Props to Props

State propositions, ballot initiatives, and constitutional amendments instituted by citizens are one of the distinctive features of American democracy for which I harbour a deep affection, despite their hijacking by special interests and the politically insane.

This is in part because the closest we get where I’m from (Britain) is a Private Member’s Bill, where you lobby an MP on a particular issue that he or she will then bring up on your behalf in Parliament outside the usual legislative agenda.

PMBs almost always fail, though one did introduce abortion into Britain in 1967.

There are a few important pieces of legislation on the table that I’d like to discuss, and one that is entirely unimportant and not even in the vicinity of the table, but which demonstrates a different point.

Let’s look first at California. The two really contentious props that the good people of the Golden State will vote on next week are Prop 19 and Prop 23.

19 is the pot prop. But it’s not just stoners who want to legalise and tax marijuana. This bill would provide a valuable source of revenue for the cash-strapped state, and would cut down on incarceration bills, the prop’s props argue. According to Time, taxation would raise $1.4 billion. Wouldn’t that be enought to make sure the California state university system doesn’t collapse, with change left over?

23 is, as I have written for The Nation, really the most nakedly evil piece of work (Paladino aside) in contention this November. Prop 23 would suspend the state’s progressive climate change law AB32 until such time as employment fell below 5.5%. Problem is, that has happened twice in 20 years. The Kochtopus are bankrolling this vile measure, which is designed to stop the flourishing green jobs initiatives and work achieved towards a reduction in emissions that arose after AB32 was signed into law.

Thomas Steyer, a hedge fund type, gave $5 million to try to stop Prop 23 from passing. James Cameron, who still feels bad for the Na’vi and what our greenhouse gases are doing to them, gave $1 million. I would have given $5 million, but I only have 54 cents in my account. Maybe next time.

These wildly different propositions, one of which I support wholeheartedly and one of which I abhor, still have my full support in principle. In Britain, we are too scared to actually let the people run the country. They would just mess it up! Leave it to the 23 millionaires in the Cabinet. They know what to do! That’s why George Osborne let Vodafone off a £6 billion tax bill and then took £7 billion out of welfare, because he’s rich, and therefore better than you.

Propositions are democracy at work, in all its messy glory. For example, I hope that Colorado’s Amendment 62 does not pass, as it attempts to indirectly deny abortion rights. However, as Voltaire would have said, I support the right of Coloradans to propose it. It proves that, on a state level at least, government at least has the decency to allow its citizens to have a stake in lawmaking. Bad laws can always be repealed, though as we see with prop 23, so can the most positive.

One amendment that will sadly not be on the ballot due to a lack of support originated in Kentucky. According to Ballotpedia,

The Kentucky Dueling Language Amendment will not appear on the November 2, 2010 ballot in the state of Kentucky. The measure would have removed language from swearing-in ceremonies that requires state elected officials to swear that they have not been involved in a duel with a deadly weapon.

Now that is the kind of relevant, forward-thinking legislation that is lacking in today’s image-obsessed America. Words matter. Would you want your state elected official to have ever taken part in a duel? Absolutely not. You could have had solid proof that your state official was the kind of upstanding citizen who would never lower him or herself to a duel (except in the case of honour, or food), but no one cared enough to give it a chance.

Unless I’m misreading Kentucky? Perhaps people wanted proof of a long and illustrious duelling record, replete with swords, épées, and feathers in caps?

It certainly makes more sense than the banning of sharia law – a problem with which Oklahoma has battled for decades. So. Much. Sharia. That’s probably due to the state’s overwhelmingly non-Muslim majority: less than one percent.

What are your favourite ballot initiatives? Or perhaps you have what you consider to be a more fulfilled life and don’t care to think about these things?