For states with ballot initiatives, that sounds practical. Back when I lived in CT we voted against having ballot initiatives for 20 years. I didn’t want to be unrepresented for 20 years, so I moved to CA.
From the sounds of the question, it sounded misleading and alarmist to voters, especially so if you’re not a tuned in voter. It was basically an open invitation to amend the state constitution rather than to amend it in a specific way.
It’s been close to 20 years since the legislature has even brought something similar to a vote from the sounds of it.
The legislature also tried to pass the ballot initiative in a presidential election year, where the least tuned in voters typically are voting and will vote against anything they may perceive as rocking the status quo.
I don’t blame you for leaving given there hasn’t been a similar initiative since then, but I believe it could be possible there if they were to change the language to be more specific and if they tried to pass it in a mid-term election.
For states with ballot initiatives, that sounds practical. Back when I lived in CT we voted against having ballot initiatives for 20 years. I didn’t want to be unrepresented for 20 years, so I moved to CA.
From the sounds of the question, it sounded misleading and alarmist to voters, especially so if you’re not a tuned in voter. It was basically an open invitation to amend the state constitution rather than to amend it in a specific way.
It’s been close to 20 years since the legislature has even brought something similar to a vote from the sounds of it.
The legislature also tried to pass the ballot initiative in a presidential election year, where the least tuned in voters typically are voting and will vote against anything they may perceive as rocking the status quo.
I don’t blame you for leaving given there hasn’t been a similar initiative since then, but I believe it could be possible there if they were to change the language to be more specific and if they tried to pass it in a mid-term election.