Welcome to a new miniseries on this November’s ballot referenda that will have the greatest impact on policy. There are many different types of ballot referenda and so I’ve broken it down based on the issues that each referenda address. This first article is focusing on voting rights and redistricting, which there are a lot of this fall. So let’s dive right in:
Arkansas and North Carolina: Voter ID
People who follow voting rights know a lot about voter ID. The implementation of it has been covered extensively in a number of publications, and you can read about it here, here, and here. Republicans say it protects the integrity of elections, Democrats say it intentionally disenfranchises certain people, generally younger voters and people of color. Courts tend to agree with Democrats. That said, Arkansas is voting on implementing voter ID and North Carolina, after its previous attempts at voter ID were struck down in court time after time after time, are giving it another shot. Unfortunately for progressives, these are likely to pass, because when put on a ballot, voter ID sounds good. Indeed, the idea of showing identification to vote sounds rather intuitive and so despite having largely only GOP support at the legislative level, there are likely wide majorities in both states ready to vote yes. There was an Arkansas poll giving Issue 2 71% support and while we have no data on NC, expect it to pass there as well.
Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, and Utah: Redistricting Reform
These four states are all voting on some form of redistricting reform, or creating commissions to independently redistrict as a way to reduce gerrymandering. I’ll break them down in bullet points:
- Colorado has two separate questions creating independent commissions, one for the US House map (Amendment Y) and one for the State Legislative map (Amendment Z). Both Colorado amendments would create a 12 person commissions consisting of 4 GOPers, 4 Dems, and 4 unaffiliated and would require 8 of the 12, including 2 unaffiliated, to approve a map.
- In Michigan, Proposal 2 would create a 13 person independent commission, consisting of 4 GOPers, 4 Dems, and 5 unaffiliated, and would require 7 of the 13 and at least 2 of each group to vote yes in order to approve a plan.
- Missouri’s plan isn’t quite as well thought out, with the State Senate Majority Leader, State Senate Minority Leader, and State Auditor selecting a “state demographer” to come up with a state legislative map (this wouldn’t affect the Congressional map) that then gets sent to a commission consisting of 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans. If they have 7 votes to amend the map, they are able to. If not, the map becomes official.
- Finally, in Utah, Proposition 4 would create a 7 member commission that consists of members chosen by the Governor, the President of the Utah Senate, the Speaker of the Utah House, the largest minority party in the Utah Senate, the largest minority party in the Utah House, leadership of the majority party in the Utah Senate, and the leadership of the minority party in the Utah Senate. Under current political breakdowns, that would result in 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats. A vote of 5 members would be required to approve a map and the plan would be sent to the Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice to see whether the map met priorities such as compactness, minimizing county divisions, geographic compactness, and communities of interest. However, after the Supreme Court Justice approves the map, the legislature could still reject it, though a counter map would need to meet those same priorities.
So are these going to pass? We have polling on the Michigan and Utah plans. In Michigan, we have recent polling showing Prop. 2 at 48% yes, 32% no and 55% yes, 23% no. In Utah, the one poll we have showed Prop. 4 at 52% yes, 18% no. These both seem likely to pass. Given these numbers, and the fact redistricting commissions generally do well on the ballot, I would expect similar results in Colorado and Missouri, which would be big wins for fair redistricting advocates.
Florida: Felon Voting Restoration
This is the big kahuna. It is probably the most important ballot referendum in the country because of its gigantic electoral implications in the nation’s 3rd largest state. Florida has some of the most draconian policies towards felon voting rights, as it is incredibly difficult to regain your right to vote, even if you have served your time. John Oliver covered this situation in great detail on Last Week Tonight back in September and I highly recommend watching that video for an idea into how arcane the system is. I mentioned the huge stakes for a reason, because Florida disenfranchises 10.43% of its voting age population due to felonies, a whopping 1.69 M people. In a state that routinely has very close elections, that disenfranchisement plays an unmistakably large factor in electoral outcomes. More notably, that felon population skews disproportionately black and thus, Democratic, and was probably the difference between Al Gore winning the presidency in 2000 and losing it. It also may have had a significant impact on other close Florida elections like the 2010 and 2014 Governor’s races, as well as the impact it could have on this fall’s very tight and closely contested Senate race.
To combat this predicament, Amendment 4 has been placed on Florida’s ballot, which would automatically restore the right to vote for people with former felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences. So given these huge stakes, is this going to pass? First off, it’s important to remember that unlike other states which use a simple majority, Florida requires 60% for a ballot measure to pass. That said, at this point in time, the likeliest scenario is that this ballot measure is approved. Two polls in the past few weeks have shown Amendment 4 with well over the support needed, with one poll giving it 74% support and another giving it 71% support. While many expected a concerted opposition effort by Republicans, nothing has happened. There is no concentrated push by the “no” side and instead, all the spending, about $10 M, has been to the affirmative, so right now, I would expect it to pass.
Maryland, Michigan, and Nevada: Changes to voter registration
A progressive push in recent years has been about how Americans can register to vote in certain states. This push has spilled into the ballot initiatives in three states.
- In Maryland, Question 2 would authorize the State Legislature to enact “Election Day Registration”, which is typically referred to as Same Day Registration, or SDR, which lets people register to vote at the polls and then vote in the election.
- In Michigan, Proposal 3 is a voting rights value meal, with 8 changes to election law all-in-one. Starting with things not affecting registration, it includes a constitutional right to a secret ballot, auditing of election results, overseas and military ballots received at least 45 days before the election, no-excuse absentee voting within the last 40 days before an election, and the option to straight ticket vote. Among changes to registration law, it enshrines in the state constitution automatic voter registration (AVR) when interacting with the state regarding a driver’s license or ID, as well as the right to register to vote by mail in the last 15 days before an election, and in-person registration the final 14 days before an election including SDR. If this were to be approved, it would take Michigan from one of the most archaic states in terms of election law to suddenly one of the most progressive overnight.
- In Nevada, Question 5 would allow AVR in the Silver State
So will these pass? Once again things look quite good. In Michigan, wide majorities in polls look ready to okay Proposal 3, with several recent polls putting it over 70% (!!!). As for Maryland and Nevada, it is expected that they will also pass because voting reforms generally go over very well with the electorate no matter the state, with AVR passing via referendum in Alaska in 2016. Thus, I would anticipate all of these to sail through.