VoteSpotter | VoteSpotters Community

Commentary & Community

Trump Urges Caution in Response to Journalist’s Killing by Saudi Agents

 The evidence continues to accumulate that agents of the Saudi Arabian government killed journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the nation’s consulate in Turkey. Some members of Congress are urging President Trump to punish the Saudi government. The president, however, is urging caution before taking any steps in response.


In early October, Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and never emerged. The Turkish government says it has evidence he was brutally murdered inside the embassy by agents employed by Saudi Arabia. Khashoggi is a Saudi national who had been living in the United States. He was a harsh critic of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the Saudi regime.


In response to this alleged killing, there has been international outrage against the Saudi government. In the U.S., senators such as Marco Rubio of Florida have said the U.S. needs to take steps to punish the Saudis. Rep. Justin Amash has introduced legislation to stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia if it is found to played a role in Khashoggi’s murder.


President Trump, however, has resisted these calls. In fact, he has cast doubt that this could have been an official action of the Saudi government. He has floated the theory that rogue killers may have done it. The president notes that Saudi Arabia buys billions of dollars in military weapons from the U.S. and is a large supplier of oil.


Those pushing for action against Saudi Arabia say that this killing is only the latest example of the latest example of the kingdom violating human rights. They note that the Saudi actions in Yemen’s civil war have also been particularly brutal. These critics argue that Saudi Arabia may be an ally, but that does not give it a free pass to engage in murder or other human rights abuses.


Other observers note that Saudi Arabia plays a key role in supporting U.S. policy in the Middle East. Alienating the nation’s ruling family would weaken U.S. interests and could lead to further conflict in the area. They also note that if Saudi Arabia cut off oil supplies to the U.S., it could have a devastating effect on our economy.


Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has visited Saudi Arabia in an attempt to discern what the U.S. should do about the Khashoggi murder. It is unclear what, if anything, President Trump will order in response. Congress could also pass legislation that would impose sanctions on the kingdom.


Should the U.S. punish Saudi Arabia in response to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi? Is President Trump right that the U.S. should consider Saudi’s arms purchases and oil supplies to the U.S. when deciding what to do?

Harvard Trial Could Have Big Impact on Affirmative Action

Does Harvard’s “race-conscious” admissions policy illegally discriminate against Asian-American students?

That is the question at the heart of the trial that began this week pitting a group of Asian-American students against the Ivy League college. The Supreme Court has ruled that schools cannot use racial quotas in admissions, but has allowed some consideration of race.


The students are suing Harvard under the theory that the school’s race-conscious admissions policy allows it to manipulate potential students’ scores to achieve a certain racial balance. They contend that Asian-American students receive lower scores in some areas to balance out their higher academic and extracurricular activity scores. They argue that a race-blind process would lead to more Asian-American students allowed into Harvard.

The school denies discriminating against Asian-American students. It says that diversity is an important goal for an academic community that would be undermined if the courts find that using race-conscious admissions is illegal.


The group Students for Fair Admissions has brought this lawsuit. Its spokesman has said that affirmative action is not the issue here, but this case could lead to the Supreme Court. If that happens, the high court would have the opportunity to decide whether or not any racial factors should be at play when schools decide whom to admit and whom to deny.


Do you think that race should be a factor in college admissions?


Massachusetts Legislators, Governor Differ on Airbnb Regulations


Residents of the Bay State who rent their homes on Internet platforms like Airbnb may soon be facing new rules and taxes. Governor Charlie Baker and legislator cannot seem to agree on what these regulations should be, however.


Legislators passed a bill in August that would require homeowners with short-term rentals to register with the state, meet insurance mandates, and collect and pay the same taxes that hotels do. The bill would also allow local governments to regulate and impose taxes on these short-term rentals.


Governor Baker did not veto this legislation, but he did suggest some changes that would need to be made before he signed it. One of these modifications would be to exempt anyone from these new regulations who rented their homes for fewer than 14 days. His changes were generally aimed at reducing the legislation’s burden on those who use short-term rentals to earn some extra money, not as a full-time moneymaking operation.


The governor’s staff is meeting with legislators to find a way to resolve their differences. This leaves local governments in limbo. Some have already enacted their own regulations, but they lack the ability to impose taxes. They are pressing state lawmakers to come to a decision on a final state bill.


Massachusetts joins other states in looking at regulating short-term rentals. As online platforms such as Airbnb become popular, hotels have pressed local and state governments to impose regulations on homeowners using these services.


Do you think that homeowners using services like Airbnb should be regulated and taxed the same as hotels are?

Pennsylvania Governor Signs Gun Control Bill

It will soon be tougher for Pennsylvanians convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse or who have a protection from abuse order against them to access firearms.


Governor Tom Wolf recently signed a bill into law that would require anyone covered by these two conditions to relinquish their firearms to the police or a licensed gun dealer within 24 hours. Previously they had 60 days to relinquish their firearms and they could give them to a family member or someone else.


This new law would set a $5,000 penalty for someone who fails to comply. It would allow the gun owner to request his or her firearms back after the relinquishment period is over. If they do not do so, then they will forfeit them.


Supporters of the law argue that it is necessary because domestic abusers would give their firearms to a friend or family member, but could easily have access to them. They say that forcing abusers to turn over their guns to police within 24 hours will protect abuse victims. Opponents of the bill argued that it would be more practical to have a 48-hour surrender period and allow someone to relinquish his or her guns to a friend instead of law enforcement.


This legislation has earned praise from David Hogg, the former student of Parkland high school in Florida who became a gun control activists after a shooting at his school.


Do you think that people convicted of domestic abuse should be forced to turn their guns over to the police? Or should they be able to surrender their guns to friends and family?

Washington Court Prohibits Use of the Death Penalty

Today the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the state’s death penalty violated the Washington constitution.


In a unanimous ruling the justices held that the death penalty is arbitrarily and disproportionately applied. The court concluded that the way in which the state used the death penalty violated the state constitutional guarantees.


There were eight people on Washington’s death row who were affected by this ruling. Their sentences were commuted to life in prison without parole. The case was brought by one of these inmates, Allen Gregory, who was sentenced to death for robbing and killing a woman in 1996.


Governor Jay Inslee had imposed a moratorium on the death penalty’s use in 2014, saying he would never permit an execution while he was governor. He hailed the decision as important for the fair application of justice. There have been legislative attempts to abolish capital punishment, but they have never made it all the way through both houses of the legislature.


The court did not say that capital punishment itself was unconstitutional, but did hold how it was currently applied in the state was unlawful. The legislature could reform the state’s laws in an attempt to meet the objections made by the court’s justices. Attorney General Bob Ferguson said he would ask the legislature to rewrite the state’s law governing capital punishment.


With this ruling, Washington joins 19 other states in prohibiting the death penalty.

Do you think the death penalty should be abolished?

Colorado Oil and Gas Production May Face New Restrictions

Colorado is one of the top oil- and natural gas-producing states in the nation. But a ballot measure may have a dramatic impact on the future of this industry. Proposition 112 would impose new setbacks that opponents contend would kill much of the state’s energy development. Supporters counter that these new rules are necessary to protect the public.


The oil and gas industry has a long history in Colorado. With the advent of the shale revolution, which led to a significant oil and gas output thanks to hydraulic fracturing, Colorado’s energy production underwent a renaissance during the past decade. This increased production has led to conflicts with some municipalities and residents over pollution claims and noise complaints.


There have been a variety of legislative efforts to curb oil and gas production in the state. These range from local laws to citizen-led initiatives, although many have failed to gain traction or have been shut down in the courts. Proposition 112 is the most significant of these proposals. It would mandate that any new oil and gas development be set back 2,500 feet from homes, schools, playgrounds, rivers, creeks, and anything else local governments determine as a “vulnerable area.” Currently the state imposes a 1,000 feet setback from high-occupancy buildings such as schools, 500 feet from occupied homes, and 350 feet from playgrounds.


The supporters of Proposition 112 argue that oil and gas production, especially when it involves hydraulic fracturing, poses a variety of health threats to the public. These setbacks, they argue, will ensure that these hazardous operations are not too close to people.


Opponents of Proposition 112 say that these setbacks would essentially end almost all new oil and gas production in the state. They contend that few areas would be left to explore for oil and natural gas after the setbacks are put into place. They point out if that happens it could lead to tens of thousands of jobs being lost, the state’s economy taking a big hit, and tax revenue going down. They also argue that Colorado has strict regulations on oil and natural gas development, so a new setback rule is unnecessary.


Both the Democratic and Republican candidates for governor oppose Proposition 112. If the voters approve it, there will likely be a legal fight prior to its implementation.


Do you think that oil and natural gas production should face stricter regulation?

Ohio Voters Could Reduce Drug Penalties

The purchase and possession of illegal drugs in Ohio may soon be a misdemeanor in Ohio if Issue 1 becomes law. Its passage would reduce drug crime penalties and take other steps that would shrink the state’s prison population.


Under Issue 1, the uses, possession, or obtainment of any illegal drug could not be classified as a felony. Sentences for a first or second offense could not be anything harsher than probation. It would not change the penalties for the sale or distribution of drugs, however. The measure would also prohibit the revocation of probation for non-violent offenses. In addition, Issue 1 would require that inmates in work, rehabilitation, or educational programs receive a half-day reduction in their sentence for every day they participate.


Supporters of this ballot measure say that non-violent offenders should not be in prison. They argue that it will save the state millions of dollars if these offenders are not put in jail and would lead to better outcomes for those caught up in the criminal justice system. Law enforcement groups have come out strongly against Issue 1, saying it undercuts the authority of police and prosecutors to punish crime. They argue that not only will Issue 1 make the public less safe, it will send the wrong message about drug use to children.


The Democratic candidate for governor, Richard Cordray, supports Issue 1, while his Republican opponent, Mike DeWine, opposes it.


Do you think that the possession and use of drugs should be a felony? Or should states relax punishments for drug possession?

California Voters May Roll Back Gas Tax Hike

Thanks to a law signed by California Governor Jerry Brown in 2017, Californians are paying the second-highest gas tax rate in the nation. In November, voters will have a chance to roll that 2017 tax increase back. If they approve Proposition 6, they will also take decisions about future gas tax increases out of the hands of elected officials and put them into the hands of voters.


Proposition 6 is a reaction against a 2017 bill that raised the gas tax by twelve cents, increased the tax on diesel, and imposed other vehicle fees. The proposition would mandate that any fuel tax increase or vehicle fee increase must not only be approved by two-thirds of the legislature and the governor (the current requirement), but must also be approved by voters. It makes such approval retroactive to the beginning of 2017, thus effectively repealing that year’s tax and fee increases.


Supporters of Proposition 6 say that a gas tax hits poor Californians harder than those with more income. They point out that the revenue from the gas tax and vehicle fees is not earmarked for road improvement, but can be spent on things such as bike lanes. They say that voters, not politicians, should decide if such taxes and fees should be increased.


Those opposing Proposition 6 counter that it would deprive the state of billions of dollars needed to improve roads and rail projects. They argue that if people want better roads, then they need to pay higher taxes. They also say that there is nothing in the proposition that would guarantee that gas prices would drop.


Do you support higher gas taxes?

Judge Rules Funds Cannot Be Withheld from Sanctuary Cities

President Trump has made no secret of his dislike for cities and states that do not cooperate with the federal government on immigration law. One of his priorities once elected was finding a way to punish these governments. Now a federal judge has made it more difficult for him to cut off federal funding for these cities and states.


Sanctuary cities, or sanctuary states, are places where the local government has a policy forbidding local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. The federal government sets and enforces immigration laws, but it often works with local law enforcement on situations like when illegal immigrants are in local jails. Areas with sanctuary policies, however, adopt policies that do not allow local law enforcement to detain illegal immigrants for the federal government or cooperate with the federal government on immigration detainers.


These laws do not conflict with federal law, since they do not interfere with federal agents doing their duty. Instead, they limit local government agents’ cooperation with federal agents. The federal government cannot mandate that state or local agents enforce federal law.


In an attempt to discourage such policies, Attorney General Jeff Sessions mandated that some types of grants could not be disbursed to governments that did not cooperate with federal immigration authorities. California sued the federal government over these restrictions. Last week, a federal judge agreed that the restrictions were illegal.


Supporters of cutting some funding for sanctuary cities and states say that these policies endanger public safety. They contend that cities and states should cooperate with the federal government to enforce immigration law to keep criminal immigrants out of the U.S. Those opposing restrictions on federal funds for sanctuary cities and states argue that these restrictions could hamper law enforcement activity. They also point out that the restrictions were not enacted by Congress, so the Justice Department has no authority to unilaterally decide to put them in place.


The federal government is expected to appeal this decision.


Do you think that the federal government should cut some funding for sanctuary cities and sanctuary states?

Senate Confirms Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court

After perhaps the most contentious Supreme Court nomination battle in U.S. history, Brett Kavanaugh is poised to take a seat on the nation's highest court.


By a vote of 50-48, the Senate today confirmed Kavanaugh. All the Republican senators except Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted in favor of Kavanaugh. All the Democratic senators except Joe Manchin of West Virginia voted against him.


The Supreme Court seat became open when Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement in June. Because Kavanaugh would replace Kennedy, who was seen as a swing vote for many important issues, this nomination was especially ideological from the beginning. Liberals viewed it as threat to court precedents that protected gay marriage, privacy rights, and abortion. Conservatives saw this as a chance to solidify a court majority that would adhere to the text of the Constitution.


During his first round of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Kavanaugh faced questions about his judiical philosophy and his views on adhering to precedent. Democratic senators had a litany of complaints about the process, saying that they had not received enough information and accusing the Republican majority of rushing the process. Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley countered that Democrats were simply using any means necessary, regardless of whether they were fair or not, to sink the nomination.


This dispute was overshadowed when Dr. Christine Blassey Ford came forward with accusations that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her during high school. Kavanaugh denied the allegations. The Judiciary Committee held a meeting to hear from the two as other accusations about misconduct came to light. Republican senators defended Kavanaugh, arguing that this was a smear campaign, while Democratic senators said that Americans should believe Dr. Blassey Ford. Republican Senator Jeff Flake brokered a deal to delay the full Senate's consideration of the nomination by a week so the FBI could investigate the assault claims.


The FBI completed its report and presented it to senators on Thursday. Yesterday, the Senate voted to proceed to 30-hours of debate.


The Supreme Court's term began on October 1. Kavanaugh will likely take the oath of office within days and join the court so he can begin hearing cases.


Do you support the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court?

Bloomberg Backs Washington Carbon Fee Initiative

Efforts to impose a fee on carbon emissions in Washington State received a big boost yesterday when Michael Bloomberg pledged $1 million to the effort.


An initiative, I-631, is on Washington’s ballot this year to impose a fee on each metric ton of carbon emitted. The fee would start at $15 a ton in the first year and increase by $2 a year every year until the state’s carbon emissions goals are met. The revenue from this fee would go to air quality programs, forest health projects, and community investment.


Supporters of this initiative say it is a good way to help transition Washington away from the use of fossil fuels. They contend that putting a price on carbon emissions will help reduce emissions that cause climate change and provide an incentive to use renewable fuels. Opponents say that this will increase the cost of fuel. They also contend that this increase in energy costs will hurt the state’s businesses, leading to job loss and lower economic growth.


Other states have considered a carbon tax, but none have passed one. If Washington voters approve I-631, that state will be the first in the nation to impose a tax or fee on large carbon emitters.


Do you support a tax or fee on carbon emissions?

Food Stamp Work Requirement Goes into Effect in Michigan


Many Michigan residents who receive food stamps are now facing a new requirement: work or train for work.


This requirement affects those receiving benefits under the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Which the state administers. To comply, a food stamp recipient must do one of the following:

  • Work 20 hours-a-week in an unsubsidized job
  • Spend 20 hours-a-week in an approved job training program
  • Volunteer at a nonprofit organization


This requirement does not apply to all food stamp recipients, however. Recipients who have a disability, who are unable to work a 20-hour work week, or who are receiving unemployment benefits are exempt. Recipients who are not exempt but who do not complete the work requirements are only eligible for three months of benefits in a 36-month period.


Federal law ties SNAP eligibility to work or work training, but the government can waive that mandate in areas with high unemployment. That is what happened in 2002. The requirement was re-imposed for some counties in Michigan previously, but now it is being put back in place for the entire state.


Do you think that food stamp recipients should be required to work?

Taxes, Government Reform are Big Issues in Wisconsin Governor’s Race

Democrat Tony Evers is trying to unseat Republican Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin. He thinks that a key part of his appeal will be changing the way the state government operates, from use of the state airplane to redistricting reform. Governor Walker, however, charges that these reform proposals are a way for Evers to distract voters from his proposals to increase taxes. 


Yesterday Evers unveiled a government reform package that would affect both the governor’s office and the legislature. Among his proposals were these:

  • Redistricting reform: Evers would like to see a nonpartisan commission draw the state’s congressional and legislative boundaries.
  • Economic development reform: Evers would eliminate the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, which provides subsidies to businesses. Instead, he would return the state’s economic development programs to the way they used to be run in the Commerce Department.
  • Inspector general: Evers would establish an inspector general to police the state government, but he was not clear on how this post would operate.
  • “Cool off” legislation: Evers proposed a “cooling off” period between the time that legislative committees consider legislation and the final vote on such legislation. He would like to see a 48-hour delay to give the public time to comment on bills.
  • Reduce use of the state airplane: Evers wants to see the state airplane used less, although he did not give details about the circumstances in which the plane should be used.


Governor Walker responded to these proposals by focusing on taxes. He claims that the election of Evers would lead to higher taxes, while Gov. Walker wants to lower taxes. One of the proposals being pushed by Governor Walker is to increase the homestead property tax credit and lower the age at which homeowners would be able to claim it. According to Gov. Walker, this would provide tax relief to homeowners on fixed incomes.


Evers has said that he supports “fair taxes,” but has also indicated he would support an income tax hike for some taxpayers, a higher gas tax, and a repeal of some tax cuts for businesses and farmers. Evers has given no detailed plan on what changes he would make to the state’s tax code.


Do you support giving a property tax break to senior citizens? Should an independent commission draw legislative and congressional district lines?




New Maryland Laws on Gun Control, Parental Leave, Conversion Therapy Take Effect Today

The Maryland General Assembly had a busy session earlier this year. Legislators passed a variety of laws dealing with a wide range of subjects. Today is when many of those laws take effect. If you live in Maryland, here are some of the new laws that are now in place:


Bump stocks are illegal. In 2017, a shooter in Las Vegas used a device to modify his semi-automatic weapon to fire like an automatic weapon. These types of “bump stocks” are now prohibited for Marylanders to possess.


State government employees have 60 days of parental leave. If a state employee or his spouse has a child, or if an employee adopts a child under 6, then the employee will have 60 days of paid parental leave.


Conversion therapy is banned. The controversial practice of using therapy in an attempt to change someone’s gender identity or sexual orientation is now prohibited for minors.


Police can seize your guns if there is a “red flag” indicating you may harm yourself or others. There is now an “extreme risk protection order” that can be obtained if someone is alleged to pose an immediate danger of causing harm with a firearm. Under a temporary order, the police can seize the person’s firearms pending the outcome of a final protective order.


Minors can’t purchase e-cigarettes. It is now a misdemeanor to sell electronic cigarette devices to minors, and any minors possessing them will face a fine.


Oil and natural gas drilling off of Maryland’s coast is now deemed an “ultrahazardous” act. It is unlikely the federal government will approve drilling off of Maryland’s coast, but if it does then drilling companies will be working under a much stricter legal liability standard.


Do you think police should be able to seize someone’s guns if someone says that the person is at risk of causing immediate harm? Do you support offshore oil and gas production? Should conversion therapy be banned?



Kavanaugh Nomination Advances to the Senate

Brett Kavanaugh moved one step closer to a seat on the Supreme Court today.


By a vote of 11-10, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommend his nomination to the full Senate. All the Republicans on the committee voted in favor of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, while all the Democrats opposed it. Kavanaugh is currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.


This action came on the heels of a dramatic day of testimoney yesterday from Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused the judge of sexual assault when he was a teenager. These accustions, and others which have come recently, has disrupted the normal nomination process. Democrats and women's groups have called for Judge Kavanaugh to withdraw his name from consideration, a suggestion he has repeatedly rejected. Judge Kavanaugh proclaims his innocence on these matters, saying he has never sexually assaulted anyone.


This sharply divided committee reflects the partisan divisions in the Senate over the Kavanaugh nomination. It is likely that all Republicans will vote in favor of this nomination, although Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have yet to announce their position. Republicans are targeting one or two Democrats for a "yes" vote, but Judge Kavanaugh may be confirmed with no Democratic support. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) supported the nomination during the committee vote, but he indicated he may not support the nomination on the Senate floor until after the FBI further investigates the allegations.


Like all Supreme Court nominees in recent decades, Judge Kavanaugh avoided taking stances during his initial confirmation hearings on issues that may come before the high court. While senators tried to pin him down on what he thought about the constitutionality of abortion rights or the contraceptive mandate, Judge Kavanaugh refused to take any firm stance. He mainly discussed his constitutional philosophy and answered questions about rulings he had made.


Republican senators defended Judge Kavanaugh from Democratic attacks at those hearings, pointing out that he had a long record of service that makes him extremely qualified for the court. Prior to his tenure as a circuit court judge, Kavanaugh worked for Independent Counsel Ken Starr and in the White House counsel’s office under President George W. Bush.


During the follow-up hearing yesterday, the questions from Democratic senators were not about judicial philosophy. Instead, they focused on Judge Kavanaugh's actions during high school and college. From his alcohol consumption to what he wrote in his high school yearbook, Judge Kavanaugh was grilled for hours about his youthful actions.


The full Senate will now consider Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. It is likely the final vote on his nomination could take place early next week, depending on what type of investigation occurs. The new Supreme Court term begins on October 1.


Do you think that the Senate should confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court?

Equal Rights Amendment an Issue in Virginia Senate Race


It may be over 40 years old, but the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a fresh topic in the Virginia Senate race.


During last night’s debate between Sen. Tim Kaine and challenger Corey Stewart, the issue of whether Virginia should ratify the ERA. Stewart said that passage of the ERA would lead to a rash of lawsuits, with men suing to participate in women’s athletic programs. Sen. Kaine said that the amendment was good for women.


The ERA says, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Supporters of this measure say that it is necessary to ensure that federal or state laws do not treat men and women differently. They say that, just like previous constitutional amendments prohibited discrimination based on race, this amendment is needed to prevent discrimination based on sex. Opponents of the amendment say that it would lead to government laws being made without regard to natural gender differences.


First submitted to the states for ratification in 1972, the ERA has yet to see enough states ratify it so it becomes part of the Constitution. Congress initially set a deadline of 1979 for the required 38 states to ratify the ERA. When that passed without the necessary number of states doing so, Congress extended the deadline to 1982. Only 35 states ratified the ERA prior to 1982, but 4 states rescinded their ratification. Since 2017, two states have ratified the ERA.


One house of the Virginia legislature ratified the ERA in 2011. A bipartisan group of legislators plans on introducing a ratification resolution next year. If that resolution passes, then 38 states would have ratified the ERA. However, a legal fight would likely follow, since the necessary ratifications occurred after the congressionally-set deadline and four of those states later reversed themselves. The Constitution is silent on whether or not Congress can set a deadline for ratification and whether states can rescind their ratification of amendments.


Do you think that the Equal Rights Amendment should be added to the Constitution?

Electric Car Subsidy May Be Boosted in California


Buying an electric car in California may soon get you a $4,500 subsidy from the state.


The California Air Resources Board is meeting this week to consider boosting the state rebate for purchasing an electric car from $2,500 to $4,500. This money comes from credits purchased by businesses in order to comply with the state’s cap-and-trade program aimed at reducing carbon emissions.


Currently the federal government offers a $7,500 tax credit for electric car purchases. However, this subsidy is designed to decrease once the manufacturers of electric cars grow large enough to sell 200,000 cars per company. As the companies reach this threshold (Tesla has already done so), the tax credit decreases in increments.


Supporters of increasing the electric car subsidy say these zero-emission vehicles are essential to combatting climate change. They say that these companies need government help to gain a market foothold and compete with conventional vehicles. Those who oppose the subsidies say the government should not be picking winners and losers in the automotive marketplace. They contend that if people want to buy electric vehicles, they should do so without government assistance.


The electric car credit is only one issue being considered by the Air Resources Board. The board members may also require fewer carbon emissions by oil companies, bigger subsidies for electric-charging stations, and a requirement that some mass transit systems in the state must buy only hydrogen- or battery-powered buses by 2030.


Do you support subsidies for people who purchase electric vehicles?

Transgender Discrimination Ban up for a Vote in Massachusetts

The fate of the Massachusetts law banning discrimination in public accommodations based on gender identity will be decided in November.


Question 3 will allow voters to determine if the law passed in 2016 that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity will go into effect. State residents collected enough signatures to put it on the ballot this year. If a majority of voters reject Question 3, the law will be overturned.


At issue is whether or not businesses and the government must provide accommodation for individuals based on the gender by which they identify. The law applies to businesses such as restaurants, stores, hotels, stadiums, and other similar places as well as schools and government buildings. Under the law, someone’s gender identity is protected if it is "sincerely held as part of a person's core identity" regardless of "whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth.” This law prohibits businesses and schools from allowing someone to access a bathroom or locker room based on their gender identity.


Those who support this law say that it is needed in order to protect transgender residents of Massachusetts from discrimination. They contend that many transgender individuals are harassed for using public accommodations, so this law is necessary in order for these individuals to live their lives without fear. Those opposed to the law say that it will make it easier for men looking to victimize women or girls to access women’s bathrooms.


Six other states have similar laws banning discrimination in public accommodations based on gender identity.


Do you think states should pass laws banning discrimination based on gender identity? Do you support laws requiring schools and businesses to provide individuals access to bathrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity?

Education Tax Hike Initiative Bounced from Arizona Ballot

School funding continues to be a hot topic in Arizona.


The state’s teachers were hoping that the Arizona residents would vote “yes” on a November initiative to raise taxes in order to provide more money for education. They gathered enough signatures to place this question before voters. However, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that signature gatherers misled the public, yanking the “Invest in Ed” initiative from the ballot.


This initiative comes after thousands of teachers spent days protesting at the capitol earlier this year. They staged a walkout in April in an attempt to force legislators and the governor to spend more on education. Unsatisfied with the resulting legislation that provided pay raises for teachers and additional education funding, teaches and activists turned to a ballot initiative to provide dedicated revenue for the state’s schools.


The “Invest in Ed” initiative would have increased taxes and used the resulting revenue specifically for education. For Arizonans making more than $250,000, the initiative would have imposed an 8% income tax (up from the current 4.25% tax). For those making $500,000 or more, the initiative would have imposed a 9% income tax rate. In addition, the initiative would have reset tax rates for Arizonans making incomes under $250,000 while also ending the indexing of tax rates for inflation.


The summary of the initiative used by signature gathers focused on the increased taxes for higher-income Arizonans while leaving out information about how it would affect other taxpayers. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce sued, contending that leaving this information out of the summary misled those who signed petitions to place the initiative on the ballot.


A majority of supreme court justices agreed. They said that this omission could create confusion or unfairness, so these signatures were invalid. The court ordered the initiative removed from the ballot.


This ends the possibility of Arizona voters deciding whether or not to raise taxes to fund education spending this year. Backers of this effort vow to keep up the fight to pressure legislators to increase school spending, however.


Do you think that taxes should be increased to pay for higher school spending?



Maryland Candidate Backs Marijuana Tax to Pay for Pre-K

Ben Jealous, the Maryland Democratic gubernatorial candidate, wants to legalize marijuana. He also supports universal pre-kindergarten. In his run to unseat incumbent Republican Governor Larry Hogan, he has suggested combining the two ideas so that the revenue from legal marijuana would pay for the expansion of state pre-kindergarten services. Governor Hogan’s team, however, is pushing back, saying that the numbers just don’t add up.


Maryland legislators and school districts have been working to expand the state’s pre-kindergarten programs, which currently give priority to students who come from low-income families. These advocates would like to see universal pre-kindergarten, which means that anyone who wants to use the government pre-kindergarten services would be able to do so, regardless of income. Governor Hogan has been supportive of expanding pre-kindergarten, but such efforts have gone slowly because of cost concerns.


Jealous says that he has found the answer – marijuana. He contends that legalizing and taxing recreational marijuana use would provide enough revenue to pay for pre-kindergarten. He is proposing a 9% tax rate on recreational marijuana sales, as well as a $30 excise tax on each ounce of marijuana sold.


Governor Hogan’s re-election team has countered that the revenue from this plan would not provide enough money to pay for the number of children who would use pre-kindergarten services for 3- and 4-year-olds. They say this is another example of Jealous proposing an expensive plan with no realistic plan to pay for it.


Do you support legalizing recreational marijuana and using the tax revenue from it to pay for pre-kindergarten?

Copyright © 2018 Votespotter Inc. All rights reserved.