Alright folks, I've been noticing that several of ya'll are confused about some political functions and that's alright, I'm here to fill ya in on state politics! ___________________________________________________________________________________ Quick Description of the Structure of State Government Alright, to start out, a state legislature is composed of two distinct groups (excluding Nebraska which uses a single group) and a governor, the two groups are: 1: The State House 2: The State Senate Each member of both the house and the senate, is voted into office by us, the general population. The House is typically the larger of the two (in terms of number of people), and house members are voted in by smaller districts than the senate. House members will typically serve shorter terms then the senate will. The Senate is typically the smaller of the two, senate members are voted in by larger districts, meaning each senator will represent more people than house members will. Senate members will typically serve longer terms than house members will. The idea behind having two distinct groups is that the house will represent quick changes in public opinion, while the senate tends to anchor the house down a bit in order to prevent laws being passed too hastily. ___________________________________________________________________________________ How Laws are passed by the State Legislature A bill can be introduced by either branch, or the governor of the state (who serves as the state equivalent of the president). Once a bill is submitted to either the house or the senate, they typically will hear some testimony to determine the general opinion by professionals on the subject. Bills are then referred to different sub-committees, composed of members of the house/senate, that pick apart the bill and make the changes necessary to make the bill comply with their particular committee. Once changes are made, the bill is voted on by the committee and if it passes, it is sent back out to the floor (the full group of house/senate members) if it does not pass, the bill effectively "dies in committe". The house/senate can then either send the bill to another committee to be analyzed, or vote on it's passage. Committees include (but are not limited to): -Agricultural Committee -Budget Committee -Education Committee -Finance Committee -Judiciary Committee -Public Health Committee -Public Safety Committee -Rules Committee -Transportation Committee etc. So for example, many of you watched the testimony that took place in front of the Public Health Committee of the CA state legislature over House Bill 390 (Legalization of Marijuana). The testimony that took place, while at times very broad in scope, tended to focus on public health, including discussion on medical marijuana, effects of marijuana, potential abuse of marijuana by children etc. Once a bill has successfully made it through all the applicable committees, it is then voted on by the entire house/senate, and if it passes, it goes to the opposite group of the legislature. For example, if the house passed the bill, it moves to the senate or vice versa. Once the house and senate have revised and passed the bill, it is "reconciled", meaning that the house and senate versions of the bill are made to match in the best way possible. If both groups still approve, the bill is sent to the Governor's desk to be signed, if the governor signs it, the bill becomes law. If the governor vetoes it, the bill is sent back to the house and the senate to be voted on again, if it passes with a pre-set majority (70% for example) then the legislature overrides the governor and the law is passed. If the vote does not gather the necessary majority, the law dies. __________________________________________________________________________________ Initiatives and Referendums Alright... Referendums, aka Ballot Measures or Ballot Questions are a direct vote by the people on either the adoption of a new state constitution, a constitutional amendment, a new statute, or the recall of an elected official. The people can either accept or reject the proposal. A referendum is required on bills that the legislature tries to pass that will amend the state constitution. It can also be placed on the public ballot by people in specific positions that are allotted the power to do so. Initiatives on the other hand, are laws that any ordinary citizen can write, it is recommended that the citizen consult with lawyers or have a firm working-knowledge of law to write a bill. It should be noted that, while they should be, initiatives are not available in every state. The following chart shows which states they are available in (thanks to Sarahraek): http://www.ballot.org/page/-/ballot.org/maps/Initiative states.pdf An initiative is filed with the state, and then the fun begins, in order for an initiative to be placed on the ballot, it must be shown to have enough public interest. In order to show public interest for the bill, the creators must gather signatures from a set percentage of the population of the state (usually 10 or 20%). This prevents people from putting ludicrous bills on the ballot i.e. to "legalize murder" or some other outlandish idea. For example, last monday, a non-profit organization calling themselves "Sensible Washington" introduced an initiative, beginning March 1st, they will begin collecting signatures. In order for that bill to go onto the ballot in November, Sensible Washington will have to collect just over 241,000 supportive signatures. Once the signatures are collected, they are verified by the state (dont ask me how) and the Bill is placed on the Ballot. When November rolls around, the voters can vote on the issue on their ballot. If a majority of the people want a measure to be enacted, it becomes law. If a majority of the people do not wait said measure enacted, it is not enacted.
As a side note, I would like to make some points that relate specifically to our plight here at grasscity, being our desire to see marijuana legalized. __________________________________________________________________________________ Federal Legality vs State Legality The Federal Government also has a Legislature, a House and a Senate. State laws CAN contradict federal laws, as is the case with current State Medical Marijuana Laws (federally, marijuana is still illegal, despite the Obama administration's pledge not to prosecute it) If medical marijuana use, or recreational marijuana use is legal on a state level, state officials (police officers, state DEA agents) cannot arrest you. You can not be prosecuted in State Courts. If however, a federal agent decides to arrest you, you can, and probably will be arrested and prosecuted in a Federal Court. That being said, the number of federal agents is so much smaller than state agents. Because this is the case, federal arrests usually only take place in instances of large scale production or distribution of marijuana, they have limited resources and time to deal with the small guys. Because of this, you are very unlikely to get arrested by a federal agent for minor marijuana charges (even small counts of production). As long as you are in co-operation with your state laws, you should be fine. ___________________________________________________________________________________ How Initiatives will convince our State Legislatures, and how our Legislatures will convince the Fed One of the main points that I would like to bring up is that if just a bill exists in a state legislature, they debate it as they typically would, bringing up pro's and cons as they relate to the issue. With a high-likelihood initiative in the works, the state legislature stops thinking "should we pass this" and starts thinking "well, the people are gonna do it anyway, so lets just do it and do it our way so we can make sure things get done right" This is why, even if bills are being introduced into your State Legislatures, it's very important for us to show our support and collect signatures for public initiatives, because if the legislature sees that the public is going to enact a measure anyway, it makes it far more likely that they will pass a bill just so they can make sure it's done right. Taking this one step further, Federal/national politics is bloodsport, with the stigma attached to marijuana, very few federal politicians are willing to put their neck on the line and be seen as "pro-pot". The only way that I can foresee marijuana ever becoming fully legal in the US is for enough of our states to legalize it, so that it gets to a point where the Federal Legislature can do it comfortably and say that "it's what the people want"
Thanx for the basic civics lesson. One point should be emphasized is that the voter initiative option isn't available in all states.http://www.ballot.org/page/-/ballot.org/maps/Initiative%20states.pdf
Yes thanks for this, since one argument is that marijuana is known to the state of California to contain carcinogens based on Proposition... whatever number I don't really care, and I am forced to give this same lesson that propositions are passed by voters and it's just evidence of an uninformed public.
Lol, that reminds me of a joke I used to tell customers at a fishing shop I worked at. All fishing products are labeled "This product contains lead, a chemical known to the state of california to cause cancer and other birth defects" Whenever I explain to people how to use different clamping lead weights, I always just tell them to bite the weight, they say "doesn't lead cause cancer?" I always come back with "Nah, lead only causes cancer in California"
I am not sure about other states but in WA, the signatures are "verified" using a random sampling method and then verifying that the information (Name, address, ect) is consistent with what is listed in the voter registry. The random sample can only be used to Allow the initiative to make it to the ballot. If the random sample indicates that there might not be enough signatures WA, then is required to verify each signature and determine if there are enough signatures. On the WA state legislature website it says that they typicaly see around 20-25% of signatures either being duplicates or belonging to people that are not registered voters. I just figured I would give my 2 cents.
I really appreciate your effort for this cause but the whole community of the country is confused that what they should do so first of all give an awareness to them.
People should be advised that not everything there is totally the same. In Washington State for Example, House and Senate districts are the same geographic areas.
Is it really that simple? I've heard a lot of talk that if prop 19 gets the majority vote, it would still take months if not years for it to be enacted. It seems to me that it should be that simple, if the majority want something they should get it. But alas I don't have a great understanding of such things. Could someone with a good deal of knowledge go more in depth on the process following a majority vote for a proposition. Thanks in advance!
If it does get the majority vote, then it becomes law. It might not take effect until Jan. 1, 2011, such as is the case with California SB 1449. But at that point its done, mj is legal in Cali! However, what could hold it up is if the federal government decides to challenge the proposition in the federal courts. At that point they might decide to file an injunction which I believe would put a hold on the law, or at least parts of it until the supreme court decides the constitutionality of the Proposition. At least, that's what they did in Arizona when they challenged the immigration laws.
The feds aren't going to do a damn thing. Any Politician with a brain knows this abomination is going to come to an end, they just want to be able to let it happen without ever having to admit they were wrong.
Im honestly surprised this debate has not gone to the SCOTUS, though as it is 6/3 conservative it might loose. But maybe not, as it is a states right issue. Seems the federal law is unconstitutional.
In Wisconsin, only Villages and Cities can have ballot initiatives. Some city and village clerks are unsure of the process because it has not been litigated too much and there is a loose interpretation of the law. But you can be sure that the law allows for it at a city or village level: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/gw/gw_13.pdf http://www.iandrinstitute.org/New I...Level/Constitution and Statutes/Wisconsin.pdf Wisconsin Lawyer May 2008: Vox Populi: Wisconsin's Direct Legislation Statute | State Bar of Wisconsin
The last thing prohibitionists want is an open fair debate before the Supreme Court, or in any venue for that matter. They haven't any merits or justification for prohibition beyond Anslinger's original testimony about punishing "n*****s" and "wetbacks". (Sorry, his words, not mine) If the original testimony were given by any government official or politician now they would rightfully be crucified. Unfortunately, the professional politians in this country haven't the moral courage to have an open and honest debate of prohibition. When a few weeks ago I talked to one of our state legislators about bringing it up for debate, he replied, it would not be "politically expedient." This guy is a toker, but hey, he's getting his. He has smoked my weed in my house. Next time he's over choking down my famous "Elephant Death" and talking about what killer weed it is, I'll dicreetely video tape him toking, and we'll see how politically expedient that video is during his next re-election campaign when his opponent gets it off You-tube. I believe the issue of prohibition will ultimately be resolved as an issue of pragmatism.
Anyone from Virginia or know poeple in Virginia, and support marijuana decriminalization please fill out these two forms: Convio: Site Not Found Convio: Site Not Found
Just a thought here, but it is the interstate commerce clause that allows the feds to prohibit weed right? Its the only thing that allows them to constitutionally regulate such an item. and that clause only affects items that are moved and traded from state to state. So where im going with this, is what if a state legalized weed for use only in its state, say specific locations I.E. coffie shops?, and regulated and grew its own weed to be used only in that state, then am i correct in saying that the feds have no right to interfere? If they chose to do so it would violate the constitution in a major way.
The problem is the constitution leaves an out if a law is passed to take care of the welfare of the people. And if you could prove it otherwise, you could make a case to the courts, as I have sugested. But the fed has a right to appeal to the SCOTUS, which in this case is a toss up as to what they might decide.