|
|
 |
Voters get their say on ballot initiativesATLANTA, Georgia (AllPolitics, October 30) -- Although Election '98 will decide the men and woman who will set public policy in Washington and state capitols across the country, it also will many voters to directly express their opinions on a wide variety of topics through ballot questions, initiatives, referendums and amendments to state constitutions. Across the U.S there are nearly 240 ballot measures to be decided on Election Day. Voters in 44 states will cast ballots on issues ranging from the medical use of marijuana to same-sex marriages to late-term abortions. Here is a preview of some of this year's hot questions:
Medical marijuanaOn Tuesday, voters in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Washington state and Washington, D.C., will find propositions on their ballots that would give them the right to allow physicians to prescribe marijuana as medicine.
"There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of patients in the United States who could benefit from the medical use of marijuana," says Bill Zimmerman of Americans for Medical Rights. 
But White House and law enforcement officials oppose medical use of marijuana. "Smoke is not a medicine. It is also not a legitimate way to deliver medications," says Dr. Don Vereen, deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Drug Policy czar Barry McCaffrey believes the measures are premature since clinical research to determine the safety of marijuana use by AIDS patients has not yet been established. He also believes supporters of the initiatives have something else in mind. "Prejudging that research through a political process would be irresponsible," McCaffrey says. "This isn't medicine; this is drug legalization." Three former presidents, George Bush, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, are also urging voters to defeat the marijuana referendums. "This is not a stepping stone to legalization. Americans for Medical Rights, which is the organization sponsoring these initiatives, has no legalization agenda," Zimmerman says. Zimmerman's group is mounting a TV blitz as Election Day nears. And the group can afford it. With backing from multimillionaires including New York financier George Soros, insurance magnate Peter Lewis and educator-entrepreneur John Sperling, Americans for Medical Rights has a war chest of more than $2 million. "There is a medicine that can help, it's marijuana and I've seen it work," Rob Killian, a Seattle doctor, says in one TV ad. But even if voters support the propositions, the fight won't end there. Congress has moved to block the Washington, D.C., proposition from becoming law and the Justice Department has given every indication it will oppose implementation. Two years ago after marijuana propositions passed in Arizona and California, Justice officials threatened to sanction physicians who prescribed marijuana. The matter is now in the courts. This year, Arizona's Proposition 300 would, if approved, effectively dismantle the 1996 measure by forcing doctors to get approval from the FDA or Congress before prescribing the drug. White House and Justice officials believe there should be no wholesale dispensing of marijuana until federal studies determine if the plant has any medicinal value. Under the state measures in Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Washington state and Washington, D.C., marijuana would be made legal only for persons suffering from one of a specific list of ailments, including cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, chronic pain, seizures and muscle spasms. The measures in Alaska, Oregon and Nevada would also create state registries of patients approved to use the drug and in Alaska and Oregon patients would also get identification cards. Although voters in Colorado will still be able to vote on a medical marijuana initiative, the votes will not be counted because backers lost their court fight to overturn the secretary of state's rejection of their petitions. But support for medical marijuana in the other states appears high. Polls indicate that Arizona's Proposition 300, which would gut its existing medical marijuana law is trailing. In Washington state a recent Mason-Dixon poll indicated Initiative 692 was favored by 47 percent and opposed by 38 percent, with 15 percent undecided. A KATU/The Oregonian poll recently showed 59 percent of those surveyed said they would vote to approve Measure 67 and legalize medical marijuana in Oregon. Polls in Alaska also show voters are likely to approve medical marijuana, while the initiative in Nevada appears to be a close call.
Check out The Seattle Times' Election coverage:
Check out The Denver Post's Election coverage:
Check out the Las Vegas Review-Journal's Election coverage:
Check out The Oregonian's election coverage:
Check out The Arizona Republic's election coverage: Civil rightsSAME-SEX MARRIAGE -- Just as Hawaii's high court seemed poised to allow same-sex-marriages, gay activists could see their visions of legal weddings on the beaches of Maui disappear if voters approve Constitutional Amendment 2 on Election Day. "Shall the constitution of the state of Hawaii be amended to specify that the Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples?" Hawaii's proposal asks voters. 
The latest spending reports, filed October 18 shows supporters of the amendment have raised nearly $1.3 million, and the opposition has raised $1.15 million. Much of the pro-gay marriage money has come from the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian civil rights group, while the traditional marriage money has come from conservative Christian and other religious groups. The air waves in Hawaii are filled with ads. The pro-gay marriage side says Hawaiians shouldn't tamper with their constitution, and they suggest denying homosexuals the right to marry is akin to denying the rights of Japanese Americans during World War II. Those who support traditional marriages say it's a matter of what society teaches its children. "We would basically be telling our children this is alright, this is normal and natural, and we don't believe that's true," says Linda Rosehill of "Save Traditional Marriage." The polls are just as conflicting, but many believe gay marriage won't happen in Hawaii this year. "Seventy percent of the people here in the state believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman," says Rev. Marc Alexander of the Hawaii Catholic Conference. Voters in Alaska will also have the opportunity to vote on a same-sex marriage ballot initiative. Alaska's measure would go one step beyond Hawaii's measure, which ultimately lets the legislature decide, by amending the constitution to limit marriage to "exist only between one man and one woman."
Check out the Honolulu Star-Bulletin's election coverage: BASIC RIGHTS -- Same-sex marriage is also a factor in the fight over "Revision 9" in Florida. The so-called "Fairness Amendment" changes the language in the state's constitution to define "natural persons" or those who are equal before the law as "female and male alike." It also changes "physical handicap" to "physical disability." But opponents, including the Christian Coalition of Florida and the Florida Family Association, argue that if the state's constitution treated the words male and female as "alike" and equal they would in essence be interchangeable, allowing gay and lesbian advocated to argue that same-sex marriages are legal. But supporters argue that seven states with the "Fairness Amendment" have consistently ruled that these measures do not compel governments to issue licenses for same-sex marriages. Iowans will also get the opportunity to decide on expanding the language of their constitution to include women. If "Constitutional Amendment 1" is passed November 3, the Hawkeye state's constitution will read, "All men and woman are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable right -- among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."
Check out the Miami Herald's special Election coverage: ANTI-AFFIRMATIVE ACTION -- Another ballot measure that has captured the national spotlight is Washington state's "Initiative 200." If "I-200" is approved, Washington would join California and become the second state to abolish most of its government affirmative-action programs. "Shall government be prohibited from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting?" the measure asks. Supports say the measure will end discrimination against qualified white males in school districts, state colleges and universities as well as city, county and state governments. But opponents worry that the initiative is vague and open to interpretation that could end up eliminating welfare-to-work job training and school programs designed to get girls interested in math and science. In a Mason-Dixon Political-Media Research poll taken October 26-27, 50 percent of respondents favored "I-200", 41 percent opposed the measure and 8 percent were undecided. A Seattle Times Washington Poll taken in July showed that 64 percent of likely voters supported "I-200." After respondents were read a description of the results of "I-200," the support dropped to 49 percent. Millions have been spent in the fight over "I-200" and television advertising was expected to escalate in the week before the election. The Washington Civil Rights Initiative, sponsors of the measure, reported raising $239,990 by mid-October, while "No! 200 Campaign" has raised $997,260, according to state financial records. But that does not include the hundreds of thousands of dollars individuals have poured into the fight.
Check out The Seattle Times' Election coverage: INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE -- If people need evidence that racism still exists in America they need to look no further than the South Carolina state constitution, which still prohibits "marriage of a white person with a Negro or mulatto or a person who shall have one-eighth or more of Negro blood." 
Although it was added to South Carolina's constitution in 1895 and is not actively enforced, until last spring state legislators refused to allow voters to decide whether to remove the ban. South Carolina's "Amendment 4" would finally delete the line from the state's constitution. In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that a similar law in Virginia could not be enforced and Clemson University political scientist Bruce Ransom told The Associated Press the vote will be more symbolic than legal. "South Carolina is in no position regardless of what happens November 3 to ban interracial marriages," Ransom said. "It's a symbolic act. It would say something about the state in a very powerful way." In a Mason-Dixon poll in August, two-thirds of voters favored removing the ban, 22 percent opposed it and 11 percent remained undecided. The sample of 806 registered voters contained about twice as many whites as black.
Check out The State's Election coverage:
FREEDOM OF RELIGION -- Voters in Alabama will be voting on "Proposition 8," an amendment to the state's Constitution that would prohibit "the burdening of the free exercise of religion unless (the) government demonstrates that it has a compelling interest in doing so and that the interest is achieved by the least restrictive means." AbortionTwo states, Colorado and Washington, will consider amendments to ban the so-called "partial-birth abortion." Colorado's "Amendment 11" says "no one shall knowingly or intentionally perform a partial-birth abortion; allowing a medical procedure to prevent the death of the pregnant woman." Washington's "Measure 694" also has an exception to save the life of the mother, but in all other cases, performing the procedure would become a felony. While they are similar, a language difference between the two measures may make a difference as opponents of the Washington measure claim the wording of their initiative could be used to ban many common and safe abortion procedures. A Denver Post/9News/KOA News Radio tracking poll shows support for "Amendment 11" dropping from a high of 70 percent on October 10 to 54 percent on October 27. 
Poll numbers for Washington's "Measure 694" are worse. Thirty-five percent of those questioned by Mason-Dixon Political-Media Research on October 26-27 said they would vote "yes" on "Measure 694", while 48 percent said they would vote "no" and 17 percent remained undecided. The controversial procedure has been banned by 28 states, but only nine states have enforced those laws as intended. In 20 states legal challenges have stalled or prevented enactment. The Senate failed twice to override President Bill Clinton's veto of a federal partial-birth abortion bill. Voters in Colorado will also be voting on another abortion-related measure. "Amendment 12" would prohibit doctors from performing abortions on minors "until at least 48 hours after written notice of the pending abortion has been delivered to the parent of the minor." The amendment does have a clause that allows a judge to bypass the notification if he or she decided it is "in the best interests of the minor or that the minor is sufficiently mature to decide whether to have the abortion." In a Denver Post/9News/KOA News Radio poll taken October 27, 65 percent of voters support "Amendment 12," while 29 percent oppose it.
Check out The Denver Post's Election coverage:
Check out The Seattle Times' Election coverage: Term limitsThree states are trying to get around a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled the only way to impose term limits on members of Congress is by amending the U.S. Constitution. Alaska, Colorado and Idaho all have measures that would allow candidates running for Congress to sign voluntary term-limit pledges. If they signed the pledge then their ballot entries would include their name and the fact that they signed the pledge. In Alaska, "Ballot Measure No.7" sets the pledge to mean that candidates would promise not to serve more than three terms in the House, two terms in the Senate, or eight out of 16 years in the state Legislature. In addition, it would add "broke term-limits pledge" to the ballot if the candidate chose to run for additional terms. "Amendment 18" in Colorado would also set the voluntarily limit to two terms in the Senate and three terms in the House. Colorado already has formal term limits for state and local officials. In 1994, Colorado passed term limits for Congress but the Supreme Court struck down that amendment to the state's constitution. Two years later voters in Colorado approved a measure that was designed to call for a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution. That initiative was struck down by a state court on the grounds that a provision of the measure that required election ballots to indicate which candidates didn't call for the constitutional convention was coercive. Supporters of Nevada's "Question 17" are hoping their initiative doesn't suffer a similar fate. If approved, "Question 17" would instruct Nevada's members of Congress and the state Legislature to petition for and support bills that require term limits for Congress. If a lawmakers didn't push for term limits, the phrase "Disregarded voters' instruction on term limits" would be printed by their names on future ballots.
Check out the Las Vegas Review-Journal's Election coverage:
Check out The Denver Post's Election coverage: Campaign financeSince 1996, campaign finance reform has been hotly debated and ultimately rejected on Capitol Hill. Four states are taking campaign finance reform and restrictions to the people. And one state even has competing ballot measures over the issue of public employee campaign contributions. The goal of Arizona's "Proposition 200" is lofty. The so-called "Clean Election Initiative" would diminish "the influence of special-interest money, will encourage citizen participation in the political process, and will promote freedom of speech ... campaigns will become more issue-oriented and less negative because there will be no need to challenge the sources of campaign money." 
In short, Arizona is on the brink of adopting a system of public funding of campaigns for candidates who agree to abide by strict limits on other contributions. Candidates who raise a specific number of $5 contributions and forgo large donations or fund-raising would qualify for up to $950,000 in public funds. If a candidate chose not to participate in the public funding system he or she would face a 20 percent reduction in Arizona's campaign contribution limits. Taxpayer participation would be voluntary and lobbyists would be charged an annual $100 registration fee to fund the system. Critics of "Proposition 200" say it will create a welfare state for politicians, give fringe third-party candidates more influence over elections and penalize candidates from low-income district who might have trouble rasing the set number of $5 donations. Residents of Massachusetts will also vote on a similar proposal to publicly fund campaigns. The Bay State's "Question 2" would "create a new voluntary system allowing candidates for state office who agree to campaign spending limits and $100 contribution limits to receive a set amount of public funds," starting in 2002. "Question 2" would also limit so-called soft money transfers of money from national political parties to state political parties for administrative, overhead or party-building activities. And it would make campaign finance reports available electronically. A poll conducted by the "Massachusetts Voters for Clean Elections" in March showed 76 percent of respondents favored "Question 2" and 19 percent opposed the measure. The level of support dropped to 64 percent after questioners read the cost and arguments against the measure. Estimates put the cost to taxpayers at $14 million a year in legislative appropriations. Although a test of the system in this year's primary resulted is higher costs than expected, the tone of the races using the new system improved. According to Brian Money of the Boston Globe, "The only races with nasty negative advertising were those in which candidates did not accept voluntary caps." Montana's "Initiative 114" asks voters to prohibit contributions to ballot-issue campaigns by corporations, partnership, associations and tax-exempt organizations. In the wake of multi-million dollar anti-initiative campaign from tobacco and mining corporation, voters agreed in 1996 to ban direct campaign spending from corporate checkbooks on campaign initiatives. "Initiative 114" would amend that restriction to include donations from not-for-profit groups. Opponents of the new measure, including the League of Women Voters of Montana, Common Cause of Montana and the Montana Public Interest Research Group claim that it is a "poison pill" amendment supported by big business interests who are upset that their contributions were prohibited. "Under the guise of 'leveling the playing field' (sponsors) added the legally indefensible restrictions on money coming from human beings rather than from corporate profits," opponents argue. In Oregon, voters have two campaign finance measures to consider. "Measure 59" prohibits using public resources to collect money for political purposes. Targeted at Oregon's public employee unions, the measure would in essence prohibit those unions from using payroll deductions to collect funds for political campaigns. "Measure 62," which is supported by the unions that are targeted in "Measure 59," would protect "individuals' right to make campaign contributions using certain methods," including payroll deductions. It would also require more frequent disclosures of campaign contributions, regulate businesses that hire people to circulate petitions, and mandate the disclosure of the sponsors for political advertising. A KATU/The Oregonian poll conducted in mid-October showed 54 percent of voters supported "Measure 59" and 73 percent of voters favored "Measure 62." But a union-sponsored ad campaign appears to be eroding support for "Measure 59." A KPTV poll taken in September showed support for "Measure 59" at 61 percent of voters.
Check out The Oregonian's election coverage:
Check out The Arizona Republic's election coverage:
Check out the Boston Globe's election coverage: GamblingThree states have gambling ballot measures to watch this year. In California, a record $86 million has been raised by both sides in the battle over "Proposition 5," campaign finance reports show. "Proposition 5" would expand the number of Indian tribes allowed to operate casinos and allow new casino construction and expansion without government approval. The measure would also allow tribal casinos to have slot machines and banked card games. 
Tribal interests have raised nearly $60 million in support of the proposition, and while their opponents, including law enforcement, religious groups and Nevada casino interests, have also been able to afford a heavy television presence, "Proposition 5" remains strong in the polls. According to a Los Angeles Times poll published in late October, 58 percent of likely voters supported the measure, while 32 percent were opposed. A mid-September San Francisco Examiner poll showed 54 percent favored "Proposition 5" and 33 percent opposed it. In the "Show Me" state, the fate of 10 of Missouri's 15 riverboat casinos built off the river in man-made moats hangs in the balance with "Amendment 9." Last year the Missouri Supreme Court ruled the state's Constitution does not allow casinos to operate unless they are located along the main channels of the Mississippi or Missouri rivers, and casinos built in man-made lagoons filled with water from the river are not really on the river. The Missouri Gaming Commission allowed the boats to move inland after a number of collisions between floating casinos and river barges. "Amendment 9" would allow the Missouri Assembly to permit the so-called "boats in moats" to operate games of chance, including slot machines in "artificial spaces containing water that are within 1,000 feet of the closest edge of the main channel of either of those rivers." Opponents of "Amendment 9" say the gambling industry pulled a bait-and-switch on the voters who originally approved what they thought would be mobile riverboats. Supports argue that the casinos employ more than 10,000 Missourians and have poured millions into the local economy. In New Jersey, voters may be one step closer to off-track and telephone betting on horse races after Election Day. "Question 2" asks voters to turn over control of the horse racing industry to the state legislature. Currently, the Garden State's constitution prohibits lawmakers from approving any form of gambling without first taking it to a public vote. "Question 2' states "the Legislature may authorize, by law, the specific kind, restrictions and control of wagering on live or simulcast running and harness horse races." Designed to fight increasing competition from lotteries, Atlantic City casinos and racetracks in New York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania, "Question 2" does not specifically mention off-track and phone betting. But a governor's study commission recently concluded that the future of New Jersey's racetracks depended on the addition of those two forms of wagering. And if the revision to the constitution passes the legislature could easily approve the additions. Although there is no formal opposition to the measure, some opponents argue that any measure which could lead to off-track betting would hurt attendance at the races.
Check out Kansas City Star's election coverage:
Check out the San Francisco Examiner's election coverage:
Check out the Los Angeles Times' election coverage: Check out the New York Times' election coverage: http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/ Utility DeregulationCalifornia's "Proposition 9" may one of the most complicated ballot initiative voters will face this fall, but if approved it also may have the greatest impact on the lives of nearly every resident in the Golden state. Prop. 9 "prohibits assessment of taxes, bonds, surcharges to pay costs of nuclear power plants. Limits recovery by electric companies for costs of non-nuclear power plants. Prohibits issuance of rate reduction bonds." What does that mean? First, electricity in California is expensive, 50 percent more than the national average. Two years ago, as part of a greater plan to deregulate the electric industry in California, the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) imposed a cap on electricity rates in California. That rate was inflated by payments to help utility companies finance nuclear power plants and buy other forms of costly electricity. Prop. 9 would eliminate those surcharges and lower Californians' electric bills. But critics argue that Prop. 9 destroys the larger deregulation plan that would ultimately reduce electric rates more. The measure would also prevent utility companies from charging ratepayers the costs of repaying $6 billion in bonds issued by three utilities to finance a 10 percent rate cut for those same ratepayers. The bonds were part of the larger deregulation plan, but they were never taken to California voters for approval so supporters of Prop. 9 claim they are illegal. Opponents say if the utility companies can't pay the bonds the state would ultimately foot the bill anyway and the AAA-rated bonds which were quickly bought up by investors may be devalued, hurting investors. Analyst say the immediate result of Prop. 9 would be a 20 percent drop in electric bills for many California residents and a lengthy legal battle over the repayment of the bonds. But in the long run, if Prop. 9 delays the deregulation plan, analysts say, ratepayers will lose out on cost savings. A recent San Francisco Examiner/KTVU-TV poll published on October 17 showed 43 percent of voters backed the initiative, while 34 percent opposed it and 23 percent were undecided. A Los Angeles Times poll published October 24 showed 25 percent of those who read the proposition supported the measure, while 42 percent of likely voters oppose the proposition and 33 percent remained undecided. Supporters blame the downturn in the polls on a $30 million ad campaign by the utility companies.
Check out the Los Angeles Times' election coverage:
Check out the San Francisco Examiner's election coverage: Presidential primariesSponsors of California's "Proposition 3" claim it would correct an unintentional side effect of 1996's "Proposition 198," in which voters agreed to allow open primaries for most races on the California ballot. Under that system, any registered voter in California could vote in a primary to select the Republican and Democrat candidates for elected office. The snag in the process happens during presidential election years. Presidential primaries elect delegates to attend the major party nominating conventions. Republican and Democratic Party rules state, however, that delegates must be selected only by members of their respective party. In essence, California's sizable delegation to both the Republican and Democratic National conventions could be refused standing and denied their votes. Supporters say the proposition will preserve California's influence in choosing the next president of the United States. Opponents say the national parties could easily change their rules and the disenfranchised independent voters -- 12 percent of the California's electorate -- could also have a say in choosing who will run for the highest office in the land.
Check out the Los Angeles Times' election coverage:
Check out the San Francisco Examiner's election coverage: Minimum wageThe state of Washington could make history if voters approve a ballot initiative that would tie future minimum-wage hikes in the Evergreen State to the rate of inflation. 
"Initiative 688," sponsored by the Washington State Labor Council, would give minimum-wage earners an immediate 33 percent raise by bumping Washington's current $4.90-an-hour rate to $5.70-an-hour on January 1. By the year 2000 the rate would become $6.50 an hour. In 2001, Washington would become the first state to automatically adjust the minimum wage to match inflation. Opponents to "I-688" have been slow to organize and a recent Mason-Dixon poll shows "I-688" is supported by 64 percent of voters. Check out The Seattle Times' Election coverage http://www.seattletimes.com/politics/election98/index.html Assisted suicideWhile the man best known for defending suicide-doctor Jack Kervorkian is busy running for governor, voters in Michigan will also be deciding whether to legalize physician-assisted suicide. If approved "Proposal B" would "legalize the prescription of a lethal dose of medication to terminally ill, competent, informed adults in order to commit suicide." 
According to a Detroit Free Press poll conducted October 19-21, 54 percent of likely voters oppose "Proposal B" and only 40 percent now support the measure. A survey taken two weeks before the latest poll showed "Proposal B" ahead 48-43 percent. "Proposal B" supporters blame the turnaround on an intense multi-million dollar ad campaign by a coalition of health care, religious and civil-rights organizations called Citizens for Compassionate Care. The Michigan secretary of state reports that Citizens for Compassionate Care has raised more than $5 million in contributions. In contrast, the group Merian's Friends, advocates of the measure, told the Detroit Free Press they have raised only $300,000 and produced one television ad. Check out the Detroit Free Press' Election coverage at: http://www.freep.com/news/politics/index.htm Schools fundingFinding money to pay for education has been a mainstay in President Clinton's agenda and voters in South Dakota may also be looking for an alternative source of educational funding if "Amendment A" is passed on November 3. 
"Amendment A" would change South Dakota's constitution and bar school districts from using property taxes to fund public schools. About half of all school funding in South Dakota is generated from property taxes and that money would immediately disappear if the amendment is approved. But some lawmakers are now having second thoughts about the measure. State Sen. Jim Hutmacher, who helped sponsor the amendment, is now telling voters he will vote against "Amendment A" because he has learned if the measure is approved, 38 school districts would lose nearly $13 million dollars in federal aid. Gun controlThe National Rifle Association is out in force trying to influence the results fo two disparate gun-related ballot initiative this fall. Wisconsin's "Question 2" explicitly adds the "right to bear arms" to the state's Constitution. Currently, Wisconsin's Constitution does not have a gun provision, but if the amendment passes, the state would add a clause that says "the people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." NRA President Charlton Heston attended a rally in Milwaukee last Friday in support of the new clause. "A clear enunciation of these rights needs to be enshrined in the constitution to guarantee that this basic right of law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen shall not be infringed upon by anti-gun public officials," Heston recently told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Others view "Question 2" as the first step to passing a "right-to-carry" law that would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons, a privilege currently held only by Wisconsin law enforcement officers. Opponents complain the measure would provoke legal challenges to gun safety legislation. A Wisconsin State Journal/WISC-TV poll taken in September showed that 73 percent of respondents support the wording in the proposed amendment. While the NRA is supporting Wisconsin's "Question 2," firearms advocates are up in arms over Florida's "Revision 12." "Revision 12" would strengthen a 1990 amendment to Florida's state constitution that requires background checks and waiting periods for people buying guns from licensed dealers. The new additions would let local governments extend the background check provision to include guns purchased in public places such as gun shows, flea markets and garage sales. The measure would also let counties increase the waiting period for buying a handgun from three days to five days. Federal legislation to close the "gun-show loophole" of the so-called Brady Bill was introduced in Congress this year, but died at the hands of the Republican leadership. The Miami Herald reports that "Revision 12" is doing well in statewide polls; 85 percent of registered voters and 68 percent of the gun owners who were questioned supported the measure. But as decision day approaches, the opposition, led by the NRA, is mobilizing. Heston will be featured in a $500,000 media campaign by a group calling itself "No on 12," the Miami Herald says.
Check out Wisconsin's channel 3000's Election '98 coverage:
Also visit the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Election coverage:
Visit the Orlando Sentinel's Election '98 special section:
Check out the Miami Herald's special Election coverage: Broncos stadiumPerhaps the most effective political commercial of all time aired last January when the Denver Broncos defeated the Green Bay Packers, 31-24, in Super Bowl XXXII. How can voters in six Denver-area counties say "no" to a team who finally brought the Vince Lombardi trophy to the mile-high city and now want a new place to store it? "Referendum 4A" would extend a one-tenth-of-a-penny sales tax to help pay for a new $360 million Broncos stadium. The tax, which would fund 75 percent of the construction cost, is currently in place, paying for the Colorado Rockies' Coors Field. According to a Denver Post/9News/850 KOA News Radio poll conducted October 19-22, 57 percent of likely voters in the stadium district say they support the stadium referendum. Oh yeah, and the Denver Broncos are 7-0 this year.
Check out The Denver Post's special Stadium section: CNN's Pierre Thomas, Anne McDermott and The Associated Press contributed to this report.MORE STORIES:Friday, October 30, 1998
• Paula Jones plans to renew negotiations with Clinton, lawyer says • Report: ambassador made sex advance • Lobbyist gave illegal contributions to Espy's brother • Lewinsky, Tripp might not testify • Americans pick smiley face stamp • Gov. Whitman blasts feminist groups for sticking with Clinton
• White House goes after Gingrich • Voters get their say on ballot initiatives • Begala says election about "ideas" not "insults" • New York Senate race an old-fashioned street fight • A lot of gold in California Congressional race • Medical marijuana on 7 U.S. ballots • Democrats hopeful on governor's races • Clinton inspires campaign apologies • Who votes in a mid-term election • Michigan may not pass assisted suicide • Late campaigning too late in Oregon • Missouri to vote on slots measure • Gambling disputes on many ballots • South Carolina governor's race too close to call • Democrat Davis takes lead in California governor's race • GOP pits Democrat against Democrat • Poll gives Illinois senator hope • Alaska GOP wants election delayed • Scandal an issue in California race • Clinton seeks votes in Florida, New York • Alabama governor faces uphill battle • Labor officials, governor's aides face campaign charges |
