Searching for clarity on election issues
So it’s less than a week before Election Day and I’m still wrestling with a few thorny issues that I don’t completely understand. Traditionally, I haven’t hewed to either party line, but tried to vote for the candidates on their own merits and previous voting records.
While that may be getting more difficult, the proliferation of voter initiatives is the really complex issue. Here in the Treasure State, I’m voting negative on three, but there’s one that confuses me. That one involves 5,500 nonresident hunting licenses and tags currently guaranteed to about 300 Montana outfitters who serve mostly out-of-state hunters. I-161 would require outfitters to enter the general lottery for licenses while raising the fees for nonresidents with part of that money to be used for increased access for residents. Montana Wildlife Federation backs the initiative but opinion seems evenly split on this and I’ll need all of this week to get opinions from my hunting friends. Frankly, I just don’t know enough about it.
As usual, information about candidates for Justice of the Peace and various judgeships is hard to come by. But the race for an open seat on the Montana Supreme Court has produced two candidates of fairly diverse views. Beth Baker, a former state prosecutor, has bipartisan support, including environmentalists and labor unions, while Nels Swandal says he advocates limited government and is backed by agricultural groups and the Chamber of Commerce. That’s as clear a distinction as we’re likely to get in any judicial contest. Another statewide contest pits Democratic incumbent Ken Toole against Republican challenger Bill Gallagher for a seat on the Public Service Commission. A race that at first seemed a snore to me, actually involves serious issues. The commission oversees public utilities and energy development. Gallagher, a climate-change skeptic, backs coal-fired power plants and weaker regulations. Toole, who won the seat in 2006, has blocked an attempt by foreign investors to buy the state’s largest electricity company and pushed for clean energy development and more efficiency. I guess these races really do matter. Who knew?
Meanwhile, I’m oh so glad I won’t be voting in California. For instance, Prop. 23 could kill the state’s 2006 climate change law, AB 32, which reduces the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, promotes rooftop solar and cap-and-trade policies. Since our federal representatives seem unwilling to offend their energy industry backers to keep the subject alive, it seems we should at least back California’s long-standing leadership in environmental law and maybe drag the rest of the country along. Heavily backed by oil companies and opposed by high-tech industries and environmentalists, Prop. 23 would put that law on hold until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or lower. Can we hold our collective breath that long?
Other parts of the California ballot are seriously déjà vu. In 1972, voters rejected the legalization of marijuana. This time, Proposition 19 would decriminalize growing, selling and possession of small amounts of pot. Proponents say it would cut the cost of the “war on drugs,” ease overcrowding in prisons, create legal jobs for growers and sellers, and raise state and local revenues on sales. Sounds like a plan to me.
California voters will also have an opportunity to return Jerry Brown (Gov. Moonbeam) to the governor’s mansion, which he eschewed when he last governed the state. Why not? He has since acquitted himself well as Mayor of Oakland and (currently) as state attorney general. And he’s about as fiscally conservative (at least personally) a Democrat as I can think of. Opponent Meg Whitman, while espousing far-right policy on immigration, is mired in scandal involving, ironically, employment of an illegal immigrant-the “nanny gate” of this election cycle. Pollsters are calling this race a toss-up.
Immigration is not only a hot issue among candidates in western states; it is coming up for debate in many state legislatures.
The most disturbing of these involves citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, which is guaranteed under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Leading the charge in Arizona is state Sen. Russell Pearce, who has focused on the wording guaranteeing citizenship to people born in the U.S. who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of this country. Some say this amendment was meant to apply to the children of foreign ambassadors rather than illegal immigrants. The debate isn’t limited to border states. Pennsylvania State Rep. Daryl Metcalf, who has founded a national group of legislators opposed to illegal immigration, said the 14th Amendment encourages “foreign invaders to violate our border and our laws.” Whew! To gain perspective on the election and what it may mean for the West and for the rest of the country, try to find a copy of the Oct. 25 edition of High Country News (www.hcn.org). It has been invaluable to me in appreciating arguments from all sides. Of course, this column may just have lessened clarity and added confusion, but it was worth a try.