November 3, 2010 2:58PM # Ballot Initiatives Provide Underappreciated Election-Night Victories By [Daniel J. Mitchell](https://www.cato.org/people/daniel-mitchell) --- SHARE Last week, I [highlighted nine ballot initiatives ](http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/nine-key-ballot-initiatives-to-watch/)that were worth watching because of their policy implications and/​or their role is showing whether voters wanted more or less freedom. The results, by and large, are very encouraging. Let’s take a look at the results of those nine votes, as well as a few additional key initiatives. 1\. The big spenders wanted to impose an income tax in the state of Washington, and they even had support from too-rich-to-care Bill Gates. The good news is that this initiative got [slaughtered by a nearly two-to-one margin](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Income_Tax,_Initiative_1098_(2010)). I was worried about this initiative since crazy Oregon voters [approved higher tax rates earlier this year](http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/crazy-oregon-voters-choose-higher-tax-rates/). In a further bit of good news, Washington voters also [approved a supermajority requirement for tax increases by a similar margin](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Supermajority_Vote_Required_in_State_Legislature_to_Raise_Taxes,_Initiative_1053_(2010)). 2\. Nevada voters had a chance to vote on eminent domain abuse. This is an initiative that I mischaracterized in my original post. The language made it sound like it was designed to protect private property, but it actually was proposed by the political elite to weaken a property rights initiative that the voters previously had imposed. Fortunately, Nevada voters did not share my naiveté and the [effort to weaken eminent domain protections was decisively rejected](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Nevada_Eminent_Domain_Amendment,_Question_4_%282010%29). This is important, of course, because of the Supreme Court’s [reprehensible *Kelo* decision](http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/poetic-justice-for-susette-kelo/). 3\. California voters were predictably disappointing. They [rejected the initiative to legalize marijuana](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_19,_the_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_%282010%29), thus missing an opportunity to adopt a more sensible approach to victimless crimes. The crazy voters from the Golden State also[ kept in place a suicidal global warming scheme](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_%282010%29) that is driving jobs out of the state. The only silver lining in California’s dark cloud is that voters did approve a [supermajority requirement for certain revenue increases](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_26,_Supermajority_Vote_to_Pass_New_Taxes_and_Fees_%282010%29). 4\. Nearly 90 percent of voters in Kansas approved an [initiative to remove any ambiguity about whether individuals have the right to keep and bear arms](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Kansas_Right_to_Bear_Arms_Question,_Constitutional_Amendment_Question_1_%282010%29). Let that be a warning to those imperialist Canadians, just in case they’re plotting an invasion. 5\. Arizona voters had a chance to give their opinion on Obamacare. Not surprisingly, they were not big fans, with more than 55 percent of them supporting an [initiative in favor of individual choice in health care](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Health_Insurance_Reform_Amendment,_Proposition_106_%282010%29). A [similar initiative ](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_Health_Care_Freedom_Amendment,_State_Question_756_%282010%29)was approved by an even greater margin in Oklahoma. Shifting back to Arizona, voters also strongly [rejected racial and sexual discrimination by government](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Civil_Rights_Amendment,_Proposition_107_%282010%29), but they narrowly [failed to approve medical marijuana](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Medical_Marijuana_Question,_Proposition_203,_2010). 6\. Shifting to the local level, San Francisco, one of the craziest cities in America rejected a [proposal to require bureaucrats to make meaningful contributions to support their bloated pension and health benefits](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/03/MN391G31H7.DTL). On the other hand, voters did approve a proposal to ban people from sleeping on sidewalks. Who knew that was a big issue? 7\. Sticking with the ever-amusing Golden State, voters unfortunately eliminated the [requirement for a two-thirds vote in the legislature to approve a budget](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_25,_Majority_Vote_for_Legislature_to_Pass_the_Budget_%282010%29), thus making it even easier for politicians to increase the burden of government spending. The state almost certainly is already on a path to bankruptcy, and this result will probably hasten its fiscal demise. Hopefully, the new GOP majority in the House of Representatives will say no when soon-to-be Governor Brown comes asking for a bailout. 8\. The entire political establishment in Massachusetts was united in its opposition to an [initiative to to roll back the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 3 percent](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Massachusetts_Sales_Tax_Relief_Act,_Question_3_%282010%29), and they were sucessful. But 43 percent of voters approved, so maybe there’s some tiny sliver of hope for the Bay State. 9\. Louisiana voters approved an initiative to [require a two-thirds vote to approve any expansion of taxpayer-financed benefits for government employees](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Louisiana_Public_Retirement_Systems,_Amendment_6_%282010%29). With 65 percent of voters saying yes to this proposal, this is a good sign that the bureaucrat gravy train may finally be slowing down. At the risk of giving a grade, I think voters generally did a good job when asked to directly make decisions. I give them a solid B. ##### Related Tags [Energy and Environment](https://www.cato.org/research/energy-environment), [Government and Politics](https://www.cato.org/government-politics), [Health Care](https://www.cato.org/health-care), [Constitutional Law](https://www.cato.org/constitutional-law), [Regulation](https://www.cato.org/regulatory-studies), [Tax and Budget Policy](https://www.cato.org/tax-budget-policy), [Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies](https://www.cato.org/robert-levy-center-constitutional-studies) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).