All posts by votespotter

Commentary & Community

House to Fine Members who Evade Metal Detectors

After the January 6 riot, House Speaker Pelosi installed metal detectors outside the House chambers to screen members before they enter. Now members who do not comply with these screenings face a $10,000 fine.

 

Traditionally, members of Congress have been free from being screened by metal detectors when they enter congressional buildings. After the Capitol riot, however, some members said they felt unsafe in the House chamber. There were reports of House members carrying guns there, which is not allowed under House rules. In response, Speaker Pelosi ordered metal detectors set up outside the doors to the chamber.

 

While these detectors were present, there was no way to force members to use them or to comply with Capitol Police officers who were doing the screening. This week, the House voted to impose fines on members who do not complete a security check before entering the House chamber. The first offense will be $5,000 and subsequent offenses will be $10,000. If members do not pay, the amounts will be deducted from their paychecks.

 

Supporters of this measure argue that it is dangerous for members to carry guns on the floor of the House. They contend that with rising tensions in Congress, members should not be armed. Imposing a security check is the only way to guarantee this. Opponents, however, decry this measure as a break from long-standing tradition. They note that the presence of metal detectors imply that some members of Congress are a threat to others -- a charge these members denounce. They also note that there are constitutional questions with the imposition of fines on House members.

 

It remains to be seen if opposing House members will comply with security checks, even with a fine looming. With constitutional questions about the ability to collect the fine, some may seek to challenge this new rule in court.


The vote was 216-210 in favor of the resolution.

 

Do you support fining House members $10,000 if they do not complete a security check before entering the House chamber?

 

Virginia House Advance Three Gun Control Bills

Legislators in Virginia are on the verge of tightening up the state’s gun laws. The House recently passed three bills that would impose more restrictions in firearms in Virginia.

 

One bill would allow local school boards to prohibit anyone except law enforcement personnel from carrying guns on their property. Another would extend the waiting period for gun purchases. Currently gun buyers must wait 3 days if their background check is not completed instantaneously. Under this legislation, that waiting period would extend to 5 days. The final bill would make it a felony to manufacture, sell, or possess homemade guns.

 

Democratic Governor Ralph Northam has made it a priority to enact gun control laws. During this session of the legislature he called on members to pass “bold, meaningful action.” With Democrats taking control of the legislature after a long period of Republican majorities, they have been supportive of these efforts.

 

Supporters of these laws consider them necessary as part of a larger strategy to make Virginia safe from gun violence. They argue that these laws will help keep guns away from violent individuals while not infringing on the rights of legal gun owners. Opponents disagree, arguing that the burden of these new laws will fall primarily on these legal gun owners since criminals disobey laws. They say that restricting firearms or infringing upon the carrying of guns will lead to higher crime.

 

The Virginia Senate will now consider these bills.

 

Do you think that there should be a 5-day waiting period for gun purchases?

TSA to Fine Non-Mask Wearers

The Transportation Security Agency (TSA) will start imposing fines and other penalties on individuals who refuse to wear masks on public transportation systems.

 

Upon taking office, President Joe Biden issued an executive order that mandated mask-wearing on trains, airplanes, and in other areas of interstate travel. Now the TSA has finalized procedures to deal with individuals who refuse to comply. Under the TSA’s policies, travelers who do not wear masks can be denied travel. They can also be subject to fines for a variety of offenses depending on the circumstances of their refusal. 

 

Mask mandates have been a controversial topic throughout the U.S. Those who favor such mandates contend that mask-wearing is an essential part of any strategy to combat the coronavirus. They argue that the government should require masks be worn in public as the best way to ensure the pandemic recedes. Those who oppose such mandates counter that they infringe upon a wearer’s personal freedom. Some also argue that masks are ineffective.

 

While airlines and other companies have had their own mask requirements for travelers, the federal mandate is one that imposes uniformity across the system. It also now allows for fining of non-compliant travelers. The mandate will last through May 11.

 

Do you think that travelers who refuse to wear masks should be fined?

Wisconsin Legislators Put End to Mask Mandate on Hold

Wisconsin legislatures were moving quickly this week to end the governor’s emergency declaration that included a mask mandate. However, efforts to pass legislation to accomplish this were put on hold amidst fears that this would also result in the cut-off of federal aid.

 

The Senate voted earlier in the week to end the emergency declaration of Gov. Tony Evers (D). The Speaker of the Assembly, however, pulled the measure from the floor prior to a vote, citing concerns that the legislation would mean an end to millions of dollars in federal aid. This money is tied to the governor’s declaration of an emergency.

 

The Republican-controlled assembly may try to pass a more limited response to Gov. Evers’s emergency declaration next week. They are specifically targeting the mask mandate. Legislative leaders say they will work to ensure any legislation passed gives the governor power to craft emergency orders that preserve federal funding.

 

The battle in Wisconsin is part of a larger dispute between legislators and executives over emergency declarations. Legislators in many states are passing bills that would overturn governors’ emergency orders or limit governors’ ability to declare new emergencies. Legislators contend that governors are overreaching in their orders and placing limits on too much activity. Governors argue that they need these powers to respond quickly to emergencies.

 

Do you think that legislators should restrict governors’ powers to declare emergencies?

Progressives Push for Recurring Coronavirus Stimulus Payments

Some members of Congress want President Joe Biden to support legislation that would provide recurring payment from the government for the duration of the coronavirus pandemic.

 

In a letter to the president, members of the progressive wing of the Democratic caucus urged President Biden to include recurring payments in a coronavirus relief bill. They support payments that continue until the economy recovers, is prioritizes for poorer families, and includes "all immigrant workers."

 

Congress and the Biden Administration are in talks about what a new coronavirus relief bill will contain. The president supports a new round of stimulus payments. His proposal would not be recurring, however. Instead, it would be a one-time payment of up to $1,400. 

 

More liberal members of Congress say this is not generous enough. They argue that the economic disruption from the pandemic is too widespread to be solved by one-time payments. Instead, they contend that only recurring payments would provide a long-term solution. They also frame these payments as an act of social justice, saying that the economic problems have hit minority communities hardest.

 

This proposal will be controversial in Congress, however. There is already significant opposition to another relief bill, with Republicans arguing that new legislation is much too expensive. Critics point to the high cost of past bills and say that new direct payments will be costly. They note that the federal deficit is at record levels and future coronavirus legislation will add to it.

 

Do you think that a new coronavirus aid bill should contain recurring payments?

Term Limits Constitutional Amendment Introduced

The idea for imposing term limits on members of Congress has been around for decades but has failed to advance in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. With a new session of Congress beginning, there is a new move to add a term limits amendment to the Constitution.

 

Sen. Ted Cruz introduced Senate Joint Resolution 3, which would impose a limit of 3 terms on House members and 2 terms on Senate members. House Joint Resolution 12, sponsored by Rep. Ralph Norman, is identical. These amendments would not take into account the terms of current members of Congress when the amendment takes effect.

 

Those backing term limits argue that long-serving members of Congress become entrenched in the system and forget about serving the people whom they represent. They argue that having a legislative body that has people who will soon be leaving it would be more attuned to the needs of the people who live under the laws that it passes. Opponents of term limits counter that any time voters are tired of their members of Congress, they can vote them out. They also say there is no evidence that indicates that term-limited legislators perform any better than those who serve without limits.

 

In the 1990s, some states passed laws limiting the terms of legislators and members of Congress. However, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not set additional qualifications for members of Congress that go beyond what the Constitution specifies. This invalidated any state term limit laws that apply to Congress, so supporters must pass a constitutional amendment to achieve their goals.

 

If passed by Congress, three-fourths of the states would have to ratify the amendment for term limits to take effect.


Do you support term limits for Congress?

Biden Bars New Fossil Fuel Leasing on Federal Land

There will be no new leasing of federal land for coal, oil, and natural gas -- at least for now. This week President Joe Biden will sign a moratorium on such leasing that will be in place for much of his term in office.

 

Fulfilling a campaign promise, Biden's order would place a halt on new leases for fossil fuel development on lands controlled by the federal government. This would include new offshore drilling leasing, too. Existing leases would remain intact. The federal government owns considerable property, especially in western states, and much of that is open for mining and energy development. Offshore oil and natural gas exploration is also permitted in some federally-controlled areas of the Gulf of Mexico and around Alaska.

 

The president and environmentalists consider such leases as giveaways to large corporations. They also say that this leasing helps perpetuate the use of energy sources that pollute the environment. Supporters of the leases argue that it is better to develop U.S. resources than rely on foreign nations for America's energy needs. They also point out that energy production on federal lands supports good-paying jobs in areas that have few other economic options.

 

This executive order is part of a larger Biden agenda that envisions the U.S. moving from the use of fossil fuels to the use of renewable forms of energy. Much of this plan must be enacted by Congress, but the president can take some steps via executive order. This order is not a permanent end to federal fossil fuel leases, which would require a change in U.S. law, but a temporary moratorium. A new president could reverse this action.

 

Do you support banning oil, natural gas, and coal leases on federal land?

Biden Lifts Transgender Military Ban

This week, President Joe Biden is expected to lift the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. 

 

In 2017, President Trump issued a memorandum that prohibited openly transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces. This reversed a 2016 action by the Obama Administration which allowed such individuals to serve. President Trump’s ban has been tied up with legal challenges, although the Pentagon did issue orders in 2019 for the ban to go into effect.

 

President Biden supported reversing this ban during his campaign for office. His newly-confirmed Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, said during Senate hearings that he also supported ending the ban on transgender troops.

 

Supporters of allowing transgender individuals to serve in the military say that banning them is sex discrimination. They also contend that if a member of the military is performing well, it should not matter if that person is transgender. Opponents contend that such troops undermine morale.

 

Do you support allowing transgender troops to serve in the military?

Biden Mandates $15 Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors

Joe Biden supports a nationwide $15-per-hour minimum wage, something that must go through Congress to be enacted. This week, however, he took direct action to implement that minimum wage on a smaller scale by signing an order requiring federal contractors to pay that wage.

 

Under the Biden order, federal contractors must pay at least $15-per-hour. The order also has provisions that amplify collective bargaining rights and require these employers to offer emergency paid leave. 

 

According to President Biden, this order as well as others he signed this week are ways to help workers affected by the coronavirus pandemic. He has also unveiled a $1.9 trillion stimulus plan, but this must go through Congress. Executive orders do not, but they also have a much more limited reach.

 

The president’s actions have garnered criticism from those who say they are placing more burdens on businesses that have been hit hard by the economic crisis. They contend that the president’s economic plans will hurt economic growth and ultimately lead to more job loss.

 

The movement on minimum wage is part of a broader push to raise the federal minimum wage to $15-per-hour. This has long been a goal of progressive activists. 

 

Do you think that federal contractors should be mandated to pay a minimum wage of $15?

Biden Revokes Keystone XL Pipeline Permit

During the presidential campaign, Joe Biden vowed to stop the Keystone XL Pipeline from being built. On his first day in office, he signed an executive order aimed at accomplishing this.

 

The pipeline, which would link Canadian oil fields to the U.S. Gulf Coast, was first proposed in 2010. President Obama blocked the approval of the pipeline’s crossing of the U.S.-Canadian border in 2015, but President Trump reversed this decision in 2017 by approving a permit to proceed with construction across the border. One of President Biden's first actions in office was to revoke this cross-border permit.

 

The Canadian company constructing the pipeline, TC Energy, announced a halt to work on the pipeline and the layoff of 1,000 employees the day after the president's actions. It remains to be seen if TC Energy will pursue legal action over this.

 

Supporters of the pipeline say it will provide affordable energy to the U.S., giving consumers a financial windfall. They also point to the jobs it will create both during its construction and operation. Opponents, however, say most of these jobs will be temporary. They also argue that the pipeline will only increase the U.S.’s reliance on dirty fossil fuels, and that the pipeline itself will disturb important natural habitats.

 

Do you support President Biden's efforts to stop construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline?

Biden Imposes Mask Mandate on Federal Property

Joe Biden took office as president today and fulfilled one of his campaign promises to require the use of face coverings on federal property. The order also encompasses those who are traveling cross-border on trains and airlines.

 

Under the executive order, individuals in federal buildings and on federal land must wear face masks. Travelers on trains and airplanes must also wear masks. He also asked Americans to commit to wearing masks for 100 days. While airlines have policies to require face coverings, this has not been a federal mandate.

 

The president and those who support this policy see it as part of a wider effort to combat the coronavirus. They contend that face coverings help slow the spread of the virus. Opponents still question the efficacy of masks, saying that people should have the freedom to choose whether they wear masks or not.

 

Some have pushed President Biden to require a nationwide mask mandate. However, many legal experts have concluded the president does not have the authority to do this. However, a narrower mandate that pertains only to federal facilities is on sound legal ground.

 

Do you support mandatory mask wearing in federal facilities?

Iowa Considers Anti-Abortion Constitutional Amendment

This week an Iowa legislative subcommittee advanced a resolution that would clarify that the state constitution does not protect the right to an abortion.

 

Pro-life legislators want the state constitution to be clear that it does not protect the right to an abortion. For them, it's important to clarify this because judges have ruled that certain abortion limits violate the state constitution. In addition, they would like the state constitution to have this language in case the Supreme Court ever overturns Roe v. Wade. If that occurs, then each state would be able to set limits on abortion or even ban it as long as their state constitutions permit this. 

 

Supporters contend that states should be free to restrict abortion, which they consider murder. Pro-choice legislators, however, contend that these restrictions discriminatory against women. They say that this amendment would take away the right of women to control her sexual health.

 

Last year, the Iowa Senate passed a resolution with similar wording. However, the House did not. This year, the resolution is beginning in a House subcommittee. If both legislative chambers approve the resolution, it will go to the voters for approval.

 

Do you think that state constitutions should protect women's right to an abortion?

Strikers Call for $15 Minimum Wage

Fast food workers in 15 states are staging a strike demanding a $15 minimum wage and unionization, part of the “Fight for $15” movement.

 

Some activists and workers have long been pushing for a $15 minimum wage at the federal level. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25. Twenty-nine states have higher minimum wages than the federal mandate, and 27 states, cities, or counties have minimum wages of at least $15 per hour.

 

The striking workers are calling on Congress and the president to increase the federal minimum wage. This is something that incoming president Joe Biden supports. With a Democratic-controlled Congress, this idea could become law this year.

 

Those pushing for a higher minimum wage say that every worker deserves to be paid a living wage. They contend that increasing the minimum wage will increase worker productivity and ensure more fairness in society. Those opposed to it counter that the government mandating that every worker must be paid $15 per hour will hurt workers with few skills and those entering the job market. They also argue that businesses are already struggling with the coronavirus pandemic and many cannot afford to see such a large increase in salaries.

 

If enacted, a $15 minimum wage would likely be phased in over a period of years.


Do you support a federal $15 minimum wage?

Gov. Northam Pushes to Legalize Marijuana in Virginia

If Gov. Ralph Northam gets his way, Virginians will soon be able to enjoy legal marijuana.

 

This week the Northam Administration outlined legislation that would legalize marijuana for recreational use. If enacted, this law would impose a 21% tax on marijuana products and establish a process for those who were affected by marijuana laws in the past could gain entry into the legal marijuana system.

 

Eleven states have legalized the possession and use of marijuana for recreational purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Most of the legalization efforts succeeded through ballot measures approved by voters, but state legislators are beginning to embrace this cause, too.

 

Supporters of legalization say that marijuana prohibition hurts minority communities, giving many young men a criminal record and hurting their chance of success later in life. They say that legalizing and regulating the drug will keep people out of jail, with the taxes on marijuana products being used for health care and other government services. Opponents of legalization contend that marijuana is a gateway drug. They argue that legalization will lead to increased use of marijuana, which will have significant harms for society.

 

With both houses of the Virginia General Assembly in Democratic control, the prospects for marijuana legalization look good in that state. The governor's measure has been endorsed by the legislative black caucus, among other groups. 

 

Do you support legalizing marijuana?

House Impeaches Trump for Second Time

With a week to go until Donald Trump is scheduled to leave office, the House of Representatives voted to impeach him for a second time.

 

The 232-197 vote was historic for being the first time that the House has ever voted two times to impeach a president. Impeachment has only been used against three presidents -- Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and twice against Donald Trump. No president has been removed from office by the Senate.

 

The House approved a single article of impeachment, House Resolution 24, which stated, in part:

 

On January 6, 2021, pursuant to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives, and the Senate met at the United States Capitol for a Joint Session of Congress to count the votes of the Electoral College. In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, DC. There, he reiterated false claims that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide”. He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged—and foreseeably resulted in—lawless action at the Capitol, such as: “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore”. Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts.

 

The resolution concluded that Donald Trump "has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law."

 

In a break with the previous impeachment of President Trump, this vote gained 10 Republicans to join the Democrats. These supporters of impeachment said that it was vital to remove President Trump from office immediately before he causes more harm. They also argued that impeachment and removal from office would deprive him of the ability to run for office in 2024. The majority of Republicans opposed impeachment. They said that although the president bears blame for the events of January 6, it was not an impeachable offense. They noted that he was leaving office in a week, so this vote was more about political theater than concern about the nation.

 

The Senate is not schedule to meet until next week. The trial that takes place will occur largely after Joe Biden is inaugurated as president. If the Senate votes to convict Trump, it will not have the effect of removing him from office, but it would bar another presidential run.

 

Do you support the impeachment of President Trump?

Schumer Wants Capitol Rioters Put on No-Fly List

In the wake of the riot at the U.S. Capitol, Sen. Chuck Schumer is calling on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to place the individuals involved on the agency's no-fly list.

 

Sen. Schumer, who will soon become Senate majority leader, contends that these individuals pose a threat to U.S. security. He says that these people may be planning on traveling to other states and committing further crimes, so they should be prevented from boarding aircraft.

 

The TSA maintains a list of individuals whom it has determined are connected to terrorist activity. To be included on this list, someone does not need to have been convicted of a crime. Instead, the list is compiled using a variety of sources of intelligence. Once on the list, a person can be removed, but the process takes a significant effort.

 

These facts about the no-fly list have led many on both the left and the right to question its use. They argue that air travel is essential to the modern world, so depriving someone of the right to fly without due process of law is a violation of their rights. They contend that only those who have been tied to terrorism in a court of law should be on the no-fly list. Supporters of the list argue that it is a necessary way to prevent a terrorist attack.

 

While a senator can call upon the TSA to add someone to this list, the TSA has its own procedures for doing so. While there have been reports of individuals tied to the riots being denied the ability to fly, it is unknown if these are accurate.

 

Do you think the Capitol rioters should be denied the ability to board U.S. airlines?

House GOP Blocks 25th Amendment Resolution

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants Congress to call on Vice President Mike Pence to help remove Donald Trump from the presidency. A congressional Republican objected to the effort, however, and Speaker Pelosi vows that the House will vote on impeachment on Wednesday.

 

On Monday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) moved that the House adopt a resolution calling on Vice President Mike Pence to exercise his authority under the 25th Amendment to convene the cabinet in an attempt to declare President Trump unfit and temporarily remove him from office. Since this resolution would be considered under a suspension of the House rules, any member could object to stop it. Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV) did so.

 

The House will vote on this resolution on Tuesday.

 

Speaker Pelosi has said that she would prefer Vice President Pence act instead of the House impeaching Trump for a second time. However, if he does not do so by Wednesday, the speaker would lead the House in an impeachment vote. Democratic House members have already drawn up an article of impeachment, saying that the president should be removed from office for inciting the Capitol riot.

 

Under the 25th Amendment, if the vice president and a majority of cabinet officers declares that the president is unable to discharge the duties of his office, the vice president assumes the presidency. The president can dispute this and it would ultimately be up to Congress to determine if the president should be removed from office. Some scholars contend that this option can only be involved if the president is incapacitated in some way. Others say that President Trump's actions indicate that he is in no state to be making decisions, so his removal would be justified. Vice President Pence has said that he will not invoke this power under the current circumstances.

 

Do you think that Vice President Pence and the cabinet should temporarily remove President Trump from office using the 25th Amendment?

Congressional Democrats Considering Impeachment

In the wake of a riot in the Capitol, Congressional Democrats are considering a second impeachment against President Trump.

 

Accusing President Trump of inciting an insurrection, these members of Congress say it is appropriate to impeach and remove President Trump from office as soon as possible. Although he will leave the White House when Joe Biden assumes the presidency on January 20, some Democrats and Republicans fear that he will do damage to the nation in his remaining two weeks in office.

 

Impeachment is usually a slow process, but it can also proceed quickly. Speaker Pelosi can call the House of Representatives into session next week and pass articles of impeachment within days. There are already multiple members of the House who say they will support impeaching the president a second time. If this occurs, then the Senate would take up the matter. While it is likely that most, if not all, Democrats would vote in favor of impeachment and removal, it is unclear how many Republicans would support it. A handful have said they are open to the idea.

 

Even if Congress works quickly on impeachment and removal, Donald Trump would only be taken out of office with a few days left in his term. Supporters of this action say that the main benefit of this process would be to prohibit him from ever running for president or any federal office again.

 

Do you think that Donald Trump should be impeached a second time?

After Riot, Congress Confirms Biden Victory

Meeting in a session that was interrupted by a large-scale riot and storming of the capitol building, members of Congress yesterday rejected attempts to throw out the electoral votes of a handful of states. After hours of delay, the joint session finally affirmed Joe Biden’s electoral college victory at 3:45 a.m.

 

Various members of the House of Representatives and Senate promised to object to the votes cast by electors in at least 5 states. A joint session convened at 1 p.m. to witness Vice President Mike Pence presiding over the counting of these votes. As Arizona’s votes were being counted, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) rose to object. Since his objection slip was signed by a senator, this led to the House and Senate meeting separately to deliberate on that objection.

 

During these meetings, a group of individuals who were protesting outside the capitol broke into the building, assaulted police, and drove the members of Congress into undisclosed locations. These rioters then broke into the Senate chamber and attempted to reach the House chamber. Capitol Police shot one woman. 

 

Hours later, Capitol Police and other law enforcement cleared the capitol building, allowing the electoral vote count to resume. Members resumed deliberations on the Arizona objection, with the House rejecting it by a vote of 303-121 and the Senate by a vote of 93-6. While House members also attempted to object to electoral votes cast in Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada, but no senators joined them. An effort to toss out Pennsylvania’s vote was rejected by the Senate on a vote of 92-7 and 282-138 in the House. 

 

After these objections were defeated, the electoral count continued and Vice President Pence declared that Joe Biden had won the presidency. 

 

The meeting of the joint session of Congress is generally little more than a formality, with members being present to witness the counting of votes. While there had been objections to electoral votes in the past, there had never been this many members of Congress who supported them.

 

What do you think about the riot that took place in and around the capitol building yesterday?

 

Massachusetts Aims to Ban the Sale of Gasoline-Powered Vehicles

This week Massachusetts officials announced a plan to phase-out the sale and use of carbon-emitting vehicles by 2050.

 

Under the outline put forth by Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Kathleen Theoharides, the state would ban the sale of new carbon-emitting vehicles used by most drivers by 2035. The state also has a goal of ensuring that half of the trucks and buses sold in the state are zero-emission by 2030. However, the state's goal is to have all of those vehicles be emission-free by 2050.

 

According to the report, "For the Commonwealth to achieve Net Zero, fossil fuel use must be all but completely eliminated in on-road vehicles by 2050."

 

Critics of this ban note that consumers, not government, drive markets. They say that zero-emission cars are not attractive to consumers, and that innovation by the private sector will lead to more widespread purchasing of these cars. They also contend that this order will hurt consumers who want a wider choice in vehicles.

 

Other states have pursued similar goals. California's governor, for instance, issued an order earlier this year that aimed to transition the state to zero-emission vehicles. In both states, however, these plans are not solidified in law. Future administrations can alter or remove them.

 

Do you think states should prohibit people from buying vehicles that are not carbon-free?

Copyright © 2018 Votespotter Inc. All rights reserved.