2024 State Races Megapost! (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 day ago by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This thread is for discussion on state races and ballot measures. Is your state legalizing or banning abortion? Weed? Ranked choice balloting?

This is the place to discuss it!

top 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] stoned_ape@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago

Ohio has Issue 1 regarding gerrymandering...

...which the Ohio Supreme Court already told them to unfuck and the GOP was like, "nah, fam"...

...and which LaRose obfuscated (just like he did with the abortion amendment) via confusing language and outright lies (under the guide of free speech, apparently) to trick people into voting No

So, a No vote keeps the same crap we have now where a majority of the state has no voice. A Yes vote gives everyone a more equal say

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago

A friend of mine from high school ran unopposed for state rep. Feels pretty good having someone I know well, and whose kids go to the same school as mine, so terrify the Republicans that they didn't bother running anyone.

[-] aaron@lemm.ee 11 points 1 day ago

Please get Ted Cruz out of office Texans. He's at risk of getting murdered on the senate floor according to Lindsay Graham and others. Save Ted Cruz

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

He's at risk of getting murdered on the senate floor according to Lindsay Graham and others.

...it's not like they haven't had plenty of chances.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 19 hours ago

...

Idk maybe this is a win/win situation.

[-] Skanky@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

Here in ky, to nobody's surprise, we have some Republican bullshittery.

Prop 1 adds wording to the state constitution that makes it illegal for all non-US citizens to vote... Which is already the State law. Vote NO.

Prop 2 is a doozie - enables the state to funnel public funds to charter schools under the guise of "educational freedom" or some bullshit like that. HARD NO on that one!

[-] EpeeGnome@lemm.ee 4 points 18 hours ago

We have the same thing as your prop 1 on the ballot in South Carolina. It's already illegal at the state and federal level. It's just on there to help get low information conservatives to the polls, since they are convinced the Democrats want to change the law to let "the illegals" vote.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

Hello fellow Kentuckian!

I saw a story this week that pointed out in Arkansas, 80% of students who got vouchers didn't enroll in private schools. In other words, if your parents couldn't afford private schools before, they most likely still couldn't even with vouchers.

That's what's on the ballot for KY. NO ON 2!

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

Yeah, 1 is already illegal and 2 sounds like they want to take public dollars away from public schools and feed it to religious ones. 🙄

[-] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago

Kentucky's state constitution has uniquely strong protections for public school funding, and amendment 2 nullifies all of them in one go.

Here's the wording:

To give parents choices in educational opportunities for their children, are you in favor of enabling the General Assembly to provide financial support for the education costs of students in kindergarten through 12th grade who are outside the system of common (public) schools by amending the Constitution of Kentucky as stated below?

IT IS PROPOSED THAT A NEW SECTION BE ADDED TO THE CONSTITUTION OF KENTUCKY TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

The General Assembly may provide financial support for the education of students outside the system of common schools. The General Assembly may exercise this authority by law, Sections 59, 60, 171, 183, 184, 186, and 189 of this Constitution notwithstanding.

I genuinely think most KY voters don't know what notwithstanding means, if they even bother to read that far.

[-] Skanky@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

100% it's gonna go to religious schools. I'm not even sure that any non-religious private schools even exist in this backwards-ass state

[-] nickiwest@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

They do. There are a few elite non-religious private schools in Louisville.

But they are far outnumbered by parochial schools.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social -1 points 19 hours ago

You want to vote Yes on 1 because it doesn't change anything and then they can't whine about Demoncrats trying to let illegals keep voting.

[-] MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip 2 points 21 hours ago

What do you think of DC's initiative 83?

[-] aphlamingphoenix@lemm.ee 2 points 15 hours ago

I voted for a similar measure in Colorado!

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

Ranked choice? I'm all for it!

https://ballotpedia.org/Washington,_D.C.,_Initiative_83,Ranked-Choice_Voting_Initiative(November_2024)

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I live in Oregon and there are a couple to watch here:

117 enables ranked choice balloting:

https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_117,Ranked-Choice_Voting_for_Federal_and_State_Elections_Measure(2024)

118 taxes companies who make more than $25 million in the state and kicks it back to residents, $1,600 per resident.

https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_118,Corporate_Tax_Revenue_Rebate_for_Residents_Initiative(2024)

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm strongly in favor of 117. I like 118 in theory, but after reading it, I voted against it, because I think the end result would be to damage small Oregon businesses, while large conglomerates would be fine. I don't want Walmarts to be the only businesses that can afford to operate here.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Well, I don't think anyone making more than $25 million a year is a "small business", that's $68,493.15 a day...

It's still an awful idea, but the idea that it would hurt small business is a smoke screen. :)

[-] doc@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago

I buy all my supplies from companies making more than 25m, who buy from other companies making more than 25m, and so on. My COGS will go up a minimum of 3%, more than likely closer to 10% when you compound the entire supply chain. I don't care that I won't pay into the general tax fund, but I sure as hell care that I'll have to convince my retail customers to pay 10% more on my products after already struggling with inflation cost increases the last few years.

[-] Amith@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago

In Texas: Ted Cruz vs. Colin Allred for the senate seat.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Yup, we're tracking all the Senate races in a separate thread.

[-] Amith@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago

Oops, sorry!

[-] MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago

Is the referendum on Puerto Rico becoming a state also taken into account?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Found it:

https://ballotpedia.org/Puerto_Rico_Statehood,_Independence,or_Free_Association_Referendum(2024)

"The ballot measure asks voters to choose one of the following three options for Puerto Rico's political status:[1]

(A) Statehood;

(B) Independence; or

The different options are as follows; however, the results of the referendum are nonbinding because any changes to Puerto Rico’s statehood require action by the United States Congress."

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Yup! That would belong here!

[-] proudblond@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I’m really curious how Californians feel about Prop 34. It’s kind of bizarre to see a prop that is actively targeting a single organization, even if that org is super sketchy. I felt icky voting on it, for or against.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Not in CA so not following that... but looking it up:

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_34,Require_Certain_Participants_in_Medi-Cal_Rx_Program_to_Spend_98%25_of_Revenues_on_Patient_Care_Initiative(2024)

"requiring health care providers... to spend 98% of revenues from the federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care"

I removed the qualifications to simply boil it down to the ask here... mathematically is this even possible?

I don't think any business model survives on 2% overhead.

https://www.wphealthcarenews.com/understanding-the-complexities-of-overhead-in-a-physician-practice/

"Most physicians believe that their practice’s overhead is somewhere between 40% and 50% of their charges. The truth is that in today’s medical practices, it is actually between 60% and 70%.

The reasons? In the past 15 years, health insurance costs for employees rose over 200%. Reimbursements from third-party payers decreased substantially. Technology has become much more expensive. Documentation for malpractice purposes has caused physicians to do more paperwork. The billing process to third-party payers has become much more complicated. Physicians have been forced to hire more staff. With all of these changes, some physicians have taken a 50% cut in pay – or more."

[-] proudblond@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The thing is, there’s only one org that meets the threshold for it and that’s the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which throws a lot of money at props in California and has some questionable stuff about being a landlord. From calmatters.org:

Proposition 34 would require some California providers to spend at least 98% of that net drug sale revenue on “direct patient care.” Providers that don’t risk having their state license and tax-exempt status revoked and losing out on government contracts.

But the proposition doesn’t apply to all providers — only those that spend at least $100 million on expenses other than direct care, that also own and operate apartment buildings and that have racked up at least 500 severe health and safety violations in the last decade.

As far as anyone can tell, that only applies to one organization: The AIDS Healthcare Foundation. \

The measure would also put into law a Newsom administration policy that requires all state agencies to negotiate for lower drug prices as a single entity.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

In THAT case, it seems specifically designed to put them out of business... Which I guess would be the basis of the vote...

You'd think the regulatory agencies would have a better way of dealing with it.

[-] proudblond@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

It’s nuts, right? That’s why it felt icky. My husband and I talk through all the stuff on our ballots together and we really went back and forth on this one. Ultimately we did vote for it, probably because we kept reading that the AHF had funded at least half of all the other props we were voting on, most of which had nothing to do with healthcare. But I’m still not sure that was the right vote. I’ll be curious to see how it shakes out.

I’m also watching prop 36 because I see all these signs for it in my neighborhood, but I’m against it.

this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024

86 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19159 readers

4546 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News