already know how much SD cares about ballot measures. Their constituents voted to legalize pot but their legislature just went "nah, we're not going to do that".
The state Supreme Court put cannabis on the ballot in November, just like abortion.
They (SD) already voted to approve in 2020 but the legislature said "nope, we're not doing that".
State Congress writes bills. The Supreme Court
writesinterprets laws. Constitutional enshrinement is up to the state’s Supreme Court. They left it up to the voters in November, 60% to win.A. State Legislature writes laws and they are passed when the executive branch (governor) signs them B. State supreme court determines if laws that have been passed are legal (if challenged). They don't write laws. C. They already had the voters decide in 2020. It passed and the legislature refused to follow through and said "no, we're not gonna do that"
So what's going to stop SD from doing the same thing this time?
Semantics. Congress writes bills. The Governor signs it into law.
It’s true that the Supreme Court doesn’t write laws. I was wrong to write that. They interpret law, including the constitution. In this case they are supporting constitutional enshrinement if the ballot measure gets a 60% vote.
I don’t see that constitutional enshrinement on the 2020 ballot. Do you have a link?
As an Indiana resident who drives to Illinois for cannabis for medical reasons, I can tell you that this is unfortunately not the only example.
Another example: the people driving in the opposite direction right before 4th of July!
Funnily enough, I didn't find that out until earlier today. Now I know why this town has a permanent fireworks store right off the interstate.
If you go a few levels deeper into minimum wages, tip laws, tax loopholes explanations as to why the world looks the way it does for all kinds of businesses.
Oregon has no sales tax so some beautiful Columbia riverfront property in Portland is a massive shopping complex built in the 60s so Washingtonians across the river can drive over and buy "tax free", though I'm sure any benefits were long ago mostly neutered by retailers.
This is one example that I think makes sense. Different states have different fire risks and other reasons to prohibit or permit fireworks. Also, fireworks don't tend to be an essential or regular part of people's lives. Abortion is essential healthcare. Marijuana is a daily or frequent part of many users lives (and essential for some medicinal users).
Things like this, marriage equality, slavery, prohibition, voting rights, etc. function better when regulated at a federal level.
I agree more states should go this, but radical changes in laws aren't so unusual. For example, marijuana possession can be legal in one state and a felony five minutes away.
Exactly why marijuana policy should be federalized. (Probably not through the courts)
It is federalized. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level.
But one of the advantages of the split between state and federal laws is that states can experiment with decriminalization.
Beyond the obvious constitution issues, federalizing every law makes it harder for the people of a state to adjust the laws of their state to fit their desires. Creating a less democratic society.
Not every law, but there are some policies that create bad situation when they are illegal in some states but not others. Historical examples are slavery, prohibition, voting rights, marriage equality, and abortion.
Slavery being legal in some states but not others led to the Civil War, prohibition led to mob wars, etc. States still have the power to legislate within the law, but setting federal limits is sometimes necessary so the States can remain United.
There is a certain preferabillity to having things able to be decentralized enshrined like the way it has to proceed now. If a fascist gets in Office again, California et al can say let you enforce it and give you the finger and that will for the most part be the end of it
Don't get me wrong: people will fall thru the cracks and there will be blood, but this gentile gentlemen's agreement bullshit has to stop. The legislatures need to send 'Pubs packing and fucking enshrine actualy damn rights to make them inalienable. The right and sensible thing needs to be the only thing selling and motivating pols to for their own survival do the needful.
Whatever sense or legal rationale Row has furnishing it, it seems obvious in retrospect that Republicans play both the states snd federal rights game, so the States are on their own insulating themselves from the caprices of dissimilar populations that are significantly less representative of the country (as a whole) and also basically antithetical to the entire existence of their own specific state, culturally, geographically, economically, education-wise, the works...