The people have spoken… Part II
As promised, more ballot initiative analysis!
Despite some losses on Tuesday for progressive forces, there were definitely some wins as well. In addition to defeating antiabortion initiatives– which I blogged about last week– voters also defeated several anti-immigrant initiatives, including one in Oregon that would have mandated “English immersion” and limited the number of years immigrant students could have English as a Second Language classes. Ballot initiatives in several states also bolstered health care for children and seniors. Montana voters approved a measure which will establish the Healthy Montana Kids plan to expand and coordinate health coverage for uninsured children under the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Montana Medicaid Program, and employer-sponsored health insurance. Voters helped protect low-income Americans against predatory pay-day lenders in both Ohio and Arizona. In Michigan, voters approved an initiative that allows the donation of embryos produced in fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded and allows researchers to create embryonic stem cell cultures to study disease, as well as permitting government funding of stem-cell research.
Initiatives on the environment, however, were a mixed bag.
California had two environmental initiatives on the ballot: “Big Wind” (a rebate program for those who buy alternative energy-fueled vehicles) and “Big Solar” (a requirement that utilities companies incrementally increase alternative-energy usage to meet 50% by 2025) failed. I was surprised by this, since California is known as being one of the most progressive states in the country and because their Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger is probably the most outspoken “green” Republican. Schwarzenegger as governor has pledged to prevent off-shore drilling, signed into law legislation which requires cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, and issued an executive order mandating less carbon in transportation fuel.
And yet Californian voters turned down not one, but two, attempts to (at least ostensibly) make California more green.
I’m sure the economy is at least partially at work here. Rebate programs require money in government coffers; money which comes primarily from taxes. (According to opponents, this initiative would require $10 billion from government funds over thirty years.) Similarly, voters were probably nervous that if utility providers had to transition to alternative energy, their monthly energy bills would be higher. (Although, if you read the full text of the initiative, it stipulates that “utilities will be prohibited from passing along penalties to their electric rate-payers.”)
There were serious problems, even for environmentally-conscious citizens, with these propositions. (I gather this from what I’ve read on ballotpedia.org and in California newspapers, virtually NONE of which endorsed either initiative: the LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union-Tribune , Sacramento Bee, Orange County Register, and the list goes on).
Also, a clean energy initiative in Missouri was approved, though this has a lower standard for percentage of energy which is renewable.
But, still, I have to wonder… is our already-hurting environment going to suffer as a result of the economic crisis? Author and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has pointed out the pivotal question:
“Is this financial crisis going to be the end of green, or is green going to be how we end this financial crisis?â€