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.

...

Idk maybe this is a win/win situation.

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.

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!

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. 🙄

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.

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.

I voted for a similar measure in Colorado!

Ranked choice? I'm all for it!

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

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

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

(C) Sovereignty in free association with the United States.

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."

Yup! That would belong here!

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."