The Ballot Initiative

Ecology became an issue thrust into the national limelight for all to see. By bringing the issue to the national spotlight, it forced the government to take action as shown in the number of laws and regulations passed in the 1970s. Gottlieb called the 1970s the “Environmental Decade.” By the late 1970s, after the Vietnam War was over and many of the sociological and political issues had subsided several environmental struggles were weakening, possibly due to less sociological interest seen in the 1960s and early 1970s. Environmental efforts in the 1980s experienced a surprising resurgence and became a strong global social undertaking. Many people did not understand some aspects of the environmental movement. One of the reasons for this lack of comprehension may have been diversity. The terms race, gender, and class were not associated with environmentalism as late as 1993. Gottlieb attempts to bring these terms into the environmental movement in Forcing the Spring. Race, gender and class became more important in the environmental movement in the 1990s. Gottlieb attempts to show this new diversity and by doing this he suggest a revised view of the environmental movement. This new view shows environmentalism as a group of "social

The three democratic rights I have chosen are the right to initiative, referendum, and recall of elected officials. The use of ballot initiatives, referendums, and recall elections is growing rapidly. Initiatives permit voters to bypass their state legislatures so as to govern bodies enough marks on petitions to place proposed statuses and, in some states, constitutional amendments specifically on the ballot. Referendums require that certain categories of legislation, for instance, those expected to raise cash by issuing bonds, be put on the ballot for public approval; voters can also utilize referendums to cancel laws that are already passed by the state legislature. A recall election allows citizens vote on whether to remove officeholders

It is no secret that the debate over what is the best course of action to educate our non-native English language students across the country is a highly charged topic that runs from the classroom to Capitol Hill. There have been many shifts in direction and focus of educational programs for English Language Learning (ELL) students during the past century in our nation's history. In 1968, with the passage of the Bilingual Education Act (Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) legislation was

In a classic sense of history being written by winners, the United States Constitution and its ratification process is usually presented as a unifying document establishing a system of government that most efficiently ensures the states’ newly won independence. Those who opposed ratification of the Constitution were seen as against a strong federal governmental power and obstructive in their opposition. In her book, Ratification: The People debate the Constitution, 1787-1788, Pauline Maier examined the often-tempestuous state-level debates over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and found there was a legitimate concern for the new federal government to be as powerful as proposed in the Constitution and that many prominent, and not so prominent, men within the states’ legislatures, taverns, and coffee houses voiced vehement opposition to the Constitution’s ratification.

The article “The Fourth Branch of Government”, Thomas Helgerman discusses how direct democracy plays an important role in state governments. He presents the information in the form of an essay in which he explains his argument and analysis as a student of math and economics as well as a member a parliamentary debate team. The essay will review Helgerman’s analysis and arguments of direct democracy and how it leads to irresponsible legislation that is not subject to inspection of the US political process. In the article, Helgerman explains how direct democracy came to be used in state government and used the state of California as an example.

Thomas R. Dye and Susan A. Macmanus states, “ courts are political institutions because they attempt to resolve conflicts in society. Courts make public policy in the process of resolving conflicts. Some of the nations most pivotal policy decisions that we follow today have been made by courts rather than legislative or executive bodies at both the federal and state levels.

Voting is an essential right that has been given to citizens since it allows the society to become as close as it could to an ideal democracy - a nation governed by its people. Some people think that voting is the most important right of all. "The right to vote is the most basic right, without which all others are meaningless,  American president Lyndon Johnson once said. By means of voting, individuals have a direct say in different social and political issues.

Thus, when faced with arbitrary legislative action or inaction, judicial intervention “is not only appropriate but essential” to protect citizens’ constitutional rights. Furthermore, when the Court resolves constitutional questions that, for whatever reasons, elected representatives, cannot, its rulings can guide lower courts, legislators, and citizens concerning the scope of individual rights and permissibility of governmental conduct. When the Court applies the standing doctrine regardless of legislative inertia or entrenchment, some citizens are left with rights but no remedies and a government that is unaccountable and unresponsive to its citizens.

A notorious voting option on Nevada ballots is “none of these candidates”, but is this option valuable to electing a new politician? Maybe it is, maybe it is not. However, it could be a way for voters to show disapproval for both potential candidates. As many know, the 2016 presidential candidates were both hated to rather high degree. Many voters on both ends of the political spectrum voiced their dissent for the candidate that opposed who they favored, but there were also many voters who realized that both candidates were not worth voting for. Therefore, an option like “none of these candidates” would be the most appealing option and a gift from the political gods. On the other hand, some may perceive it as an irrelevant choice on the ballot that could be replaced with another candidate or not even appear on the ballot at all. Although expressing disapproval for potential candidates is readily provided by Nevada elections, the unique option of “none of these candidates” may be a rather useless choice in a tight election and removal or reform of this choice should be considered for the sake of future elections.

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court made its final decision on the Shelby County, Alabama v Holder, deeming Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress in 1965 and extended several times, unconstitutional. Section 5, although not being struck down, became insignificant without its triggering formula, Section 4, to determine the coverage. This Supreme Court decision took away the key parts of the Voting Rights Act, which was an important method for the federal government to oversee and enforce the enfranchisement of African-Americans in some states. While justifying their decision, the Court mentioned that Section 4 only applied to specific states and it was against the idea of equal sovereignty of all states in the Constitution. What is more, the Congress’ justification of these unequal actions towards those states in 2006, was based on 40-year old data showing that it was still an exceptional condition, which cannot reflect the current situations and needs of the country.

The 15th Amendment of the United States Constitution was passed by Congress on February 26, 1869, and was ratified February 3, 1870. The Amendment is label as the “Right to Vote”, however, there is deeper provision to this Amendment. Section 1, reads “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any States on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (NARA). Continued with section 2, “The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation” (NARA). The amendment was created to protect the rights of African American to vote, and has served as the groundwork for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. One day after the ratification, “Thomas Mundy Peterson of New Jersey became the African American citizern to vote under the authority of the 15th Amendment” (History.com). Additionally, in the same year the first ever African American from Mississippi was elected to the U.S Senate.

The Voting Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973 et seq., decision is important regarding the laws governing voting rights and their relationship to minority voters. Its implication and effects however does not end within the legal realms and dimensions but continues through to society, culture, and human rights. The Voting Rights Act initially established in 1965 under Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration protected “racial minorities” from biased voting practices. It was a huge stride in the civil rights movement and a victory over harmful, archaic, and biased voting practices and traditions.

I have been informed upon an issue that needs to be addressed. Whether or not the citizens of California should be able to put legislation directly onto the ballot by obtaining signatures. I believe that that should not be allowed at this time. I would like for the will of the people to be met, but at this time this is not the best way to achieve this goal. I know that there are many educated people know that do know a lot about the government and would be able to recommend some helpful bills. However, there are a plethora of problems using that system. For example, voters are usually quite uncaring for other people's feelings and beliefs. Some would like to get rid of bail, while maybe that person is in fact innocent

    Washington State was one of the first states to approve the Referendum, Initiative and Recall process when the “voters approved it has an amendment to the State Constitution in 1912,” (Washington State History). The Initiative allows “citizens to start a law by themselves, instead of having the Legislative do it,” (Washington State History). The Recall allows “voters to remove elected officials from office before their term is up,” (Washington State History). Lastly, the Referendum allows “voters a chance to approve or disapprove a law that has already been considered by the Legislative,” (Washington State History). These three powers have their own differences and similarities from one another to help give the citizens of this state to have the power to make a change in the system.

The government can be the environment’s greatest ally or its worst enemy. Governing bodies can produce legislation such as the Montreal Protocol, which may be preventing upwards of 11 billion tons of carbon dioxide from reaching the atmosphere every year (Cardone). However, the government also has the power to destroy the environment, such as future president Donald Trump’s plans to severely reduce or even shut down the Environmental Protection Agency (Donald Trump on Environment). So, it seems that laws and policies are the most immediate and effective pathway toward impacting the environment. This conclusion is further supported by the example of the correlation between the spike in major environmental laws in the 1970s (see graph 1) and the boom in environmental consciousness in that period, such as widespread participation in Earth Day and increased support for groups such as the Campaign Against Pollution (Environmental Movement). This means that influencing politicians through direct communication such as letters and emails should theoretically be one of the best ways for an average person to advocate for our planet. But, do elected officials actually read the letters you send them? It