Alaska Ballot Measure 2, the Repeal Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative, on the November 2024 ballot would repeal a 2020 initiative approved by Alaska voters to adopt open primaries and a ranked-choice voting system. It would return Alaska to partisan primaries and a single-choice, plurality-wins vote system. 

Alaska currently uses a top-four open primary system for state executive, legislative, and congressional elections. Under this system, all candidates––regardless of party affiliation––compete in a primary election to determine the top four candidates. Those candidates then proceed to the general election. The initiative to repeal top-four ranked-choice voting would reestablish Alaska’s prior system, where each party held separate primary elections, resulting in one nominee representing each party in the general election. 

The initiative would also repeal rank-choice voting in the general election. Under rank-choice voting, voters rank their preferred candidates rather than selecting one candidate to receive their votes. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. That candidate’s votes are then redistributed based on those voters’ second choices. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority. The repeal initiative would reestablish Alaska’s prior system where voters must choose one candidate, and the candidate who receives the most votes––but not necessarily a majority of votes––is the declared winner. 

Fiscal Impact 

The Alaska Repeal Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative would likely have a fiscal impact, although the direction and magnitude are unclear. The official Statement of Cost produced by the Lieutenant Governor and the Division of Elections estimated a cost of $2.5 million for a public education campaign.  

Proponents’ Arguments 

Proponents of the initiative argue that Alaska’s top-four ranked-choice voting system is confusing, overly complicated, and undermines public trust in elections. As Trent England and Jason Snead, co-chairs of the Stop Ranked Choice Voting Coalition wrote in an opinion column for the Juneau Empire: “RCV creates new ways for voters to make mistakes and new questions about how to count ballots. At the same time, it makes elections overreliant on technology, reducing transparency and accountability.”

Proponents also cite the contested results from a 2022 special election for Alaska’s congressional district as evidence that Alaska’s top-four ranked-choice voting system is flawed. In that election, Mary Peltola (D) beat former Gov. Sarah Palin (R) and Nick Begich (R) in a three-way race. Begich was eliminated in the first round of vote tabulation because he received the fewest votes. Peltola won against Palin in the second round of vote tabulation after reallocating second-choice votes from voters who ranked Begich first. If Palin voters had instead ranked Begich as their first choice, he would have won in a one-to-one race against Peltola. In particular, critics point to 11,000 ballots that were disqualified in the second round because voters only indicated their top preference. Specifically, England and Snead argue that:  

During the state’s special at-large congressional election, nearly 15,000 Alaskans had their ballots thrown out. This included more than 11,000 tossed because voters selected only one candidate without ranking any others. When that candidate was eliminated, their votes were eliminated as well. 

Proponents of the repeal initiative argue that the ranked-choice system did not prevent the two Republican candidates from splitting the party’s vote, allowing Peltola to gain a majority. Palin, now a national spokesman for Alaskans for Honest Elections, has characterized ranked-choice voting as “the weirdest, most convoluted and most complicated voter suppression tool that Alaskans could have come up with.” 

Opponents’ Arguments 

Opponents of the repeal initiative generally argue that Alaska’s current top-four open primary system allows voters who are not members of a major political party to have a voice in taxpayer-funded elections. They suggest that open primaries require candidates to appeal to all voters, not just their own political party. Bryan Schroder, former U.S. attorney for the District of Alaska, has argued that: 

Alaska’s ranked choice voting system is good public policy. It gives a voice to the majority of Alaskans who are not at either end of the political extremes. It also allows for better candidates, qualified individuals who can take thoughtful, moderated positions that would not have allowed them to survive a primary vote in the last few years, in either political party. 

Opponents of the repeal initiative also argue that ranked-choice voting allows more opportunity for minor party candidates to compete. Chris Bye, a former Libertarian candidate for Alaska’s U.S. House district, argued that: 

Party-induced fear prevents many voters from researching other candidates…If we are looking for the best representative, we should not be shackled into choosing the lesser of two evils; we must look beyond fear and the gatekeepers of the political parties. We should grasp the opportunity that the open primary and ranked-choice voting provide for a better governance future. 

More generally, supporters of ranked-choice voting point to public polling that suggests the system is not confusing for voters. FairVote, an organization that advocates for ranked-choice voting, cited a 2022 poll of Alaska voters that found that “85% of Alaskans reported RCV to be ‘simple.’” FairVote also argued that voters who only rank their first choice may do so intentionally, not due to confusion. The same 2022 poll found that “[a] supermajority of voters (66%) ranked multiple candidates. Of the 33% of voters who only voted for one candidate, 75% reported the reason was ‘that was the only candidate I liked.’” 

Discussion 

While expanding voter choice and allowing non-partisan voters to play a more significant role in elections are laudable goals, it is not clear that open primaries and top-four election processes are a good means for achieving those goals. Political parties are fundamentally private organizations with the right to set their own rules for nominating candidates. To infringe on that right is to violate the freedom of association. No matter how large or powerful the two major parties may be, the government has no role in determining the process for their primary elections. That limitation does not prevent non-partisan voters from vocalizing their dissatisfaction with major-party nominees. Better alternatives for including non-partisan voters in the electoral process include allowing minor-party candidates to participate in debates and redrawing gerrymandered districts.  

Ranked-choice voting, on the other hand, is an effective alternative to plurality vote systems for offering voters more choices. Because ranked-choice voting reduces the risk of spoiler effects, it allows voters to cast votes for minor party candidates without fear of “wasting their vote.” There is some evidence that minor party candidates experience more support under ranked-choice voting than under plurality vote systems.  

However, ranked-choice voting––like any voting system––can produce suboptimal outcomes. One standard that mathematicians and political scientists use for evaluating voting systems is the “Condorcet winner criterion.” In voting systems that pass the Condorcet winner criterion, the winning candidate will always win in a one-on-one matchup against every other candidate. Neither ranked-choice voting nor Alaska’s current plurality vote system pass the Condorcet criterion, although data suggest that Condorcet winners are more likely under ranked-choice voting. According to FairVote, an organization that advocates for ranked-choice voting: 

Of the nearly 500 single-winner RCV elections in the United States since 2004 in which we have sufficient ballot data to assess whether the Condorcet winner won the election, all but two were won by the Condorcet winner. The two elections that did not elect the Condorcet candidate are the 2009 mayoral election in Burlington, Vermont and the 2022 special election for U.S. House in Alaska. 

Alaska’s 2022 special election was controversial because the Condorcet winner, Nick Begich, did not win. Competition for first-choice votes between Begich and Palin produced a “center-squeeze effect,” which can also occur under plurality voting systems. The particular circumstance of two Republicans running against one Democrat in the same general election was the product of Alaska’s top-four primary system, rather than ranked-choice voting. 

While critics have raised concerns that ranked-choice voting may be confusing for voters, research indicates that “ranked ballots do not raise the probability that a voter would cast a void (uncountable) vote, despite raising the probability of at least one violation of voting instructions.” Critics have particularly cited concerns about ballots that are “discarded” because they only indicate a first-choice vote for a candidate that was eliminated in a prior round of tabulation. Failure to rank second or third-choice candidates may be due to confusion, but polling of Alaska voters suggests that voters often intentionally choose to just rank their top choice. On average, about 7.5% of ballots cast in ranked-choice elections fall into this category. By comparison, about 40% of voters drop off between the first and second rounds of traditional runoff elections. Moreover, there is evidence that ranked-choice voting can result in higher voter turnout and increased engagement with political campaigns. 

In short, repealing Alaska’s top-four open primary system would restore the ability of political parties as private organizations to determine the methods for selecting party nominees. However, repealing ranked-choice voting and returning to a single-choice plurality wins vote system for general elections is unlikely to improve (and may even reduce) the representativeness of election outcomes.  

The post Alaska Ballot Measure 2 would repeal top-four ranked-choice voting appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Idaho Proposition 1 would change state primary elections from a closed system, in which only party members can vote in their respective parties’ primaries, to an open primary where anyone can vote for any party candidate. Candidates may indicate their party affiliation on the ballot, but they are not required to do so. 

The initiative would also change the process by which candidates advance from the primary to the general election. Currently, the candidate receiving the most votes in each party’s respective primary advances to the general election—one candidate represents each party. Under the initiative, the top four candidates overall would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. 

Finally, the initiative would establish rank-choice voting in the general election. Under rank-choice voting, voters rank their preferred candidates rather than selecting one candidate to receive their votes. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. That candidate’s votes are then redistributed based on voters’ ranked preferences. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority.

Fiscal Impact

The Idaho top-four ranked-choice voting initiative will likely have a negative fiscal impact, although the precise costs of implementation are unknown. Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane estimated that the cost of upgrading Idaho’s vote tabulation systems and equipment could range between $25 million and $40 million based on previous county purchases. Moreover, public education campaigns are likely necessary to inform voters of the ranked-choice voting process. Based on public education expenditures surrounding Alaska’s transition to ranked-choice voting, the Idaho Freedom Foundation estimates the cost in Idaho could be nearly $5 million. Switching to an open primary system may result in modest cost savings by eliminating the need print separate ballot styles for each party. 

Proponents’ Arguments

Supporters of open primary systems generally argue that closed primaries exclude the 270,000 Idaho voters who are not members of a major political party from participating in taxpayer-funded elections. Therefore, the outcome of primary elections is decided by a relatively small group of partisan voters. They suggest that open primaries would require candidates to appeal to all voters, not just members of their own political party.

According to Luke Mayville, co-founder of Reclaim Idaho:

The most widespread grievance with the current system is that independent voters feel like they don’t have a voice. Those who haven’t aligned themselves with a political party understand that they are being blocked from voting in the most important elections, and it’s very clear to them that is unfair. Beyond the independent voters, Democrats and Republicans and nearly everyone else sympathize with independent voters and want them to have a voice.

Opponent’s Arguments

Opponents of open primaries argue that political parties are private organizations and should be allowed to determine the process by which their candidates are selected. Building a coalition of like-minded voters and nominating candidates that align with their preferences are among the core functions of political parties. Partisan primaries are an important part of that function. In their view, open primaries would weaken the ability of parties to nominate the candidates that most clearly align with their members’ beliefs. Moreover, they argue that allowing members of the opposing party to participate in their primary process could create opportunities for sabotage. For example, Idaho Republican Party Chairwoman Dorothy Moon has argued that the Idaho top-four ranked-choice voting initiative would “essentially sideline political parties from the primary process, enabling Democrats, independents and even Socialists to determine your nominee for the general election.”

Opponents also argue that the Idaho top-four ranked-choice voting initiative would make voting too complicated and that voters could be confused by the new system. For example, Moon has also stated that: 

The American Republic has long been guided by the principle of one person, one vote. Ranked choice voting twists this system into something unrecognizable. The foundational premise of American elections is that both the winner and the loser must have confidence that the contest was completely above board. Ranked choice voting sows doubt and confusion, opens our elections up for fraud, and decreases trust in our electoral system.

Discussion

While expanding voter choice and allowing non-partisan voters to play a more significant role in elections are laudable goals, it is not clear that open primaries and top-four election processes are a good means for achieving those goals. Ranked-choice voting, on the other hand, is an effective strategy for offering voters more choices. Supporters of ranked-choice voting argue that it allows voters to choose their most preferred candidate first without worrying about wasted votes or spoiler effects. This would lend voters more choice. Supporters of the top-four component of the initiative further argue that allowing the top four candidates to proceed to the general election would provide voters with more choices.

Because ranked-choice voting alleviates concerns about wasted votes and spoiler effects, such ballots may lend more opportunity for minor party candidates. Moreover, there is evidence that ranked-choice voting can result in higher voter turnout and increased engagement with political campaigns. While critics have raised concerns that ranked-choice voting may be confusing for voters, research indicates that “ranked ballots do not raise the probability that a voter would cast a void (uncountable) vote, despite raising the probability of at least one violation of voting instructions.” 

Regarding open primaries, political parties are fundamentally private organizations with the right to set their own rules for nominating candidates. To infringe on that right is to violate the freedom of association. No matter how large or powerful the two major parties may be, the government has no role in determining the process for their primary elections. That limitation does not prevent non-partisan voters from vocalizing their dissatisfaction with major-party nominees. Better alternatives for including non-partisan voters in the electoral process include allowing minor-party candidates to participate in debates and redrawing gerrymandered districts. 

Overall, the Idaho top-four ranked-choice voting initiative has some laudable goals and contains some ideas worthy of consideration. However, mandating open primaries and a top-four system both conflict with other long-established goals of primary elections.

The post Idaho Proposition 1 would allow top-four ranked choice voting appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Nevada Question 3 would change state primary elections from a closed system in which only party members are allowed to vote in their respective parties’ primaries to a top-five open primary where anyone can vote for any one candidate of any party. 

The initiative would also change the process by which candidates from each primary advance to the general election. Currently, the candidates receiving the most votes in each party’s primary advance to the general election—one candidate represents each party. Under the initiative, the top five candidates overall would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation.  

The initiative would also establish rank-choice voting in the primaries and the general election. Under rank-choice voting, voters rank their preferred candidates rather than selecting one candidate to receive their votes. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. That candidate’s votes are then redistributed based on voters’ ranked preferences. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority. 

In Nevada, ballot initiatives must be approved in two successive general elections before taking effect. Question 3 was first approved in 2022, with 52.94% of votes in favor and 47.06% against. Therefore, it must be approved again on Nov. 5, 2024, to take effect.   

Fiscal Impact  

Nevada Question 3 will likely have a negative fiscal impact, although the precise costs of implementation are unknown. A fiscal analysis prepared by the Fiscal Analysis Division of Nevada’s Legislative Counsel Bureau estimated one-time state and local government costs of approximately $3.2 million prior to the November 2026 General Election. These one-time costs would relate to “voter outreach and education, increased ballot stock costs, personnel expenses, equipment, software and programming costs for voting machines, and updates to training materials.” The analysis also estimated ongoing implementation costs of $57,000 per fiscal year. Ongoing costs would include “the payment of license fees to the vendors supplying election software to each of Nevada’s seventeen counties.”  

Proponents’ Arguments For 

Proponents of Nevada Question 3 argue that voters should have more choices and that non-party-affiliated voters should have a voice in the primary process. As noted by the Institute for Political Innovation, more than 35 percent of Nevada voters are unable to vote in a primary because they are registered as independent or non-partisan, and “many more [feel] under-represented by their respective party.”  

Supporters of open primary systems generally argue that closed primaries result in polarization because, in closed primaries, candidates are competing for the vote of a partisan minority. Closed primary systems exclude voters who are not members of a major political party from participating in taxpayer-funded elections. The outcome of primary elections is, therefore, decided by a relatively small group of partisan voters. They suggest that open primaries could result in moderation because it would require candidates to appeal to all voters, not just members of their own political party. 

Supporters of ranked-choice voting argue that it allows voters to choose their most preferred candidate first without worrying about wasted votes or spoiler effects. This would lend voters more choice. Supporters of the top-five component of the initiative further argue that allowing the top-five candidates to proceed to the general election would provide voters with more choice. According to Sondra Cosgrove, professor of history at the College of Southern Nevada, “We don’t want just two people moving forward from the primary to the general election. We want five people, because oftentimes when you look at the people who move forward, it’s just the people with the most money.” 

Opponents’ Arguments Against 

Opponents of Nevada Question 3 argue that it would make voting too complicated and that voters could be confused by the new system. According to Emily Persaud-Zamora, executive director of Silver State Voices: 

Ranked choice voting makes casting a ballot more time-consuming, more complicated, and more confusing for voters … It will inevitably lead to increased errors. Ranked choice vote ballots are significantly more likely to be thrown out and uncounted because of those voters’ mistakes, ultimately disenfranchising more voters because of an overly complex and burdensome process. 

Opponents of Nevada Question 3 and open primaries also argue that political parties are private organizations and should be allowed to determine the process by which their candidates are selected. Building a coalition of like-minded voters and nominating candidates that align with their preferences are among the core functions of political parties. Partisan primaries are an important part of that function. In their view, open primaries would weaken the ability of parties to nominate the candidates that most clearly align with their members’ beliefs. Moreover, they argue that allowing members of the opposing party to participate in their primary process could create opportunities for sabotage. 

Discussion 

While expanding voter choice and allowing non-partisan voters to play a more significant role in elections are laudable goals, it is not clear that open primaries and top-five election processes are a good means for achieving those goals. Ranked-choice voting, on the other hand, is an effective strategy for offering voters more choices. Because ranked-choice voting alleviates concerns about wasted votes and spoiler effects, such ballots may lend more opportunity for minor party candidates. Moreover, there is evidence that ranked-choice voting can result in higher voter turnout and increased engagement with political campaigns. While critics have raised concerns that ranked-choice voting may be confusing for voters, research indicates that “ranked ballots do not raise the probability that a voter would cast a void (uncountable) vote, despite raising the probability of at least one violation of voting instructions.”  

Regarding open primaries, political parties are fundamentally private organizations with the right to set their own rules for nominating candidates. To infringe on that right is to violate the freedom of association. No matter how large or powerful the two major parties may be, the government has no role in determining the process for their primary elections. That limitation does not prevent non-partisan voters from vocalizing their dissatisfaction with major-party nominees. Better alternatives for including non-partisan voters in the electoral process include allowing minor-party candidates to participate in debates and redrawing gerrymandered districts.  

Overall, the Nevada top-five ranked choice voting initiative has some laudable goals and contains some ideas worthy of consideration. However, mandating open primaries and a top-five system both conflict with other long-established goals of primary elections. 

The post Nevada Question 3 would allow top-five ranked choice voting appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Nevada Question 7 is a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment that would require “Each voter in Nevada” to “present photo identification to verify their identity when voting in person at a polling place during early voting or on election day before being provided a ballot.”  

The amendment was qualified for the 2024 ballot in July 2024. As a proposed constitutional amendment, it would need to be approved by a majority of voters in successive elections. In other words, if the initiative is approved in 2024, it will need to be approved again in 2026 before taking effect. 

Fiscal Impact 

Legislative staff evaluated the prospective fiscal impact of the initiative in July 2024. Staff determined the initiative would require the secretary of state’s office to implement new systems for verifying voter identification and these changes would cost $6,750. 

Legislative staff also assumed that any “alternative form of voter identification will be provided to the voter at no cost, which means that the cost for these identification documents will be wholly borne by the State or by one or more local governments.” The initiative does not specify what these documents would look like or which agency would issue them, however, so staff concluded this cost “cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty.” 

Proponents’ Arguments 

Repair the Vote is a committee organized to sponsor the initiative. On its website, the organization says, “All people need to have confidence that those who vote are the duly registered residents of Nevada and that ballots are handled fairly and accurately…When voters lose faith in the process that drives elections, they also lose faith in the outcome and in the legitimacy of those declared the winners.”  

Repair the Vote points to a February 2023 poll of Nevada voters in which 74% of respondents indicated they favor a voter identification requirement, including 62% of Democrats, 68% of nonpartisans, and 93% of Republicans. The organization claims an initiative is required to make the change because the Nevada Legislature has never granted a hearing to a voter identification proposal. 

Opponents’ Arguments 

No formal entity has been formed to oppose the Nevada Voter Identification Initiative. However, opponents to voter identification laws typically claim these laws exclude eligible voters from being able to participate in elections. The Brennan Center for Justice, for instance, claims that 11% of eligible voters do not possess a valid form of photo identification and that this population is concentrated among seniors, minorities, students and people with disabilities. 

Discussion 

Nevada is currently one of 11 states that requires voters to present no form of identification, but voters do need to sign their names at their polling location or on their mail-in ballot. Following a change in law in 2020, a mail-in ballot is automatically sent to all voters, and these may either be remitted directly by a voter or collected by unregistered third parties and remitted to a secure drop box. Twenty-four states require voters to present photo identification to vote on election day and another 11 allow voters to provide other forms of identification. 

The Voter Identification Initiative would not impose a strict voter identification requirement, as it would allow a number of options. The photo identification can be: 

• a Nevada driver’s license; 

• any identification card issued by any state or the federal government; 

• any employee identification card issued by the federal government, the state of Nevada or any local government authority in Nevada; 

• a U.S. passport; 

• a military identification card; 

• any student identification card issued by a public college or university in Nevada; 

• any tribal identification card; 

• a Nevada concealed firearms permit; or 

• any other government-issued identification card that the legislature approves. 

A voter would need to submit one of these forms of photo identification that is either currently valid or expired for no more than four years. A voter aged 70 or older could present identification that has been expired for any length of time. 

The initiative would also require voters who cast mail-in ballots to verify their identity by providing the last four digits of either their Nevada driver’s license number or their Social Security number. If the voter does not have either of these numbers, they could verify a number provided to them by the county clerk when they register to vote. These identifiers are required on mail-in ballots in Minnesota, which the MIT Elections Performance Index ranks as the second best electoral framework in the nation. 

Polls indicate that voter identification laws are incredibly popular. In a 2022 national poll by Gallup, 79% of respondents favored a requirement for voters to provide photo identification prior to voting, including 97% of Republicans, 84% of independents and 53% of Democrats. Although these figures indicate some difference of opinion along party lines, Americans of different racial backgrounds tend to support voter identification requirements at similar rates. Among respondents to the Gallup poll, 77% of people of color support voter identification requirements while 80% of white respondents supported this policy. 

Critics of voter identification laws frequently point to a 2016 study that examined data between 2006 and 2014 and concluded that “strict identification laws have a differentially negative impact on the turnout of racial and ethnic minorities in primaries and general elections.” This effect was most pronounced among Hispanic voters, with Hispanic turnout declining 7.1% in general elections that have voter identification requirements. 

However, a peer review of the same data by Stanford researchers disputed these findings. In particular, the data source used for the original study was incomplete and unreliable and failed to control for other factors that might have influenced the data. The reviewers found that there was no clear effect of voter identification requirements on voter turnout once these issues were corrected. This conclusion is consistent with a meta-analysis (which analyzes the overall outcome of a large group of studies) of studies by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which shows that voter identification requirements have little to no impact on voter turnout. 

Given that even strict voter identification requirements do not have a significant effect on voter turnout, it’s also unlikely that these requirements would affect electoral outcomes one way or another. While proponents appear motivated to dissuade the potential for voter fraud and opponents are concerned about the effects on voter turnout, there is minimal evidence that voter identification accomplishes either. However, these laws are overwhelmingly popular and may serve to improve perceived voter confidence in the electoral process. 

The post Nevada Question 7 would require voter identification appeared first on Reason Foundation.

New York Proposal 1, the Equal Protection of Law Amendment, would add language to the New York Bill of Rights outlawing discrimination based on “ethnicity, national origin, age, and disability” or “sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” The current anti-discrimination clause in New York’s Bill of Rights prohibits the denial of rights based on “race, color, creed, or religion.” 

Fiscal Impact 

The state has not projected any fiscal impact from this amendment. 

Proponents’ Arguments 

Prominent New York Democrats support the amendment, including Governor Kathy Hochul, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and U.S. Representative Hakeem Jeffries. New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman believes that expanding the list of groups covered by state anti-discrimination laws, and enshrining those laws in the constitution, is important against the current polarized backdrop in national politics: 

While New York has a robust set of anti-discrimination statutes, our state Constitution is inadequate when it comes to ensuring equality. In November 2024, New Yorkers will be able to demand the lasting protections of a constitutional amendment that would prohibit discrimination against groups who have been historically targeted, including those with disabilities, LGBTQI+ individuals, people of color, immigrants, women, and pregnant people. With a Supreme Court empowered to roll back fundamental rights and protections that advance equality, it’s crucial that New York meets the moment by enshrining protections against discrimination in our state Constitution. 

At the heart of supporters’ arguments for the amendment is the protection of abortion rights in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Clinic decision in 2002. Abortion is currently legal in New York until fetal viability, with few expecting any efforts at further state-level restrictions any time soon. Still, supporters of the amendment believe they can provide an extra robust layer of protection for abortion rights by barring discrimination based on “pregnancy outcomes” and “reproductive health” in the state constitution. 

“It’s not the prohibition itself that makes it discrimination, it’s the fact that the Legislature would be forbidding abortion but not other kinds of health care, which amounts to health care discrimination,” explained Cornell law Professor Michael C. Dorf. “The idea is that you’re singling out one form of reproductive health care and not other kinds of health care.” 

Opponents’ Arguments 

The Coalition to Protect Kids-NY is leading the campaign against the amendment, with the New York Catholic Conference and several Republican state legislators also speaking out in opposition. 

Like the amendment’s supporters, some critics have focused on the anti-discrimination measure’s potential impact on abortion rights. “It’s very vague, it’s very broad,” said state Senator George Borello. “In the end, my biggest concern is it will codify late-term abortions into the New York state constitution.” 

Opponents have also criticized the long and broad list of protected groups in the amendment. “Democrats are selling this ‘Equal Rights Amendment’ as protecting abortion rights, which are in no way under threat in New York and aren’t really what it’s about anyway,” wrote The New York Post in an Aug. 11, 2024 editorial. “It’s without question the greatest bait-and-switch in Empire State history.” 

The Post worries that the amendment could result in, “stripping parents of their rights over allowing minors to go on puberty blockers and undergo transgender surgery.” Others have alleged that the amendment would allow transgender athletes to play on girls’ and womans’ sports teams in the state’s high school and college athletics programs. 

Discussion 

New York joins a growing number of states that have sought to protect abortion rights through ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments after the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Abortion rights advocates in New York, however, have chosen a virtually unique approach.  

Other state amendments already passed or on the ballot in 2024 directly prohibit future legislative restrictions on abortion, or provide a specific framework for regulation of abortion. Based on the experience of other solidly blue states California, Vermont, and Maryland, New York voters likely would have passed an amendment virtually guaranteeing abortion rights. 

Instead, the authors of New York’s proposed amendment seek to expand in scope and constitutional protection the state’s anti-discrimination laws. New categories of discrimination the amendment would ban include, but are not limited to, “pregnancy outcomes” and “reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” Unlike direct and clearly-worded amendments on the ballot in states like Maryland, the mechanisms through which the amendment would protect abortion rights would presumably be left to the courts. 

Abortion in New York is already legal until viability (24 to 26 weeks), and unlikely to be restricted further in the state any time soon. The proposed amendment’s fate will not immediately impact New York’s abortion laws, nor its already “robust” anti-discrimination laws. The amendment’s primary appeal appears to lie in the extra layer of constitutional protection, along with the political statement many voters wish to make during this divisive period. 

The impact of the inclusion of other groups newly protected under anti-discrimination laws is also uncertain. But claims made by amendment opponents, such as those on gender issues quoted above, are highly dubious and based on vague legal hypotheticals reverse-engineered to scare voters. 

Whether or not voters approve New York’s Equal Protection of Law Amendment, the state will almost certainly remain at the center of political and legal controversy over abortion rights for years to come. 

The post New York Proposal 1 would update the New York Bill of Rights’ anti-discrimination language appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Oregon Measure 117 would establish a rank-choice voting system in general elections for non-legislative offices, including the president, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state treasurer, and commissioner of labor and industries.  

Currently, federal and state general elections in Oregon follow a plurality vote system, wherein the candidate receiving the most votes, but not necessarily a majority is determined the winner through a single round of voting.  

Under rank-choice voting, voters rank their preferred candidates rather than selecting one candidate to receive their votes. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. That candidate’s votes are then redistributed based on voters’ ranked preferences. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority of the votes. This iterative process of elimination and reallocation of ranked votes is sometimes referred to as an “instant runoff.” 

Cities, counties, school districts, other local governments, and local districts would be authorized to use ranked-choice voting for local elections unless home rule charters preempt it. Elections for state legislative offices would continue to follow the current plurality voting system.  

Fiscal Impact 

The Oregon ranked-choice voting for federal and state elections measure will likely have a negative fiscal impact, although the precise costs of implementation are unknown. Oregon’s Financial Estimate Committee produced the state’s official fiscal impact analysis for the measure. According to the committee’s analysis, the measure is estimated to cost the state government $0.9 million from 2023 to 2025 due to additional staffing and consulting services needed for implementation. From 2025 to 2027, state government costs will increase to $5.6 million and include costs for public outreach and IT needs. Additionally, the County Clerks estimate $2.3 million in initial expenditures by local governments to improve technology, train staff, and test the new system. Local governments will also face ongoing costs, including $1.8 million for printing and logistics in every statewide election. Software and maintenance contracts are estimated to cost local governments $0.4 million annually.  

Proponents’ Arguments 

Measure 117 was referred to the ballot by the Oregon State Legislature and the campaign in support of the measure is directed by Oregon Ranked Choice Voting Advocates. Supporters argue that ranked-choice voting is more representative of voter preferences than plurality systems because candidates must secure support from a majority of voters to win. As Oregon House Speaker Dan Rayfield (D-16) stated: 

Ranked choice voting will give voters more choice, encourage voter engagement, and strengthen our democracy by improving peoples’ perception of elections and election outcomes. House Bill 2004 would make sure people in power are elected by a true 50% majority. 

Supporters also argue that ranked-choice voting gives voters more choice because they don’t need to worry about spoiler effects from minor party candidates. In written testimony, Emily Hawley with the American Civil Liberties Union––Oregon argued that “[b]y mitigating concerns of “splitting the vote,” ranked choice voting allows a broader—and more representative—range of candidates and, ultimately, elected officials.”  

Opponents’ Arguments 

Opponents of the measure argue that ranked-choice voting would make elections too complicated and that voters could be confused by the new system. For example, State Rep. E. Werner Reschke (R-55) argued:  

Today, too many Oregonians are intimidated by the length of their ballot and do not understand the meaning of all the races and ballot measures. Why would we want to make the ballot even longer and more complicated with more choices? Ranked Choice voting could very well discourage voting because ballots could end up being multiple pages long. 

The Oregon Association of County Clerks raised objections to the measure, citing the logistical complexity and fiscal impact of implementing a ranked-choice voting system. In written testimony opposing the legislature’s referral of the measure, the Association cited the following reasons for its position:  

• RCV makes for a more complicated primary. 

• Reconciling RCV between multiple counties is complicated and will remove final tallying from county election officials. 

• The difficult task placed on Election Officials seeking to reconcile the number of ballots accepted and tallied when multiple ballot pages/sheets are sent to each voter (many voters only return the ballot pages with the contests that are of interest to them). 

• There are substantial costs involved with implementing RCV. 

• Current public confidence in elections is low, and the complications involved with RCV have the potential to fuel conspiracy theories and allegations related to a lack of transparency.  

Finally, opponents of the measure have cited the contested results from a 2022 special election for Alaska’s congressional district. In that election, Mary Peltola (D) beat former Gov. Sarah Palin (R) and Nick Begich (R) in a three-way race. Beglich was eliminated in the first round of vote tabulation because he received the fewest votes. Peltola won against Palin in the second round of vote tabulation after reallocating 2^nd choice votes from voters who ranked Beglich first. If Palin voters had instead ranked Beglich as their first choice, he likely would have won in a one-to-one race against Peltola. Critics, therefore, argue that ranked-choice voting did not prevent the two Republican candidates from splitting the party’s vote, allowing Peltola to gain a majority. In particular, critics point to 11,000 ballots that were disqualified in the second round because voters only indicated their top preference. As Sara Wolk, executive director of the Equal Vote Coalition, argued:  

[D]espite claims that the problem had been solved, the election was spoiled by Sarah Palin, flipping the seat blue rather than electing the moderate Republican who was preferred over all others according to the ballots cast. For Palin voters, ranking her 1st choice actually backfired and ironically helped elect their last choice instead. In Oregon a similar spoiler effect scenario could easily flip a seat from Blue to Red. 

Discussion 

Ranked-choice voting is an effective alternative to plurality vote systems for offering voters more choices. Because ranked-choice voting reduces the risk of spoiler effects, it allows voters to cast votes for minor party candidates without fear of “wasting their vote.” There is some evidence that minor party candidates experience more support under ranked-choice voting than under plurality vote systems. However, ranked-choice voting––like any voting system––can produce suboptimal outcomes. One standard that mathematicians and political scientists use for evaluating voting systems is the “Condorcet winner criterion.” In voting systems that pass the Condorcet winner criterion, the winning candidate will always win in a one-on-one matchup against every other candidate. Neither ranked choice voting nor Oregon’s current plurality vote system passes the Condorcet criterion, although data suggest that Condorcet winners are more likely under ranked-choice voting. According to FairVote, an organization that advocates for ranked-choice voting: 

Of the nearly 500 single-winner RCV elections in the United States since 2004 in which we have sufficient ballot data to assess whether the Condorcet winner won the election, all but two were won by the Condorcet winner. The two elections that did not elect the Condorcet candidate are the 2009 mayoral election in Burlington, Vermont and the 2022 special election for U.S. House in Alaska. 

Alaska’s 2022 special election was controversial because the Condorcet winner, Nick Begich, did not win. Competition for first-choice votes between Begich and Palin produced a “center-squeeze effect,” which can also occur under plurality voting systems. The particular circumstance of two Republicans running against one Democrat in the same general election was the product of Alaska’s top-four primary system rather than ranked-choice voting. Unlike many other ranked-choice voting proposals across the country, the Oregon measure under consideration on the Nov. 2024 ballot would not establish a top-four open primary system.  

While critics have raised concerns that ranked-choice voting may be confusing for voters, research indicates that “ranked ballots do not raise the probability that a voter would cast a void (uncountable) vote, despite raising the probability of at least one violation of voting instructions.” Critics have particularly cited concerns about ballots that are “discarded” because they only indicate a first-choice vote for a candidate that was eliminated in a prior round of tabulation. Failure to rank 2^nd or 3^rd choice candidates may be due to voter confusion, but supporters of the measure suggest “[t]his can be an active choice, meaning voters who don’t rank multiple candidates aren’t necessarily lacking understanding.” On average, about 7.5% of ballots cast in ranked-choice elections fall into this category. By comparison, about 40% of voters drop off between the first and second rounds of traditional runoff elections. Moreover, there is evidence that ranked-choice voting can result in higher voter turnout and increased engagement with political campaigns. 

The post Oregon Measure 117 would allow for ranked-choice voting in federal and state elections appeared first on Reason Foundation.

This proposed amendment on Georgia’s November 2022 ballot would adjust the state constitution to allow for the suspension of certain public officials’ compensation while the individual is suspended from office for being indicted for a felony. An official who is reinstated to their previous position would receive all pay and benefits that were withheld.

Currently, a public official must be convicted before that suspension of the compensation would take place. This amendment would only apply to the following public positions: 

• Any member of the General Assembly;
• Governor;
• Lieutenant Governor;
• Secretary of State;
• Attorney General;
• State School Superintendent;
• Commissioner of Insurance;
• Commissioner of Agriculture; or
• Commissioner of Labor

Fiscal Impact

This amendment has no immediate fiscal impact on state taxpayers.

Proponents’ Arguments

Proponents argue that public officials should be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, and should not be paid if they are not currently doing their jobs. They also argue that taxpayers’ funds being used to pay for these suspended public officials could be used to hire public workers in other needed fields. 

Opponents’ Arguments

There is no formal opposition to this amendment. The proposed amendment was placed on the ballot by the state legislature with a vote of 51-1 in the State Senate and 169-0 in the House. 

Discussion

This amendment was introduced as a response to former Georgia Insurance Commissioner Jim Beck receiving $343,000 during the period between his suspension from office and his conviction on numerous fraud charges.

All 50 states will suspend the compensation of public officials if they are convicted of a crime related to their duties. Few, if any, states will withhold that compensation before the official is convicted, but there has been a similar proposal in Michigan to do so. Georgia is also one of 30 states that allow for either the garnishment or forfeiture of public employees’ earned retirement benefits if they are convicted of crimes related to their public duties. 

The principle behind this garnishment/forfeiture policy is that taxpayers should not be paying for a corrupt public official’s salary and benefits. This amendment does track with that principle by suspending the official’s compensation until they are cleared of wrongdoing, and in cases where a formal indictment and trial take years to reach a conclusion, could save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

However, this amendment goes against the “presumption of innocence” principle, whose legal basis is typically argued for under the 5^th, 6^th, and 14^th Amendments. Suspending an official’s salary, before they are convicted of a crime, could harm their ability to mount a defense against the charges brought upon them and cause them and their family to suffer while guilt is not yet proven. Removing an official’s livelihood before any crime has been proven to have taken place is a potentially dangerous action in a hyper-politicized environment. 

The post Georgia amendment (2022) to suspend compensation for public officials indicted for a felony appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The Nevada top-five ranked choice voting initiative, Nevada Question 3 on the Nov. 2022 ballot, would change state primary elections from a closed system in which only party members are allowed to vote in their respective parties’ primaries to a top-two open primary where anyone can vote for any candidate of any party.

The initiative would also change the process by which candidates from each primary advance to the general election. Currently, the candidates receiving the most votes in each party’s primary advance to the general election—one candidate represents each party. Under the initiative, the top five candidates overall would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. 

The initiative would also establish rank-choice voting in the primaries and the general election. Under rank-choice voting, voters rank their preferred candidates rather than selecting one candidate to receive their votes. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. That candidate’s votes are then redistributed based on voters’ ranked preferences. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority.

Proponents’ Arguments For

Proponents of Nevada Question 3 argue that voters should have more choices and that non-party-affiliated voters should have a voice in the primary process. As noted by the Institute for Political Innovation, more than 35 percent of Nevada voters are unable to vote in a primary because they are registered as independent or non-partisan, and “many more [feel] under-represented by their respective party.” 

Supporters of open primary systems generally argue that closed primaries result in polarization because, in closed primaries, candidates are competing for the vote of a partisan minority. Closed primary systems exclude voters who are not members of a major political party from participating in taxpayer-funded elections. The outcome of primary elections is therefore decided by a relatively small group of partisan voters. They suggest that open primaries could result in moderation because it would require candidates to appeal to all voters, not just members of their own political party.

Supporters of ranked-choice voting argue that it allows voters to choose their most-preferred candidate first without worrying about wasted votes or spoiler effects. This would lend voters more choice.  Supporters of the top-five component of the initiative further argue that allowing the top-five candidates to proceed to the general election would provide voters with more choice. According to Sondra Cosgrove, professor of history at the College of Southern Nevada, “We don’t want just two people moving forward from the primary to the general election. We want five people, because oftentimes when you look at the people who move forward, it’s just the people with the most money.”

Opponent’s Arguments Against

Opponents of Nevada Question 3 argue that it would make voting too complicated and that voters could be confused by the new system. According to Emily Persaud-Zamora, executive director of Silver State Voices:

Ranked choice voting makes casting a ballot more time-consuming, more complicated, and more confusing for voters … It will inevitably lead to increased errors. Ranked choice vote ballots are significantly more likely to be thrown out and uncounted because of those voters’ mistakes, ultimately disenfranchising more voters because of an overly complex and burdensome process.

Opponents of Nevada Question 3 and open primaries also argue that political parties are private organizations and should be allowed to determine the process by which their candidates are selected. Building a coalition of like-minded voters and nominating candidates that align with their preferences are among the core functions of political parties. Partisan primaries are an important part of that function. In their view, open primaries would weaken the ability of parties to nominate the candidates that most clearly align with their members’ beliefs. Moreover, they argue that allowing members of the opposing party to participate in their primary process could create opportunities for sabotage.

Discussion 

While expanding voter choice and allowing non-partisan voters to play a more significant role in elections are laudable goals, it is not clear that open primaries and top-five election processes are a good means for achieving those goals. Ranked choice voting, on the other hand, is an effective strategy for offering voters more choices. Because ranked-choice voting alleviates concerns about wasted votes and spoiler effects, such ballots also lend more opportunity for minor party candidates. 

Regarding open primaries, political parties are fundamentally private organizations with the right to set their own rules for nominating candidates. To infringe on that right is to violate the freedom of association. No matter how large or powerful the two major parties may be, the government has no role in determining the process for their primary elections. That limitation does not prevent non-partisan voters from vocalizing their dissatisfaction with major-party nominees. Better alternatives for including non-partisan voters in the electoral process include allowing minor-party candidates to participate in debates and redrawing gerrymandered districts. 

Overall, the Nevada Top-Five Ranked Choice Voting Initiative has some laudable goals and contains some ideas worthy of consideration. However, mandating open primaries and a top-five system both conflict with other long-established goals of primary elections.

The post Nevada Question 3 (2022): Top-five ranked choice voting initiative appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Montana’s C-48 would amend the Montana State Constitution to explicitly protect electronic data and communications from unreasonable search and seizure. In effect, the amendment would require law enforcement to obtain a search warrant in order to conduct searches of electronic data or communications. Montana’s C-48 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, meaning that the Montana State Legislature voted to put the initiative before Montana voters. 

Proponents’ Arguments For

Proponents of C-48 argue that the amendment is necessary to modernize Montana’s laws regarding law enforcement searches and seizures of personal property. The Montana State Constitution currently protects “persons, papers, homes, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures.” 

As digital technology has evolved, it has come to be the home for a lot of our personal and private information, replacing paper documents stored in file drawers or safes. Supporters argue that the government should have to meet the same standards and processes for accessing personal information in digital form as the constitution set out for similar information when it only existed in hard copy. 

As State Sen. Ken Bogner argued when the legislature was voting, the amendment: 

Senate Bill 203 is about updating Montana’s Constitution to reflect life in the 21st Century and make it explicitly clear that our digital information is protected from unreasonable government searches and seizures. Today, so much of our private lives—financial information, communication with family and friends, medical information, and much, much more—is contained on and transferred electronically among many devices and computer systems. The government should need a warrant before accessing or gathering Montanans electronic data or communications.

Opponents’ Arguments Against 

There is no officially published opposition to the amendment. However, some law enforcement officials have expressed concerns. Mark Murphy, representing the Montana Association of Chiefs of Police, said the group’s position on the amendment is “soft opposition.” Murphy said, “What I see in this change is a fairly large opportunity for unintended consequences.” 

Brian Thompson of the Montana County Attorneys Association has stated that the amendment would have little practical effect. According to Thompson, current law already protects electronic communications from unreasonable searches and seizures, but he added that clarification is welcome.

Additional Discussion 

Outside of a few notable exceptions, courts in the United States have tended to require warrants for any search of digital content. The legal question around digital data was generated in part when police began using GPS devices to track locations without warrants. And a seminal case, Riley v. California, questioned whether the entire contents of unlocked cell phones were allowed to be searched during the course of an arrest, as police are legally allowed to search the immediate contents of the person during an arrest. The courts have struck down both of these practices as unconstitutional and ruled that police need a warrant to search devices containing digital content because they contain much information that may or may not be relevant to the activity at hand.

Warrants for digital information have become the norm. But there have been court cases as recently as 2018 in which location tracking without a warrant was ruled unconstitutional, exposing the fact that these practices may still occur despite claims to the contrary.

As web technology develops and people routinely share information with third-party providers, the question becomes whether that data is public and, if it is not, how a warrant should be written and executed. Police argue, in particular, that location data should be public, claiming it is the “network equivalent of public observation” which is not protected by warrant. Similar questions may arise around social media and other forms of data.

Should the warrant be written to obtain all of the information, then filtered and sorted by the prosecution manually despite the extensive manpower required? Do digital searches for keywords represent the completion of the search? Should the police search the hardware such as servers and computers, which opens up possibilities of “in plain sight” expansion of their interest? Or should third-party providers with a narrow mandate, and no obligation to report other information they might see, prepare data, and then send files to the police? Does a warrant to search a house include all of the devices in the home or how specific does a warrant in the digital realm need to be? Does clicking on a police-generated URL advertising illegal activity justify a warrant?

These questions and others will have to be continually considered by courts and legislators. What is certain is that police will continually push to have access to more data. Given the importance of privacy, it is preferable to err on the side of protecting individuals’ privacy from searches and using practice in the real world to work out what very limited exceptions may be constitutional.

The post Montana C-48 (2022): Search warrant for electronic data amendment appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Main Articles:

• Election Issues: Reason Foundation’s Voters’ Guides to 2020 Ballot Initiatives
• Budgeting: The Federal Government’s Deep Deficit Dilemmas
• Water and Environment: Private Sector’s Role in Water Systems, Subprime “Green” Bonds, and Solutions to Florida’s Blue-Green Algae Problem

News & Notes

• State Government: Boston Extends Commuter Rail Contract, Puerto Rico Finalizes Energy Deal
• Corrections: New Study Highlights Incarceration’s Lost Income, Private Prisons Face Lawsuits,  Idaho Enters, Oklahoma Ends, and Vermont Extends Private Contracts
• Local Government: Seattle Cruise Terminal Cancels P3, Miami-area Water Contracts End, NJ and Texas Locales Finalize Water/Wastewater P3s, Wichita Outsources Art Center Management
• Federal Government: Department of Energy P3s Reach Milestones, Joint Base Selects Water Deal Partner

MAIN ARTICLES

Reason Foundation Releases 2020 Ballot Initiatives Guide

Reason Foundation’s Voters’ Guides to the 2020 ballot initiatives examine a wide variety of issues on ballots across the country. Highlighting and dissecting over 40 ballot initiatives, Reason’s policy experts aim to decipher the initiative language and critical issues that voters in California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and many other states are considering on policy issues ranging from budgeting to criminal justice reform to drug policy to individual freedom. Reason’s 2020 Voters’ Guide tries to strip out the political noise and highlight the best existing research to analyze each initiative, providing voters with the real-world pros and cons and potential impacts of these initiatives.

Massive Federal Government Deficits Require Structural Reforms 

“The federal budget deficit hit an all-time high of $3.1 trillion in the 2020 budget year,” the Associated Press recently reported. The COVID-19 pandemic and recession have thrown fuel on the massive fires that Congress has normalized over the past century, with annual federal deficits nearing $1 trillion regularly. In a recent article, Reason Foundation’s Marc Joffe and Austill Stuart explore why any fiscally-sustainable solution to the federal government’s deficit spending will require significant structural reforms that effectively challenge norms developed over decades. Since many state and local governments face their own budget deficits and expect at least some federal help with the pandemic, the task becomes even more difficult. A recent report from the National Academy of Public Administrators provided some key insights for tackling both the deficits created by federal budget practices and the deferred maintenance problems facing so much of the nation’s critical infrastructure.

Beware of Subprime “Green Bonds”

Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) loans, which rely on property tax assessments for their viability, have become increasingly common in recent years for financing home energy efficiency improvements. Financial companies then package PACE loan portfolios into securities. Unfortunately, consumers often agree to such loans with limited understanding of the arrangements they are entering into, increasing borrower default risk. In a new commentary, Reason Foundation’s Marc Joffe explores some of the potential problems that may arise from an improper risk assessment of these types of green bonds.

Banning Water Privatization Makes Affordable Municipal Water More Difficult

Movements all over the world aim to solve the problems of access to clean water and sanitation by declaring that those are two “rights” and demanding governments provide them to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. In addition to calling for governments to step up to the challenges of managing good water systems that are affordable, reliable, and safe, many groups are also trying to insist that governments do all of the above without the private sector. In a new piece, Reason Foundation’s Austill Stuart explains why banning private management of municipal water and related systems further complicate the already difficult effort to achieve the balance of affordability and reliability, increasing costs over the long term. 

Tackling Florida’s Blue-Green Algae Bloom Problem

Long under-studied, the negative effects of blue-green algal blooms are starting to become clearer to researchers, with the Florida peninsula serving as especially vulnerable to its negative effects on wildlife, erosion, and public health. In a policy brief, Reason Foundation’s Vittorio Nastasi explores how Florida can better manage its blue-green algae problem and its numerous negative effects.

NEWS & NOTES

STATE GOVERNMENT

MBTA Extends Commuter Rail Contract: This summer, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) announced a four-year extension to its contract with Keolis to manage and operate the transit agency’s commuter rail lines. The original eight-year, $2.7 billion contract dates back to 2014 and now will be extended to 2026, with an option to leave the contract after 2025. The agency estimates the four-year extension will cost $173.4 million, not including an assumed $100 million per year (minimum) in capital expenditures over the term. The contract also builds off of its established performance-based structure and includes financial penalties and rewards for customer satisfaction, staffing levels, and timely performance, with a fixed-price base.

Puerto Rico Signs Electricity Transmission and Distribution Contract, Launches Legacy Assets Project: The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) signed a 15-year agreement with LUMA Energy—a joint venture of ATCO Ltd., Quanta Services, and Innovative Energy Management—to manage and operate the electric authority’s transmission and distribution assets, leaving generation in the utility’s hands. According to LUMA’s estimates, the estimated $1.5 billion deal could generate $323 million in savings over the first half of the contract. In a September article in the Puerto Rico-based The Weekly Journal, Puerto Rico Financial Oversight & Management Board Executive Director Natalie Jaresko defended the deal’s performance-based focus, with a full award “paid because it does well—if not, they don’t get the same pay.”

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Port of Seattle Cancels Cruise Terminal P3: The Port of Seattle (PS) canceled a request for proposals that aimed to find a private partner to build and operate a new cruise terminal for the port, an estimated $200 million public-private partnership (P3). The Port of Seattle previously issued an RFP in August 2019 for the project, shortlisting four proponents in February of this year for a revised RFP. Officials cited the COVID-19 pandemic as playing a major role in the cancellation while suggesting the project might be revisited at some point in the future. “Our current focus remains on public health…The last two decades of growth indicate that there is durable demand for Seattle cruises. When we can, we will convert that demand into more business opportunities and jobs for our region,” remarked Port of Seattle Executive Director Steve Metruck. 

Camden, NJ, Signs Contract to Rehab Combined Sewer Regulators: The city of Camden, New Jersey signed a $5.1 million contract with American Water to rehabilitate 28 combined sewer regulators. For combined (wastewater/stormwater) sewer systems, regulators serve to divert excess stormwater so wastewater treatment plants don’t get overwhelmed by inflows as well as combined sewer overflows where untreated wastewater mixed with stormwater gets discharged into waterways.

North Miami Beach Exits Water Service Contract: In August, the city of North Miami Beach ended its water outsourcing contract, a $190 million 10-year deal originally signed in 2017, with Jacobs Engineering (formerly CH2M Hill) in a 5-2 vote. While opponents of the contract were pleased with the decision after a three-year fight to end the contract, city staff recommended, rather than ending it, to pare the contract down to just operations and maintenance, with the city retaining control of customer service. The city manager and other officials are worried about the transition back to in-house operations, including staffing obligations that must be met within six months: “You could be … simply setting up this process for failure without additional support from Jacobs,” City Attorney Dan Espino noted, noting filling needed positions could take “upwards of a year.”

Texas Town Selects Partner for Desalination Deal: The town of Alice, Texas, announced it had chosen Seven Seas Water (acquired in March by Morgan Stanley) as a partner for its design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) desalination plant project. When operational, the brackish water reverse osmosis plant will allow a lower-cost supply for the city’s residents compared to relying on neighboring Corpus Christi in a separate contractual arrangement.

Wichita Votes to Outsource Management of Art Center: The Wichita (KS) City Council approved a new budget that includes outsourcing management of the city’s Century II Performing Arts & Convention Center, a deal on which the city hopes to save $5.7 million over the next 30 months. Wichita hopes to release an RFP for the contract after this year.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Pair of U.S. Department of Energy Partnerships Reach Milestones: Two U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) partnerships reached milestones in late summer 2020. In early September, DoE selected Albermarle as its private partner for lithium research projects, one based at DoE’s Argonne National Laboratory to streamline the process for creating lithium-based batteries, and the second at DoE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, a project that aims to commercialize new high-energy cathodes that extend battery life for electric vehicles, through the use of lithium salts.

In August, DoE and Microsoft announced a partnership to develop AI tools to improve disaster response. The two will lead a group deemed the “First Five Consortium” (referring to the first five minutes following a natural disaster), where DoE will develop and test technologies, while Microsoft will provide data storage, software, and other technological capabilities. Systems currently in development include better tools to track and predict the effects of wildfires and floods.

Washington State Joint Base Selects Water Contract Partner: In September, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) selected American Water as its partner to own, operate, and maintain the combined water and wastewater systems for the Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state. It is a 50-year contract estimated at around $770 million.

CORRECTIONS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Brennan Center Report Highlights Economic Impact, Lost Income from Incarceration: The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University released a report that provides estimates of an under-studied effect of prison time: income lost from incarceration and criminal convictions. The authors estimate income losses of people touched by the criminal justice system to be $372 billion a year, with the report finding: “People who have spent time in prison suffer the greatest losses, with their subsequent annual earnings reduced by an average of 52 percent. People convicted of a felony but not imprisoned for it see their annual earnings reduced by an average of 22 percent. People convicted of a misdemeanor see their annual earnings reduced by an average of 16 percent.” The study also finds, “People who were imprisoned early in their lives earn
about half as much annually as socioeconomically similar people untouched by the criminal justice system.”

Judge Upholds Most of California Private Prison Lawsuit: A federal judge issued a tentative ruling in July that mostly confirms California’s plan to phase out and ban privately-operated prisons and immigrant detention centers in the state, codified by Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which became law at the beginning of the year. The federal government and GEO Group, in bringing suits against the state, claimed the state cannot intervene in the management of federal corrections facilities. U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino ruled that the state’s actions do not constitute such an infringement, citing an unsuccessful federal challenge to the state’s “sanctuary” law, AB 54. The ban potentially affects over 11,000 beds in 10 private prison facilities in the state, seven of which are managed by GEO Group.

Arizona Corrections Faces Lawsuit Over Private Prison Use: Five inmates and the Arizona Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed suit against the state of Arizona’s Department of Corrections and Management and Training Corporation (MTC) over the state’s use of private prisons, alleging that contracting out corrections to private companies violates the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment protections against “cruel and unusual punishment.” A spokesman for Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey and representatives from private corrections firms claimed the suit is baseless, citing the re-entry programming and educational services provided in private corrections facilities.

Idaho Enters Contract to Send Inmates to Arizona Private Prison: In August, the Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC) announced it had agreed to enter a contract with CoreCivic to send Idaho inmates to the Saguaro Correctional Center west of Phoenix. The move will result in IDOC transferring inmates from a privately run facility in Texas to the Arizona prison, which allows for roughly twice the available inmate capacity (620 vs 1,200) as under the previous arrangement. The IDOC cites the availability of educational and vocational training opportunities as additional factors in the move.

Oklahoma Ends Private Prison Contract: The Oklahoma Department of Corrections, citing a $24.4 million budget crunch, announced it was ending its contract with CoreCivic to house inmates at the 1,650-inmate Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing, which the company has owned and operated since 1997. While the Department of Corrections was open to housing a reduced number of inmates in a reduced contract, the company elected to close the facility instead.

Vermont Extends Mississippi Private Prison Contract: The Vermont Department of Corrections announced in October that it would exercise a one-year extension on a contract to house 225 inmates in the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility in Mississippi, run by CoreCivic. Signed in 2018, the original contract initiated the move of inmates from a state-run corrections facility in Pennsylvania and allowed for the year-long extension, which comes in the wake of many of the Vermont inmates in Tallahatchie contracting the COVID-19 virus (from which they all have recovered). Looking forward, the VDOC plans to eventually eliminate all contracts to send inmates out of state within the next two years.

QUOTABLE QUOTES

“Our main goals are to provide continuity and the best possible service for our Commuter Rail customers, as well as provide adequate time to plan for a future transformational procurement. With this extension in place, we look forward to continuing this partnership with Keolis…This extension includes a number of additional benefits for riders, including further incentives for on-time performance, measures to address fare evasion, and flexibility and cost certainty in a challenging market.”

— Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority General Manager Steve Poftak, quoted in a press release announcing the agency’s commuter rail contract extension with Keolis

“This public-private partnership places Puerto Rico on the path to achieving the reliable and resilient infrastructure that will give the people of Puerto Rico the peace of mind they deserve. For decades, our electric power system has undergone countless changes and challenges that have affected its operation and the delivery of service to its customers. These challenges were compounded by the impact of Hurricanes Irma and María and the recent earthquakes. The Puerto Rico Public-Private Partnerships Authority is extremely pleased with the selection of LUMA as the company that will lead the historic transformation of the Island’s electrical system.”

— Fermín Fontanés, executive director of the Puerto Rico Public-Private Partnerships Authority, in a press release noting the approval PREPA’s new 15-year contract to manage and upgrade its power grid. 

“We understand from previous studies done by the city of Alice (our cost) is a lower cost than the cost of buying rural water from Corpus Christi and treating it.”

— Richard Whiting, vice president of Seven Seas Water, quoted in the Corpus Christie Caller announcing the selection of the company as partner for its desalination plant project

The post Privatization and Government Reform Newsletter: 2020 Voters’ Guides, Federal Deficits, and More appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Summary

Under current California law, you must be 18 to vote. Proposition 18 (2020) would allow resident citizens who are not yet 18 at the time of a primary (usually June) but will be 18 when the general election occurs (in November) to vote in the primary, or any special election that occurs in the run-up to that general election, while still 17-years-old. 

Fiscal Impact

This ballot measure would likely require expenditures between several hundreds of thousands of dollars and $1 million every two years by counties to send and process voting materials to eligible registered 17-year-olds. In addition, there would be one-time costs to the state in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to update existing voter registration systems.

Proponents’ Argument For

There is no formal campaign in favor of Prop. 18.  Statements in favor of it emphasize that voting in a general election without having been able to choose the candidate of your party doesn’t engage new young voters in the democratic process as it should. Many races are basically decided in the primary because a particular race or district may not be competitive, so young people’s votes are devalued if they cannot also participate in the primary election. Eighteen other states and the District of Columbia have the same rules for voting that Prop. 18 would create for California. 

Opponents’ Argument Against

There is no formal campaign against Prop. 18. Critics of it have claimed that 17-year-olds are still children and are likely to be ill-informed about issues and not fully able to engage with tough election choices.

Discussion

It is the case that 18 other states allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries if they will 18 for the subsequent general election. California legislators have frequently debated this change, but because they have been unable to agree, they decided to put it to California voters.

Some research has shown that voting is habit-forming and so engaging new voters fully in an election year might improve civic engagement and might increase youth turnout for voting. Opponents could argue that the 18th birthday is a crucial boundary—before, you can’t be trusted to vote, after you can be. 

The US has arbitrary age gateways when people are deemed adult enough to do a certain activity—drive, vote, drink alcohol, join the military, etc. That does not mean people under 18 are incapable of making good voting decisions, nor that people over 18 are. The voting age rule exists because most people agree there needs to be some age cutoff to define adulthood for purposes of voting eligibility, so modifying it should be seen as a cultural choice, not a scientific one. 

Voters’ Guide to Califonia’s Other Ballot Initiatives

Voters’ Guides to 2020 Ballot Initiatives In Other States

The post California Ballot Initiative Analysis: Proposition 18 (2020) appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Summary

Florida’s Amendment 3 (2020) would change state elections from a closed system in which only party members are allowed to vote in their respective parties’ primaries to a top-two open primary where anyone can vote for any candidate of any party. Candidates from each party would appear on the same ballot and the top two candidates receiving the most votes would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. Any registered voter would be allowed to participate in the primary election, not just party members. The change would impact primary elections for state legislators, the governor, the lieutenant governor, and elected executive cabinet members.

Fiscal Impact

Amendment 3 is estimated to have no significant fiscal impact on the state.

Proponents’ Arguments For

Supporters of Amendment 3 argue that the current primary system excludes voters who are not members of a major political party from participating in taxpayer-funded elections. The outcome of primary elections is therefore decided by a relatively small group of partisan voters. They suggest that closed primaries encourage candidates to appeal to this small minority rather than the broader electorate. Proponents further say that the partisan nature of primary elections causes polarization because candidates are competing for the vote of a partisan minority. They suggest that the amendment could result in moderation because it would require candidates to appeal to all voters, not just members of their own political party.

Opponents’ Arguments Against

Opponents argue that political parties are private organizations and should be allowed to determine the process by which their candidates are selected. Building a coalition of like-minded voters and nominating candidates that align with their preferences are among the core functions of political parties. Partisan primaries are an important part of that function.

Opponents argue that open primaries would weaken the ability of parties to nominate the candidates that most clearly align with their members’ beliefs. Moreover, they argue that allowing members of the opposing party to participate in their primary process could create opportunities for sabotage. Opponents also suggest that the top-two system would likely exclude minor party candidates from participating in general elections and could result in a general election between two candidates from the same political party.

Discussion

While encouraging moderation and allowing non-partisan voters to play a more significant role in elections are laudable goals, it is not clear that a top-two open primary system is effective at achieving either. There are, however, many other ways to try to improve our elections, such as ranked-choice voting, allowing minor-party candidates to participate in debates, and redrawing gerrymandered districts to be more fair and competitive.

Political parties are fundamentally private organizations with the right to set their own rules for nominating candidates. To infringe on that right is to violate the freedom of association. No matter how large or powerful the two major parties may be, the government has no role in determining the process for their primary elections. That limitation does not prevent non-partisan voters from vocalizing their dissatisfaction with major-party nominees.

Unfortunately, there is also little reason to expect that Florida’s Amendment 3 would achieve proponents’ goal of reducing political polarization. Academic research has found that top-two open primaries in Washington and California have not resulted in greater moderation among lawmakers in those states. In fact, there is some evidence that “polarization has increased and the quality of representation has declined.” One analysis suggests this is because voters find it harder to accurately differentiate between moderate and extreme candidates when multiple candidates from each party appear on the same ballot.

The top-two system in California has resulted in instances of two candidates from the same political party advancing to the general election. Those elections tend to be more “competitive” in that they are decided by closer vote margins. However, increased competition has not favored moderates over more extreme candidates. Other research suggests that same-party general elections may even result in decreased participation by voters without a candidate from their party on the ballot.

In terms of providing voters who do not belong to either of the major party with greater choice and influence, ranked-choice voting­­—also known to as alternative vote or instant runoff voting—provides a much better solution than top-two open primaries. Under ranked-choice voting, voters rank candidates by preference rather than casting a single vote. If no candidate wins a majority of first choice votes, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. That candidate’s votes are then redistributed based on voters ranked preferences. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority.

Ranked-choice voting allows voters to choose their most-preferred candidate first without worrying about wasted votes or spoiler effects. This would lend voters more choice and provide greater opportunity for minor-party candidates. By contrast, minor party candidates are exceedingly unlikely to be among the top two candidates in a top-two open primary election. Considering that more than 25 percent of Florida voters choose not to register with either of the two major political parties, merely granting them access to primary elections dominated by those parties is unlikely to improve their representation.

Voters’ Guide to Florida’s Other 2020 Ballot Initiatives

Voters’ Guides to 2020 Ballot Initiatives In Other States

The post Florida Ballot Initiative Analysis: Amendment 3 (2020) appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The Court’s seminal vote-dilution case, Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50-51 (1986), requires plaintiffs to prove three “preconditions” in order to proceed to the “totality of the circumstances” inquiry set out by Section 2(b) of the federal Voting Rights Act: (1) that members of the racial minority are sufficiently large and compact to form a majority of voters in a single electoral district; (2) that said minority group is “politically cohesive”; and, (3) that members of the racial majority usually are able to out-vote the minority and prevent the minority group from electing its preferred candidates. These preconditions are meant to ensure that federal law does not entitle “minority groups to the maximum possible voting strength.” Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 16 (2009) (plurality opinion).

Nevertheless, vote dilution claims require federal courts to determine whether racial groups have sufficient political power. That very exercise is troubling: the right to vote, like the rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause, is an individual right. Vote dilution claims, however, treat people simply as members of their racial group and further “the demeaning notion that members of the defined racial groups ascribe to certain ‘minority views’ that must be different from those of other citizens.” Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547, 636 (1990) (Kennedy, J., dissenting). Unfortunately, such an understanding slows our society’s progress towards the ultimate goal of rendering race irrelevant to public life, all the while deterring the Court from reaching the promise of the color-blind Constitution. See Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting). To avoid conflict with these basic principles, courts ought to limit the enforcement of voting rights to redress violations of the individual right to vote. Individuals, not racial groups, cast ballots. No “racial group”—however perniciously and stereotypically one defines the “group”—is entitled to any particular amount of representation.

With all the problems that vote dilution doctrine has brought, this Court’s intervention is necessary here, if not to repudiate the theory altogether, at least to enforce its outer limits. At issue here is the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA), enacted in 2002 in response to what state legislators saw as this Court’s restrictive interpretation of Section 2 in dilution cases. Rather than strengthening the safeguards to protect against race-based action, the CVRA eliminates the Gingles requirement that a plaintiff prove that the relevant minority group is sufficiently large and compact. And because the CVRA includes a strong fee-shifting provision, it effectively requires California cities to abandon at-large or multi- member district systems in favor of single-member districts based merely upon the existence of racially- polarized voting. Put another way, the CVRA requires municipalities to alter their entire system of choosing representatives to ensure that racial groups may elect a “group” representative. Without even the minimum Gingles safeguards, the CVRA extends the worst aspects of this Court’s Section 2 precedent by mandating race-based voting districts and enshrining in law the idea that individuals of the same race think alike.

This Court should grant the petition for certiorari to reconsider the propriety of the theory of vote dilution—or at least to limit its proliferation outside the confines of Section 2—and repudiate California’s racial gerrymandering mandate.

Full Amicus Brief: Higginson v. Becerra

The post Amicus Brief: Higginson v. Becerra appeared first on Reason Foundation.

When it comes to the Constitution who cares about process, really? Constitutional scholars who study, teach, think and write about it, for sure, as well as the lawyers and judges who have to interpret it to win cases for clients. But for most of us, the majority who make up “We the People,” the Constitution is about rights, right?

Rights Are the Stars of The Show

After they voted in the 2016 presidential election, many women in, and around Rochester, New York, visited the gravesite of Susan B. Anthony and affixed their “I Voted” stickers to her headstone, covering the marker with their quiet expressions of gratitude to the woman who had died in 1906, never seeing the success of her fight for women’s voting rights. 

The 2016 presidential election also marked the first time in the history of the United States that a woman led the ticket of one of our two major political parties. And on that cold November day in upstate New York, on that milestone, for those women of Rochester and for millions of others throughout our land the suffragettes of the 1800s and the early 1900s were their Greatest Generation. These courageous women had worked tirelessly for almost 70 years, starting in the 1850s, to secure every American woman’s right to vote.

Campaigns for rights are that powerful. Rights are clear, unambiguous. Rights are personal. You have them or you don’t. In America’s persistent quest to form a more perfect union, groups of citizens have been working on enshrining individual rights in our Constitution since the 1780s. Those efforts continue today.

Campaigns about rights stir the soul and focus the mind, both for and against. The issues involved seem clear. They produce fiery rhetoric, passions, and often violence. They are marathons of long-term persistence that wear down and wear out opposition. 

When enshrined in our Constitution, declarations about rights are permanent contracts between the government and the governed, setting forth both authorities and limitations. Some are very specific, while others like the 10th Amendment, are more sweeping and general. 

Power Through Process

There is a second, less dramatic but potentially much more important method by which the Constitution carefully defines and allocates federal governmental power. That allocation of power derives from imperatives of process, imperatives, that in our civics classes, we learned to call checks and balances.

Process instructions are often of much less interest to citizens because process issues do not appear to affect us very much, even when they really do. 

For example, when John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Vice President Lyndon Johnson became president of the United States. The vice presidency remained vacant for the next 14 months, until the 1964 presidential election, because there was no process set forth in the Constitution to fill a vacant vice president slot between elections. Since the need for a sitting vice president to accede to the presidency arose so infrequently, there seemed to be no rush to fix this particular absence of process. But, in February 1967, the 25th Amendment was adopted quietly and without fuss setting forth the process we employ today. It says, in part, “Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the vice president, the president shall nominate a vice president who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress.”

And it is a good thing it was decided because just seven short years after its adoption, the new 25th Amendment process was needed. Not once, but twice.

The first time it was used Gerald Ford was appointed by President Richard Nixon and confirmed by the House of Representatives to replace Vice President Spiro Agnew, who had resigned. The second time it was needed was when Richard Nixon himself resigned. Then-Vice President Ford became president, and Nelson Rockefeller, appointed by President Ford and confirmed by the House of Representatives, became vice president.

This was the first and, so far the only, time in our history that neither our president nor vice president had been elected by the people. Had there not been the 25th Amendment, the turbulence of President Nixon’s brief second term might have been much more challenging to our constitutional system than it turned out to be. 

A few short years later, Americans also witnessed two attempted assassinations, of Presidents Ford and Reagan, each of which was a close call. We narrowly avoided needing the 25th Amendment again.

Many process issues are very important. And the founders knew it. The genius of our founders enabled them to produce a Constitution filled with important process instructions that have helped produce a functioning government for our republic for more than two centuries. It is a testament to the effectiveness of their work that new process issues do not come up very often, and when they do they can often be resolved by debates among elected officials, as was the case with the 25th amendment, rather than by some sort of national campaign and plebiscite.

We Need a Process to Process Our Money

But now we have a process challenge different than most we have faced in our history. And, unfortunately, the old way of securing process changes to our Constitution is unlikely to work the way it has in the past. 

Our Constitution says very little, almost nothing, about how federal officials must care for or process our money. Taxpayers currently send the federal government about $4 trillion per year and, yet, there are almost no rules at all about what our elected officials can do with it, how they must protect it, or how they must account for it. Nor are they prevented from spending more than the amount of revenue they take in. 

Lacking Constitutional constraints, Congresses, over many decades, have massively run up our accumulated national debt with no end in sight. They’ve also created a massive and unmanageable tax code, unfunded liabilities for social programs, and more. 

This is an overarching problem that is unlikely to be resolved without a grass-roots movement. Federal officials have been aware of the growing debt situation for about 80 years and have done nothing about it. Members of Congress know the national debt is getting worse and most even recognize that it needs to be addressed. But, as demonstrated most recently by the $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill that will be added to the national debt, there always seems to be an emergency, a higher policy priority, a war, or some other reason to ignore the national debt and spend more money right now.

However impossible the task of amending the Constitution seems in today’s political climate, it is worth at least envisioning some crucial process imperatives that could help control and improve the financial management of the vast sums of money that taxpayers send the federal government and the expenditures and regulations that flow from Washington, D.C. Basically, we need a “bill of responsibilities” — five brief, effective, financial management amendments to guide federal budgeting and spending. These amendments don’t need to be lengthy or complex, and, in future posts, I’ll discuss each of them in detail.

The same passion, devotion, commitment, fervor and stamina that has been brought to important campaigns about rights could be used to bring about critical process changes that make politicians accountable for how they use taxpayers’ money. It would undoubtedly require a long, sustained effort to persuade large numbers of taxpayers and politicians that critical process changes about spending and regulation matter to all of us as individuals. But it is increasingly clear, we the people have to do it or it will not get done.

The post Looking For Permanent Process Solutions to Help Address the National Debt Crisis appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Most countries with universal health coverage rely to some degree on private health insurance. In fact, no country in the world has a system without co-pays or deductibles as described by Sen. Sanders’ Medicare-for-Al health care proposal.

It is simply not possible to pay for Sen. Sanders’ health care proposals by only raising taxes on the wealthy. And a survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation suggests that Medicare-For-All loses 23 percent of its public support if respondents are told it will require tax increases.

When questioned about the fiscal feasibility of his proposals, Sanders is quick to point to European countries as examples of democratic socialism in action. However, a closer look at European systems presents a picture that doesn’t align fully with Sen. Sanders’ democratic socialism.

“I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear,” the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, said in 2015. “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

A recent report from JP Morgan Chase found that Nordic countries generally have “greater business freedoms, freer trade, more oligopolies and less of an impact on competition from state control over the economy.”

But Sen. Sanders is right to suggest European countries do have higher taxes and tend to have more generous social programs. Sen. Sanders notes that many in the U.S. claim they would be willing to pay “a little more in taxes” to receive the benefits of universal healthcare, free education, and greater income transfers, but the evidence suggests we’d all be paying a lot more in taxes to pay for ‘free’ college and universal health care.

While Sanders and others claim the burden of new taxes needed to pay for such programs would fall mostly on the wealthy, the European model tends to burden middle-class taxpayers. Lower- and middle-income taxpayers in Europe pay an average marginal wage tax of 49 percent on annual income above $37,000 on top of paying an average 20 percent value-added tax. Compare that to a U.S. marginal wage tax of 32 percent on the same income group and a six percent sales tax, on average.

Supporters of Sen. Sanders point to a recent Gallup survey that found 43 percent of Americans said some form of socialism would be a good thing for the country—up from 25 percent in 1942. Other polls found less change, with American Enterprise Institute’s Karlyn Bowman writing at Forbes that, “In the polls that compare the two ideologies, capitalism is viewed more favorably than socialism.”

Another Gallup finding is cause for some optimism about small government, choice, and competition. Large majorities of Americans tell Gallup they favor the free market over government control when it comes to technological innovation, the distribution of wealth, wages, higher education, health care, and the overall economy. The only areas where respondents said they preferred the government to take responsibilities were online privacy and environmental protection.

As Sen. Bernie Sanders and other Democratic candidates call for costly government programs and compete for primary votes against more centrist Democratic candidates, like former Vice President Joe Biden, we’ll learn what these Democratic primary voters actually prioritize and want. Ultimately, if voters want better health care, higher quality education, and increased wages, free-market capitalism and a fiscally-responsible government is the best path forward.

The post The Tax Increases and Other Costs That Come With Democratic Socialism appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Colorado’s notice of intent to sue is notable for a couple reasons, one of which is politics. The federal government has so badly overreached by listing the Gunnison sage grouse that Gov. Hickenlooper, a loyal Democrat, feels he has no recourse but to sue and engage in a very public fight that could damage the Obama administration and Democrats in general. The Gunnison sage grouse lawsuit has significance that reaches far beyond the borders of Colorado.

Colorado is a “purple” state, which means that it is one of a handful of swing, or battleground, states in presidential elections. Gov. Hickenlooper made it clear months ago that he would sue if the Gunnison sage grouse was listed. So it is astounding the Obama administration went ahead and knowingly did something-listing the grouse-that would put Democrats in an unfavorable light and give Republicans political ammunition. While the Interior Department’s decisions to list species under the Endangered Species Act are technically insulated from political considerations, the reality is the White House could have pressured Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe, both political appointees, not to list the grouse.

In 2012, Obama won 51.5% of Colorado’s popular vote, to Romney’s 46.13%. Following the 2014 federal and state elections, Colorado became even purpler. At the federal level, Cory Gardner (R) beat incumbent Mark Udall (D) by a margin of 48% to 46% for the contested U.S. Senate seat, Colorado’s other Senator, Michael Bennet, is a Democrat, and the state’s Representatives continue to be split 4-3 in favor of Republicans. In the 2014 state elections, Republicans also gained ground, picking up one Senate seat, thereby achieving an 18-17 majority, and picking up three House seats, which narrowed Democrats’ majority to 34-31.

Colorado’s Gunnison sage grouse lawsuit may drag on for much of 2015 and perhaps in to 2016, which will be a constant reminder to many voters, both in Colorado and elsewhere, that the Obama administration, and by association Democrats (especially those seeking federal office), are out of touch with state and local priorities.

With the 2016 presidential election cycle fast approaching, a couple of factors involved with the Gunnison sage grouse are going to be in play. Democrats are worried that the legacy of an increasingly unpopular president will damage them, especially in the all-important swing states. Colorado’s Gunnison sage grouse lawsuit will serve as a reminder of this, especially because it was filed at the behest of a Democrat governor.

Also, in the 2016 federal elections the environment is going to be an issue Democrats use to hammer Republicans by portraying them as out of touch with American values, corporate shills, mean-spirited and backward-looking. Yet by listing the Gunnison sage grouse the Obama administration has handed Republicans an enormous gift for the 2016 election cycle that they can use to portray Democrats as out of touch, eager to rely on heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all solutions from an imperious and distant federal government, dismissive of state and private approaches that are a better fit for many issues, and, if Republicans take environmental issues seriously, as anti-environment.

More broadly, Republicans can use the lawsuit, the looming possibility of the greater sage grouse being listed across 11 western states and 165 million acres, and conservation in general to demonstrate that they are pro-environment, forward-looking, and in favor of innovative state-based and private solutions to many environmental issues that are superior to inflexible and insensitive dictates from Washington, D.C. Democrats figured out long ago that conservation is an effective political issue and fundraising tool because its outstanding visual and public relations values elicit sympathy from a broad spectrum of voters, and because Republicans have ceded the field to them. Perhaps with issues like the Gunnison sage grouse this will begin change.

The second reason Colorado’s notice of intent to sue over the Gunnison sage grouse’s listing is remarkable is its substance, which paints a damning picture of the federal government, especially the Fish and Wildlife Service, or FWS as its referred to in much of the notice (In a previous post, here, I detailed Colorado’s extraordinary conservation efforts for Gunnison sage grouse conservation, which were undertaken with the understanding the federal government would not list the grouse). The notice of intent to sue states:

“In making the listing decision, FWS improperly analyzed the required factors to make its determination that the Gunnison sage-grouse is threatened; failed to rely on the best available science; and failed to give adequate weight to the extensive conservation efforts undertaken by state and local governments and private landowners. In designating critical habitat for the Gunnison sage-grouse, FWS failed to consider economic impacts of the designation and failed to demonstrate that currently unsuitable habitat included in the designation is essential to the conservation of the species.”

The notice of intent to sue then provides details about conservation efforts, most notably in the Gunnison Basin, located in Gunnison County, Colorado that “comprises approximately 86% of the population and covers almost two-thirds (63%) of the occupied habitat of the species.” According to notice:

“With the exception of federally listed species and migratory birds, Colorado has exclusive jurisdiction over wildlife within its boundaries. To date, the State has invested close to $40 million in voluntary conservation programs, land acquisition, research, monitoring activities, habitat treatments, translocation, and predator control programs aimed at conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat. State and county-led voluntary conservation programs have resulted in protection of over 140,000 acres of privately owned habitat. In combination with areas of habitat that are federally-owned and managed, approximately 75% of occupied habitat has some level of protection.”

The logical question is: what more could Colorado and Gunnison County have done to prevent the grouse’s listing and what benefit does listing under the Endangered Species Act provide?

In its notice of intent to sue, Colorado alleges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act by listing the Gunnison sage grouse because the agency “failed to consider sufficiently the best science and impacts of conservation efforts.” The notice provides the following examples that give a sense of how incorrect and out of touch with reality the Service is, and which strongly suggest the Service was less interested in an objective evaluation of the data than in reaching a predetermined decision to list the grouse:

• “The Service accorded little weight to indications that the Gunnison based population is stable and thriving, including the fact that the current population now exceeds the targets set in the Rangewide Conservation Plan and that the Gunnison basin lek counts are at an all-time high.”
• “The Service misinterpreted or ignored population viability analysis showing a very low probability (less than one percent) that the species will go extinct within the next fifty years. Current estimated male counts in the Gunnison basin are more than 50% higher than they were when two of the models were developed”
• “The service acknowledged that current residential development is a threat of ‘low magnitude to the Gunnison based birds at the population level,’ but concluded that residential development elsewhere, in some of the satellite populations, poses a threat to the species range wide, included the Gunnison basin and that future development in Gunnison County continues to pose a threat.” (This assertion by FWS is particularly telling of the agency’s willingness to use false information to support listing because Gunnison County enacted very restrictive sage grouse-specific zoning ordinances and hired the nation’s only county-based endangered species biologist to help implement the ordinances.)
• “The Service accorded little or no weight to scientific evidence submitted by CPW [Colorado Parks & Wildlife] regarding the degree of threat to the Gunnison based population posed by disease, drought, fire, and climate change.”
• “In determining that the Gunnison basin population could not likely survive if the satellite populations were extirpated, FWS engaged in speculation that is unsupported by the best available data.””In evaluating threats to sagebrush habitat in the Gunnison based, FWS misinterpreted the best available science regarding the historical range and distribution of the species. The Service overestimated the extent of historical range and relied on an improper understanding of habitat fragmentation as applied to the Gunnison sage-grouse.”

In sum, according to Colorado’s notice of intent to sue:

“The Service underestimated the level of protection that has been provided via federal, state, local and private conservation efforts to conserve sagebrush habitat in the Gunnison basin. The Gunnison basin area has met or exceeded the Rangewide Conservation Plan target for conservation and protection of seasonally important habitat on private lands.” (This is the critically important moist habitat-meadows, wetlands streamsides-that adults and chicks depend on for high quality forage and insects in the summer, when the sagebrush uplands become dry and contain little palatable food)

“Federal and state agencies responsible for management of publicly owned habitat have entered in to a formal agreement [sic] to protect sage-grouse habitat on their lands, and other federal programs have also resulted in the protection, improvement and restoration of habitat in the Gunnison basin. [Federal and state agencies have entered into two such agreements, a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances, or CCAA, that covers private land, and a Candidate Conservation Agreement, or CCA, that covers federal land]. The Service’s conference opinions on the CCAA and the CCA found that the implementation of the programs would provide a long-term, net benefit for the Gunnison sage-grouse on a landscape level. FWS acknowledged the effectiveness of these efforts and noted that they have had the most impact in the Gunnison basin, but did not adequately weigh them in the listing decision.”

“In addition, FWS engaged in a formal analysis of conservation efforts under its PECE (Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts), but never released a draft or final version of the analysis [to] the public for review. Accordingly, the State is unable to evaluate whether the analysis was reasonable and gave sufficient weight to the many ongoing conservation programs.”

Last is the issue of how the Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat. According to Colorado’s notice of intent to sue:

“The ESA requires the [Interior] Secretary to consider economic impacts in designating critical habitat…The Service had an economic analysis prepared, but did not take the results into account when designating critical habitat. Further, the Service included areas as critical habitat that are not suitable for Gunnison sage-grouse, and failed to demonstrate that inclusion of currently unsuitable habitat was essential to the conservation of the species. FWS also determined that all currently occupied areas are essential for the persistence and conservation of the Gunnison sage-grouse, even though under the ESA…barring unusual circumstances, critical habitat should not include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by the species.”

Given all this, it is no wonder Colorado is suing to rescind the listing of the Gunnison sage grouse and return management to the state. It will be interesting to see how this case, and the larger issues on which it touches, shake out.

The post Federal Overreach, the Gunnison Sage Grouse, a Lawsuit, and Politics appeared first on Reason Foundation.

In the 2012 election, millennial voters – Americans 18 to 29 years old – helped propel President Obama to victory over Mitt Romney. Here in California, 71 percent of millennials voted for Obama.

A recent in-depth Reason-Rupe poll, however, finds these millennials don’t conform to preconceived political stereotypes and aren’t traditional liberals – they are social liberals and fiscal centrists.

Reason-Rupe finds millennials hold many of the positions on social issues that you’d expect. For example, millennials think immigrants strengthen American society (69 percent), believe the government should allow same-sex couples to get married (67 percent) and think marijuana should be legal (57 percent).

While they are more likely to agree with Democrats on social issues, millennials chafe at the Democratic Party’s penchant for nanny state regulations. Reason-Rupe finds 74 percent of millennials oppose bans on large sugary drinks in restaurants and theaters; 64 percent are against bans on incandescent light bulbs; 62 percent don’t think plastic bags should be banned at grocery store checkouts; and 60 percent don’t think e-cigarettes should be banned in public places.

And when it comes to economics, most millennials are not your average Occupy Wall Street activists.

The Reason-Rupe study of young Americans finds strong majorities are favorable toward both profit (64 percent) and competition (70 percent). Millennial support for the free market system also trounces support for a government-managed economy, 64 percent percent to 32 percent. A majority of millennials (55 percent) would even like to start their own business one day.

At the same time, millennials do want government to help the disadvantaged.

Seven in 10 millennials say government should guarantee food, housing, health care and a minimum income to the disadvantaged.

Additionally, 71 percent of millennials favor raising the minimum wage and 58 percent support spending more on financial assistance to the poor.

While millennials often exhibit greater confidence in government than other cohorts, their skepticism is on the rise. In 2009, only 42 percent of young Americans thought government was inefficient and wasteful, but by 2014 this number soared to 66 percent.

Furthermore, in 2009, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 64 percent of young Americans wanted government to “do more to solve problems.” However, the 2014 Reason-Rupe survey found only 48 percent want government to do more.

Despite millennials’ fiscal centrism, their social liberalism dominates when it comes time to vote. Millennials’ top three 2016 presidential picks are Democrats – Hillary Clinton (39 percent), Elizabeth Warren (9 percent) and Joe Biden (9 percent).

Yet millennials don’t like Democrats so much as they view them as the least bad of two bad options. Across 15 salient public policy issues, such as privacy, government spending and drugs, millennials say they trust “neither” party to handle 12 of the 15 issues.

Given millennials’ lack of confidence in both major political parties, it isn’t surprising they are open to change. In fact, a majority (53 percent) of millennials say they would vote for a candidate who is both economically conservative and socially liberal.

Some millennials who fit this socially liberal and fiscally conservative profile were called a “raft of ethnically diverse young libertarians who hold seats in L.A. County’s huge GOP apparatus” by Reuters recently.

“Despite personal politics that might seem more in tune with Democrats – world peace, ending the war on drugs and addressing global warming top the list of concerns for many – these millennials say they are more comfortable with Republicans’ emphasis on freedom than Democrats’ penchant for regulation,” Reuters’ Sharon Bernstein wrote.

Millennials are socially tolerant and support personal freedom, free markets and entrepreneurship. Is either major political party ready to adapt to that?

Emily Ekins is director of polling at Reason Foundation. This article originally appeared in the Orange County Register.

The post Millennials Signal the Political Future appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and usually a staunch supporter of government spying programs, threw another twist into the scandal when she adamantly condemned the spying on U.S. allies. “With respect to NSA collection of intelligence on leaders of U.S. allies – including France, Spain, Mexico and Germany – let me state unequivocally: I am totally opposed,” Feinstein said in a statement. “It is abundantly clear that a total review of all intelligence programs is necessary so that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee are fully informed as to what is actually being carried out by the intelligence community.”

Sen. Feinstein’s turnabout even took the government surveillance community by surprise. “We’re really screwed now,” Foreign Policy magazine quoted one NSA official as saying. “You know things are bad when the few friends you’ve got disappear without a trace in the dead of night and leave no forwarding address.”

But what is really behind Feinstein’s newfound criticism of government snooping activities?

Through Snowden, other intelligence whistleblowers and various news reports, Americans now know that the government has for years been intercepting and monitoring e-mail, phone, text and other electronic communications, usually without probable cause or warrants. Given the alarming evidence about the extent of the encroachment by government into our private lives, tapping Chancellor Merkel’s phone seems to be a strange place for Sen. Feinstein to draw the line on NSA spying.

Perhaps Feinstein’s outrage stems from the unwritten rule that there are some laws for the political elite, and other laws for the rest of us. As George Orwell noted in “Animal Farm,” his dystopian novel, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Make no mistake, Feinstein still supports government snooping. She has proposed a “reform” bill called the FISA Improvements Act of 2013 that would provide some token measures of transparency and oversight by requiring the NSA to issue public reports about how often it accesses its call-records database and private reports to Congress summarizing major Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court decisions.

Unfortunately, the legislation also explicitly authorizes and codifies existing bulk communications collection and allows the NSA to keep records for up to five years. So Feinstein’s bill effectively legalizes the practices most objectionable to Americans and the U.S. Constitution, and heads off more legitimate reform efforts, under the guise of fixing the system. It is no small irony that such a bill purportedly intended to increase transparency was marked up in a secret, closed-door session. The bill recently passed the Senate Intelligence Committee on an 11-4 vote.

That said, Sen. Feinstein’s criticism of U.S. spying on the political leaders of allies is welcome. She would do a much greater service if only she would apply the same logic and her concern for the privacy of foreign leaders to the snooping being done on millions of innocent American and foreign citizens who are having their rights violated on a daily basis.

It is unlikely that politicians and members of the intelligence community will easily yield the status quo to meaningful reforms. Libertarians and limited government advocates on the right, privacy and civil liberties advocates on the left, and moderates will need to unite to demand that the government butt out of their private lives – and hold politicians accountable for doing so. If not, it won’t be the NSA but average Americans who will continue to see their rights abridged by a government that does not respect their rights.

Adam B. Summers is a senior policy analyst at the Reason Foundation. This article was originally published in the Orange County Register on November 8, 2013.

The post Selective Outrage Over NSA appeared first on Reason Foundation.