Religious Freedom

Religious Freedom is a term that has been thrown around a lot recently, and typically, the side throwing it around has been Team GOP. It was recently invoked in a political fight against the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Religious Freedom been a canard in the fight against teaching science in public schools, and is a plank of the modern Home Schooling movement. Indeed, it seems that Religious Freedom is a fairly sophisticated dog whistle for Republican voters who want to believe that the President does not share their religious beliefs.

Religious Freedom is a common theme in the courts, as well. In February, a federal judge struck down an administrative rule from the state pharmacy board requiring pharmacies to stock and provide prescription contraceptives on the grounds that the rule prevented pharmacists from the free expression of religious beliefs, if those religious beliefs included a prohibition on providing contraceptives to people with prescriptions. The judge believed that this was a violation of the first amendment free exercise clause, but failed to consider or weigh patients' constitutional rights, see Griswold v. Connecticut. Regardless, I want to highlight a more recent judicial decision over 'religious freedom' that elucidates the slippery nature of the phrase.

State Discrimination in Marriage Licensing

Gov. Chris Gregoire. Photo courtesy of Greater Tacoma Community Foundation.

Washington State's legislature will institutionalize gay marriage this week, and I was lucky enough to hear Governor Christine Gregoire discuss the path to marriage equality on NPR.

The Washington Senate last night approved the bill 28 to 21, paving the way for passage through the state House and the governor's signature. Washington will become the seventh state to allow same-sex couples to enjoy the same treatment in marriage as heterosexual couples.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie meanwhile, is ducking gay marriage legislation in his state. He has threatened to veto a marriage equality law, and urged the New Jersey legislators to put the question up to public referendum. Leaving aside from the possibilities that Christie truly is a bigot and wants to continue to discriminate against gay Americans, or is a political coward seeking to avoid a public that he perceives as deeply bigoted, is there a democratic reason to place marriage equality on the ballot?

Talk About Socialized Medicine

The Republican legislature in Montana is attempting to replace the medical marijuana regime that was enacted by popular referrendum in 2004. Here's the key paragraph from the story:

Senators and representatives on the compromise committee indicated they would work off of the House's version of the overhaul, a model that entirely removes payment from the marijuana trade and reduces the ratio of patients to providers to one, in most cases.

So much for the myth of Montana conservatives as more libertarian than puritanical. The 'overhaul' bill is an effort by conservative Republicans a week after their wholesale repeal bill was vetoed by the Governor. The Governor's statement resoundingly emphasized the will of the people of Montana in establishing the medical marijuana law through referrendum. Abolishing it via legislative act is a constitutionally dubious practice in a representative democracy (although, of course, technically legitimate). Massive cuts in the law's ability to function should be held to the same standard, and democrats everywhere should be rooting for a second Schweitzer veto.

Ballot Initiative ?= Public Will

I just filled out my ballot (Washington votes by mail), and something about the ballot measures struck me. They were completely unintelligible. In particular, Washington state initiative 1053, which would make it impossible for the legislature to raise taxes or fees without consent of two thirds of the legislature. As everyone who knows math or the Washington State legislature has realized, this means that 17 people can obstruct any tax or fee increase for any reason, trumping the will of the majority. To be fair, the measure does allow for a majority of the voters in a general election to overturn the veto of the 17 united holdouts.

I certainly think that it's a bad idea- just look at the budgetary and procedural woes of California. But my readers know that I don't usually comment on simple policy issues. I prefer the constitutional and democratic theory concerns. My biggest peeve with this ballot initiative is how it is framed on the ballot. If the ballot measure passes (i.e. if a simple majority of the voters vote 'yes' on it), 7 pages of text is inserted into the state code which would raise the two-thirds requirement from the dead. On the ballot, however, the text simply reads

Initiative Measure No. 1053 concerns tax and fee increases imposed by state government.

This measure would restate existing statutory requirements that legislative actions raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval, and that new or increased fees require majority legislature approval. Should this measure be enacted into law?

Democratic Theory and Prop 19

I'm decidedly undecided on whether I would vote for Prop 19 if I had the chance, which is just as well because I'm not a resident of California. I've seen a lot of the debate over its passage, as California is a fairly technology-oriented state, and much of the conversation spills over onto blogs.

There are certainly some spurious arguments, such as the typical prohibitionist canards that legalizing marijuana would increase the number of users or create more intoxicated drivers or lower economic productivity in the state. The oddest argument against Proposition 19 that I have seen recently is ridiculed pretty well in this blog comment:

So, Rick, in your opinion, is Prop 19 terminally flawed? Do the opportunities that the loopholes create for government to tighten controls make this initiative something that should be voted down?

You’re right, there are many examples where the INTENT of a new law/ regulation is about 180 degrees from the RESULT.