ReportWire

Tag: ballot initiative

  • NE Medical Cannabis Commission Approves New Rules Restricting Patient Access

    [ad_1]

    Members of the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission have approved additional regulations limiting patients’ ability to access medical cannabis products. The passage of the new rules, which await final approval from Republican Gov. Jim Pillen, mark the latest effort by regulators to undermine the state’s 2024 voter-approved medical cannabis access law, which Nebraskans supported by a margin of more than 2 to 1.

    Previous rules approved by the Commission in July repeal patients’ access to botanical cannabis, limit the total number of state-licensed dispensaries to no more than twelve, and require physicians to specify which cannabis formulation, potency, and dose is appropriate for each individual patient. On Tuesday, commissioners approved additional regulations limiting the total number of state-licensed cultivators to no more than four and requiring doctors to undergo ten hours of medical education training prior to discussing medical cannabis therapy with their patients, among other changes.

    Crista Eggers, Executive Director of Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, the advocacy group that led the successful 2024 ballot effort, criticized the Commission’s decisions.

    “By approving rules that pile on new barriers and unlawfully restrict forms of cannabis, they are dismantling what the people demanded at the ballot box,” Eggers said in a statement. “This is a direct assault on patients, families and the democratic process itself. Nebraskans voted for access to medicine. Instead, the commission delivered defiance, obstruction and betrayal.”

    In public testimony provided to the Commission, NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano similarly described regulators’ actions as “a slap in the face to Nebraska voters.”

    The Commission is required to begin licensing medical cannabis establishments by October 1, 2025. However, state Attorney General Mike Hilgers has threatened to sue regulators if they move forward with licensing. “The sale of marijuana — medicinal or otherwise — is not lawful, and therefore, is unconstitutional,” Hilgers opined in April. “So as the attorney general, my job is to enforce the Constitution.”

    NORML’s Deputy Director said that elected officials in Republican-led states have become increasingly hostile to voter-approved laws, despite their bipartisan public support. Lawmakers in Mississippi and South Dakota successfully sued to nullify election results in those states legalizing cannabis. In Texas, Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued several cities in order to overturn voter-initiated marijuana depenalization laws. In Ohio, GOP leadership are considering a pair of bills to significantly roll back the state’s voter-approved adult-use legalization law.

    “In a healthy democracy, those with competing visions on public policy vie for voters’ support and abide by their voting decisions. However, it is becoming clear that those who oppose marijuana policy reform would rather take voters out of the equation altogether,” Armentano said. “Whether or not one personally supports or opposes cannabis legalization, these undemocratic tactics ought to cause of deep concern.”

    Additional information is available from Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana. A summary of the Commission’s August 4th meeting is available from the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission.

    [ad_2]

    NORML

    Source link

  • Arkansas medical marijuana supporters sue state over decision measure won’t qualify for ballot – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    Arkansas medical marijuana supporters sue state over decision measure won’t qualify for ballot – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    [ad_1]





    Arkansas medical marijuana supporters sue state over decision measure won’t qualify for ballot – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news




























    skip to Main Content

    [ad_2]

    AggregatedNews

    Source link

  • Florida Governor’s Fight Against Cannabis Could Put Him In Hot Water

    Florida Governor’s Fight Against Cannabis Could Put Him In Hot Water

    [ad_1]

    DeSantis is continuing to go full steam against recreational marijuana and other ballot initiatives, and it is not going well for him.

    The big news this week has been new tapes revealing Nixon stated marijuana was “not addictive and dangerous.” Nixon, who had a penchant for tapes which got him in trouble,  was the founder of the War on Drugs, which plagues the country to this day. But some leaders haven’t listened to reason and science. In fact the Florida’s governor’s fight against cannabis could put in hot water.

    RELATED: The Most Popular Marijuana Flavors

    It is public opinion and the medical community see value in legal cannabis by the positions of the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians.  But the message has reached Florida. Governor DeSantis has lead the fight against marijuana, despite the a significant majority of his voters opposing his position. He has used a variety of tactics to get his way, often with poor results.  He fought medical marijuana, lost and his popular, he has fought the insurance industry and now the sunshine state has sky high premiums, he appointed a president of one the states premier university only for him to leave after extravagant spending.

    DeSantis opposes citizen-led amendments on the ballot this November and has tried to rise money to combat the swell of voters who support them. Reflecting the will of the public, the pro marijuana group has raised 5 times the amount as the governor’s team. But it seems the governor may have dipped into state funds to help. In a two-front battle, DeSantis is also at odds with the GOP Presidential nominee who. stated he plans to vote yes for the initiative. A direct opposition to DeSantis stance.

    A Florida public service announcement, funded by the state and promoted on social media last week, warns viewers not to drive high. In the middle of the 30-second video, the narrator says, “DUI crashes increase in states with legalized marijuana, putting everyone at risk.” The claim legalization leads to increased instances of impaired driving is misleading. Research on the topic has been mixed, and even federal reports have said the effects of cannabis use needs more research.

    Smart & Safe Florida, the campaign that put Amendment 3 on the November ballot, sent cease and desist letters to about 50 news stations across the state. It seems legal and ethic issues are right around the corner.

    RELATED: This Natural Cannabinoid Makes You Feel Happy

    One irony is the state is PSA talks about it causing higher insurance rates. Florida is among the most expensive states for auto insurance. According to estimates from Quadrant Information Services, Florida drivers pay $134 per month or $1,605 per year on average for minimum-coverage auto insurance. Property owners already pay more than four times the national average for home insurance, up from triple the national average just last year. The cost of homeowners insurance on average increased more than 40% in the last year.

    [ad_2]

    Terry Hacienda

    Source link

  • Will DeSantis Let Floridians Vote On Marijuana

    Will DeSantis Let Floridians Vote On Marijuana

    [ad_1]

    In his quest as a foe of legal cannabis and for running a nanny state, will DeSantis allow Floridians to vote for marijuana? 

    DeSantis is recovering from his failed presidential bid and is working to shore up his reputation in Florida. He is known for being tough, driven and getting things his way. His historic fight with Disney has drawn national attention, but hasn’t fully gone as DeSantis planned. His reputation is bruised and he is stepping up his tactics. He has opposed legal cannabis from the beginning, so will DeSantis let Floridians vote on marijuana?

    RELATED: Looks Like Virginia Is The Newest Marijuana Nanny State

    Currently, DeSantis is using state resources to try to block the Sunshine State citizens from voting on another issues, but what about marijuana? DeSantis, despite receiving campaign donations from a few large cannabis operators, has been adamantly opposed.

    Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

    When medical marijuana was first put on the ballot, citizens were supportive. It was reasonable considering the amount of veterans and senior citizens in the state. PTSD and chronic pain are two of the ways the American Medical Association, Health and Human Services and science acknowledge cannabis has medical benefits. In general, Florida is in the top 3 states with retirees, a group the Governor thought he can rely on for support, but the state supported medical marijuana by 61%.  The governor said it wasn’t enough support, and made them vote again, clearly sharing he did not want it passed. It passed with 71%.  Now the state wants to pass recreational marijuana via a ballot initiative and the governor is unhappy.

    The pro-marijuana group gained enough signatures and has out raised the opposition $75 million to $14 million. In different current ballot initiative, DeSantis has taken another tack.  The other group also gained enough signatures and traction. But in an unprecedented move, the Governor has used state resource to go door to door to ask people if they signed the petition. Also, the governor has also allowed a state agency’s seal to be used in ads against a ballot initiative, a highly usual move.

    RELATED: Player Says 9 Out Of 10 NFL Athletes Use Marijuana

    The GOP Presidential candidate has come out in support of recreational cannabis in Florida, but, so far, it has not swayed DeSantis in his stance.  The GOP leader and the governor have a fraught relationship, so it is unclear if it will make a difference in campaign.

    [ad_2]

    Terry Hacienda

    Source link

  • Nebraska Voters To Decide on Medical Cannabis Access

    Nebraska Voters To Decide on Medical Cannabis Access

    [ad_1]

    Nebraska voters will decide this Election Day on a pair of citizen-initiated ballot measures regulating medical cannabis access to authorized patients.

    State regulators last week affirmed that advocates Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana had gathered the requisite number of signatures to place the measures before voters.

    The two measures are complementary. The first permits qualified patients to possess and use cannabis. The second measure regulates the production and distribution of cannabis to those authorized patients. Advocates had to frame the issue as two separate ballot questions in order to not run afoul of the state’s ‘single subject’ rule. In 2020, the state Supreme Court invalidated a similar stand-alone measure for addressing issues that it deemed were “not naturally and necessarily connected to the [initiative’s] primary purpose.” A 2022 effort failed to obtain sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot.

    “States have a proven track record of safely and effectively regulating medical marijuana,” NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano said. “After November, Nebraskans will no longer be forced to choose between their medicine or their freedom.”

    Thirty-eight states, the District of Columbia, and several US territories regulate medical cannabis products. Statewide polling indicates that between 70 percent and 80 percent of Nebraskans support legalizing medical marijuana access.

    Nebraska is one of at least four states where cannabis-related initiatives will appear on November’s ballot. Voters in Florida, North Dakota, and South Dakota, who also will be deciding on adult-use legalization measures this fall.

    In Texas, voters in the cities of Bastrop (population 11,200), Dallas (population: 1.3 million), and Lockhart (population 15,000) will decide on municipal ballot measures prohibiting local law enforcement from making low-level marijuana-related arrests.

    Additional Election 2024 coverage is available from NORML.

    [ad_2]

    NORML

    Source link

  • DeSantis in middle of Florida feud pitting marijuana against hemp – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    DeSantis in middle of Florida feud pitting marijuana against hemp – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    [ad_1]





    DeSantis in middle of Florida feud pitting marijuana against hemp – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news





























    skip to Main Content

    [ad_2]

    AggregatedNews

    Source link

  • Medical marijuana advocates turn in signatures seeking Nebraska ballot access – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    Medical marijuana advocates turn in signatures seeking Nebraska ballot access – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    [ad_1]





    Medical marijuana advocates turn in signatures seeking Nebraska ballot access – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news




























    skip to Main Content

    [ad_2]

    AggregatedNews

    Source link

  • Florida Supreme Court gives voters final say on recreational marijuana – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    Florida Supreme Court gives voters final say on recreational marijuana – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    [ad_1]





    Florida Supreme Court gives voters final say on recreational marijuana – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news



























    skip to Main Content

    [ad_2]

    AggregatedNews

    Source link

  • Florida Court Ponders Cannabis Legalization – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    Florida Court Ponders Cannabis Legalization – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    [ad_1]





    Florida Court Ponders Cannabis Legalization – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news





























    skip to Main Content

    [ad_2]

    AggregatedNews

    Source link

  • Abortion Is Inflaming the GOP’s Biggest Electoral Problem

    Abortion Is Inflaming the GOP’s Biggest Electoral Problem

    [ad_1]

    The escalating political struggle over abortion is compounding the GOP’s challenges in the nation’s largest and most economically vibrant metropolitan areas.

    The biggest counties in Ohio voted last week overwhelmingly against the ballot initiative pushed by Republicans and anti-abortion forces to raise the threshold for passing future amendments to the state constitution to 60 percent. That proposal, known as Issue 1, was meant to reduce the chances that voters would approve a separate initiative on the November ballot to overturn the six-week abortion ban Ohio Republicans approved in 2019.

    The preponderant opposition to Issue 1 in Ohio’s largest counties extended a ringing pattern. Since the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide constitutional right to abortion with its 2022 Dobbs decision, seven states have held ballot initiatives that allowed voters to weigh in on whether the procedure should remain legal: California, Vermont, Montana, Michigan, Kansas, Kentucky, and now Ohio. In addition, voters in Wisconsin chose a new state-supreme-court justice in a race dominated by the question of whether abortion should remain legal in the state.

    In each of those eight contests, the abortion-rights position or candidate prevailed. And in each case, most voters in the states’ largest population centers have voted—usually by lopsided margins—to support legal abortion.

    These strikingly consistent results underline how conflict over abortion is amplifying the interconnected geographic, demographic, and economic realignments reconfiguring American politics. Particularly since Donald Trump emerged as the GOP’s national leader, Republicans have solidified their hold on exurban, small-town, and rural communities, whose populations tend to be predominantly white and Christian and many of whose economies are reliant on the powerhouse industries of the 20th century: manufacturing, energy extraction, and agriculture. Democrats, in turn, are consolidating their advantage inside almost all of the nation’s largest metro areas, which tend to be more racially diverse, more secular, and more integrated into the expanding 21st-century Information Age economy.

    New data provided exclusively to The Atlantic by Brookings Metro, a nonpartisan think tank, show, in fact, that the counties that voted against the proposed abortion restrictions are the places driving most economic growth in their states. Using data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, Brookings Metro at my request calculated the share of total state economic output generated by the counties that voted for and against abortion rights in five of these recent contests. The results were striking: Brookings found that the counties supporting abortion rights accounted for more than four-fifths of the total state GDP in Michigan, more than three-fourths in Kansas, exactly three-fourths in Ohio, and more than three-fifths in both Kentucky and Wisconsin.

    “We are looking at not only two different political systems but two different economies as well within the same states,” Robert Maxim, a senior research associate at Brookings Metro, told me.

    The Ohio vote demonstrated again that abortion is extending the fault line between those diverging systems, with stark electoral implications. Concerns that Republicans would try to ban abortion helped Democrats perform unexpectedly well in the 2022 elections in the key swing states of Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, particularly in well-educated suburbs around major cities. Democrats won four of the six governor contests and four of the five U.S. Senate races in those states despite widespread discontent over the economy and President Joe Biden’s job performance. Even if voters remain unhappy on both of those fronts in 2024, Democratic strategists are cautiously optimistic that fear of Republicans attempting to impose a national abortion ban will remain a powerful asset for Biden and the party’s other candidates.

    When given the chance to weigh in on the issue directly, voters in communities of all sizes have displayed resistance to banning abortion. As Philip Bump of The Washington Post calculated this week, the share of voters supporting abortion rights exceeded Biden’s share of the vote in 500 of the 510 counties that have cast ballots on the issue since last year (outside of Vermont, which Bump did not include in his analysis).

    But across these states, most smaller counties still voted against legal abortion, including this last week in Ohio. A comprehensive analysis of the results by the Cleveland Plain Dealer found that in Ohio’s rural counties, more than three-fifths of voters still backed Issue 1.

    Opponents of Issue 1 overcame that continued resistance with huge margins in the state’s largest urban and suburban counties. Most voters rejected Issue 1 in 14 of the 17 counties that cast the most ballots this week, including all seven that cast the absolute most votes (according to the ranking posted by The New York Times). In several of those counties, voters opposed Issue 1 by ratios of 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1.

    Equally striking were the results in suburban counties around the major cities, almost all of which usually lean toward the GOP. Big majorities opposed Issue 1 in several large suburban counties that Trump won in 2020 (including Delaware and Lorain). Even in more solidly Republican suburban counties that gave Trump more than 60 percent of their vote (Butler, Warren, and Clermont), the “yes” side on Issue 1 eked out only a very narrow win. Turnout in those big urban and suburban counties was enormous as well.

    Jeff Rusnak, a long-time Ohio-based Democratic consultant, says the suburban performance may signal an important shift for the party. One reason that Ohio has trended more solidly Republican than other states in the region, particularly Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, he argues, is that women in Ohio have not moved toward Democrats in the Trump era as much as women in those other states have. But, he told me, the “no” side on Issue 1 could not have run as well as it did in the big suburban counties without significant improvement among independent and even Republican-leaning women. “In Ohio, women who were not necessarily following the Great Lakes–state trends, I think, now woke up and realized, Aha, we better take action,” Rusnak said.

    The Ohio results followed the pattern evident in the other states that have held elections directly affecting abortion rights since last year’s Supreme Court decision. In Kansas, abortion-rights supporters carried all six of the counties that cast the most votes. In the Kentucky and Michigan votes, abortion-rights supporters carried eight of the 10 counties that cast the most votes, and in California they carried the 14 counties with the highest vote totals. Montana doesn’t have as many urban centers as these other states, but its anti-abortion ballot measure was defeated with majority opposition in all three of the counties that cast the most votes. In the Wisconsin state-supreme-court race this spring, Democrat Janet Protasiewicz, who centered her campaign on an unusually explicit pledge to support legal abortion, carried seven of the 10 highest-voting counties. (All of these figures are from the New York Times ranking of counties in those states’ results.) For Republicans hoping to regain ground in urban and suburban communities, abortion has become “a huge challenge because they really are on the wrong side of the issue” with those voters, Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School poll, told me.

    The results in these abortion votes reflect what I’ve called the “class inversion” in American politics. That’s the modern dynamic in which Democrats are running best in the most economically dynamic places in and around the largest cities. Simultaneously, Republicans are relying more on economically struggling communities that generally resist and resent the cultural and demographic changes that are unfolding mostly in those larger metros.

    Tom Davis, a former Republican representative from Northern Virginia who chaired the National Republican Congressional Committee, has described this process to me as Republicans exchanging “the country club for the country.” In some states, trading reduced margins in large suburbs for expanded advantages in small towns and rural areas has clearly improved the GOP position. That’s been true in such states as Tennessee, Kentucky, and Arkansas, as well as in Texas, Iowa, Montana, and, more tenuously, North Carolina. Ohio has fit squarely in that category as well, with GOP gains among blue-collar voters, particularly in counties along the state’s eastern border, propelling its shift from the quintessential late-20th-century swing state to its current position as a Republican redoubt.

    But that reconfiguration just as clearly hurt Republicans in other states, such as Colorado and Virginia earlier in this century and Arizona and Georgia more recently. Growing strength in the largest communities has even allowed Democrats to regain the edge in each of the three pivotal Rust Belt states Trump in 2016 dislodged from the “blue wall”: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

    In 2022, Democrats swept the governorships in all three states, and won a Senate race as well in Pennsylvania. Support for legal abortion was central to all of those victories: Just over three-fifths of voters in each state said abortion should remain legal in all or most circumstances and vast majorities of them backed the Democratic candidates, according to the exit polls conducted by Edison Research for a consortium of media outlets. The numbers were almost identical in Arizona, where just over three-fifths of voters also backed abortion rights, and commanding majorities of them supported the winning Democratic candidates for governor and U.S. senator.

    Those races made clear that protecting abortion rights was a powerful issue in 2022 for Democrats in blue-leaning or purple states where abortion mostly remains legal. But, as I’ve written, the issue proved much less potent in the more solidly red-leaning states that banned abortion: Republican governors and legislators who passed severe abortion bans cruised to reelection in states including Texas, Georgia, and Florida. Exit polls found that in those more reliably Republican states, even a significant minority of voters who described themselves as pro-choice placed greater priority on other issues, among them crime and immigration, and supported Republican governors who signed abortion restrictions or bans.

    Ohio exemplified that trend as powerfully as any state. Though the exit polls showed that nearly three-fifths of voters said abortion should remain legal in all or most circumstances, Republican Governor Mike DeWine cruised to a landslide reelection after signing the state’s six-week abortion ban. Republican J. D. Vance, who supported a national abortion ban, nonetheless attracted the votes of about one-third of self-described voters who said they supported abortion rights in his winning Ohio Senate campaign last year, the exit polls found.

    The fate of Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who’s facing reelection in 2024, may turn on whether he can win a bigger share of the voters who support abortion rights there, as Democrats did last year in states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. (The same is likely true for Democratic Senator Jon Tester in Republican-leaning Montana, another state that voted down an anti-abortion ballot initiative last year.)

    Brown has some reasons for optimism. After the defeat of Issue 1 last week, the follow-on ballot initiative in November to restore abortion rights in the state will keep the issue front and center. The two leading Republican candidates to oppose Brown are each staunch abortion opponents; Secretary of State Frank LaRose, the probable front-runner in the GOP race, was the chief public advocate for last week’s failed initiative. Most encouraging for Brown, the “no” vote on Issue 1 in the state’s biggest suburban counties far exceeded not only Biden’s performance in the same places in 2020, but also Brown’s own numbers in his last reelection, in 2018.

    For Brown, and virtually every Democrat in a competitive statewide race next year, the road to victory runs through strong showings in such large urban and suburban counties. Given the persistence of discontent over the economy, it will be particularly crucial for Biden to generate big margins among suburban voters who support abortion rights in the very few states likely to decide control of the White House. The resounding defeat of Issue 1 this week showed again that Republicans, in their zeal to revoke the right to legal abortion, have handed Biden and other Democrats their most powerful argument to move those voters.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • South Dakota voters to try again on Marijuana Reforms – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    South Dakota voters to try again on Marijuana Reforms – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    [ad_1]

    PIERRE, S. D. (KCAU) — As marijuana supporters in South Dakota make another run at making recreational marijuana legal in the state Attorney General Marty Jackley is working to clear up any misconceptions about what a proposed ballot issue really means.

    This latest push for approval follows a 2022 initiated measure that failed to get enough votes to become law.

    The draft-initiated measure would allow people 21-year-old and older to possess, grow, sell, ingest, and distribute marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia.

    Jackley says this does not affect current laws that deal with hemp and does not change South Dakota laws concerning the state’s medical marijuana program.

    People have until the close of business on August 21 to comment on the explanation of the ballot measure. The proposed amendment needs more than 17,500 valid petition signatures to qualify for the 2024 ballot.

    In November 2022, 47 percent of voters approved of legalizing recreational marijuana.

    Original Author Link click here to read complete story..

    [ad_2]

    MMP News Author

    Source link

  • Did Kyrsten Sinema Betray Her Volunteers?

    Did Kyrsten Sinema Betray Her Volunteers?

    [ad_1]

    When Kyrsten Sinema campaigned for the Senate as “an independent voice for Arizona,” her volunteers didn’t take that literally. Perhaps they heard what they wanted to hear. Ana Doan, a retired teacher, thought Sinema would bring fresh energy to Washington as Arizona’s first openly LGBTQ senator. Devina Alvarado, a young Costco forklift driver, thought Sinema would defend women’s rights from Donald Trump. Michael (identified by his middle name to avoid retaliation) admired that Sinema had made it out of poverty after experiencing homelessness as a child, as he did. Each from a different corner of Arizona, they were all proud to have volunteered to get Sinema elected, proud of the doors they’d knocked and calls they’d made, proud to have had her glossy purple-and-yellow literature scattered in their home or on the floor of their car. But their pride had curdled long before Sinema announced she was leaving the Democratic Party last Friday.

    So far, both the White House and Sinema’s Senate colleagues have been conciliatory, praising her legislative skill and acting as if little will change following her switch. (Sinema will still caucus with the Democrats.) Although her influence will diminish in a forthcoming 51–49 chamber, Democrats can ill afford to make Sinema a pariah. When reached for comment about the switch, Sinema’s press secretary told me in an email, “Kyrsten’s approach remains the same from when she first ran for Senate,” and directed me to a sleek video Sinema released on Friday: “I’m gonna be the same person I’ve always been,” the senator said.

    But many of her most dedicated supporters don’t see things that way. I spoke with dozens of Sinema’s former volunteers from across Arizona, some of whom I managed in 2018 as a field organizer for the Arizona Democratic Party. What they’ve described to me is a feeling more raw and pained than mere disagreement over policies. Arizona Democrats are used to that; many have Republicans and independents in their family. They’re used to talking through differences. What they cannot forgive is the feeling that Sinema was not straight with them.

    Doan, the teacher, had worked on a lot of campaigns in the border town of Nogales. She had just retired when Sinema announced her run, and she threw herself into the Senate race. Sinema was smart, well-spoken, a member of the LGBTQ community, and a fundraising powerhouse. In previous elections, Doan had begged the state party to do more phone banking in Spanish, and she didn’t like that phone bankers rushed older Latino voters who had questions about important issues. Things were different on Sinema’s campaign. Doan could have phone-bank lists brought to the houses of other volunteers, so they could make calls from the comfort of their own home.

    She was thrilled when Sinema won, but her excitement was short-lived. Sinema, in her view, started spending too much time with the Big Business people who had funded her campaign and not enough time among the working-class folks who’d made phone calls for her. Doan told me it hurt to watch her senator block positive initiatives that other Democrats wanted to pass. “She made an idiot out of me, and I made an idiot out of all the people I spoke to,” Doan said. She said she wished Sinema had run as an independent in 2018, so people knew who she really was.

    Alvarado, the forklift driver, had never volunteered on a political campaign before. She canvassed for Sinema a few days a week after finishing work and on the weekends too, always wearing her pink Planned Parenthood shirt. Alvarado couldn’t believe it when Sinema said she thought protecting the filibuster was essential to protecting women’s rights. When Sinema comes up in conversation these days, Alvarado’s fiancé teases her. “He knows I’m super salty that I volunteered for her,” she told me. “I for sure look forward to canvassing for her opponent.”

    Michael considered Sinema to be a personal hero when he started volunteering on her campaign in Phoenix. A few years before, he’d been homeless, just as she had been. But Michael felt betrayed in March of 2021, when Sinema voted against raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. “Hunger changes people,” he wrote to me in an email. “It made me want to make no one feel that way. I’m guessing it made her protective of what she has.”

    Some of the people with the fewest illusions about Sinema were the people furthest away from her. Missa Foy, the chair of the Navajo County Democrats, didn’t even vote for Sinema in the primary. In 2018, she knocked on more than 1,000 doors for a ballot initiative in Navajo County, one of Arizona’s most rural regions. (You can’t walk down the sidewalk to the next house on your list in Navajo—you get back in your truck and drive there.) The voters Foy spoke with would offer her dinner and shelter from the cold, and listen to why they should oppose programs such as expanding school vouchers. Although Foy passed out the Democratic slate of candidates, with Sinema on top, she didn’t talk her up. Foy told me she was grateful for all the things that Democrats, including Sinema, were able to pass through the Senate, but she didn’t think Sinema’s new party preference was earth-shattering stuff. “Our mission is the same as before this news broke,” she said.

    When Sinema visited Hopi sovereign land in 2018, Karen Shupla was impressed by her familiarity with water rights and other issues important to Native Americans. A tribal-elections registrar, Shupla is scrupulously neutral, but she does volunteer hundreds of hours to make sure elections run smoothly in a region that Democrats carry by more than two to one. She was unsurprised when the Hopi and other tribes supported Sinema by broad margins, and she was indifferent about Sinema becoming an independent. “It depends on how she deals with Natives from here on out,” Shupla told me. “We don’t want to be guessing which side she’s going to take on matters.”

    The volunteer I spoke with over the weekend who still has the most affection for Sinema was the one who knew her personally. Martha “Marty” Bruneau met Sinema when the two of them ran for different seats in the Arizona state legislature in 2000. “I never ran again, and she never lost again,” Bruneau told me. The two of them stayed in touch. Bruneau thinks her fellow progressive Democrats have been exasperating and believes they put too much pressure on Sinema, who votes with Biden more than 90 percent of the time. She told me she doesn’t get Sinema’s reputation for being unapproachable. When I asked her if she’d support Sinema over a Democratic challenger, Bruneau praised Sinema’s record and said she’d have to look at both candidates. This was, in dozens of interviews, the closest that any of Sinema’s former volunteers came to saying they would vote for her again.

    Some believe that Sinema is becoming an independent because she can’t win against a primary challenger. Campaigning as an independent worked in Alaska for Lisa Murkowski in 2010, and in 2006 for Joe Lieberman in Connecticut—but they were running in deep-red and deep-blue states, where their party was dominant enough to form a coalition with voters from other parties. Arizona is purple, with roughly equal portions of Republicans, independents, and Democrats. Sinema positioned herself as a lone politician capable of uniting her state, but if she is reelected, it will likely be by forcing an expensive and vicious election.

    As David A. Graham wrote in The Atlantic last week, Sinema’s move is flashy but comes from a place of weakness. She seems vulnerable to a challenge from not only the left but also the center. Arizona just elected a full slate of establishment Democrats in a year far less favorable than 2018, when Sinema won her seat. It’s unclear if the campaign arm of the Senate Democrats will even support her next time around. What’s more, 2024 is a presidential-election year in an era when split-ticket voting is rare. Although Sinema is an incumbent, her sour relationship with the Arizona Democratic Party means she will not benefit from party infrastructure, for fundraising or mobilization. They don’t know what to expect from her, and she feels no obligation to explain publicly what she believes, or why she believes it. That’s her prerogative. But it’s also the prerogative of people who lent Sinema their time and reputation to now turn against her. In bitter irony, the volunteers who cut their teeth working to get her elected may be among those working the hardest to defeat her.

    [ad_2]

    Nathan Kohrman

    Source link