Political compromise and other good things
Utah just reached a major political compromise on the issue of proper regulation of medical marijuana. Like all good things in Utah it is being threatened by Ross "Rocky" Anderson and his fire eater associates.
The timeline is important. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came out in opposition to the ballot initiative last Spring. They did so with very well reasoned arguments against its scope. This was followed by forming a coalition in September.
The next step was in October the main supporters and opponants of the initiative agreed to a compromise plan, to stop pushing the initiative or heavily opposing it, and to seek to call a session of the legislature as soon as possible after the election.
The initiative passed, but some percentage of people who voted for it did so because they wanted to make sure the compromise was enacted. Others did so fully supporting the compromise. Due to less than forceful campaigning, we can not say what an all the stops campaign would have done to results. For one thing we cannot say how many people wanted the compromise, did not want the initial initiative, and knowing the compromise was on the way, didn't vote at all and only voted in other races.
The main contention of those who filed the suit is not even that the legislature cannot amend initiatives. This is clearly not the case, laws clearly can be amended, and there is no good way to argue that the tighter controls and rules like a licensed pharmacist must work in all dispensaries are not within the legitimate regulatory power of the state. Enforcing the rules through administrative fiat might not work, but there is no way to stop their enforcement through legislative revision.
The main contention of those bringing the suit is that the fact that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a party to the negotiations that led to the compromise is a violation of the Utah State Constituion provisions excluding control of the state by a religion. I on the other hand would content that provision in the state constition is a clear violation of the 1st amendment, was forced into the constition in an even clear violation of the constition, and if it were enforced how Anderson and his allies seek to have it enforced would lead to the effective disenfranchisement of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints within the current culture of American politics.
Hopefully this issue goes to the US Supreme Court and they hold as a violation of the constituion any provision that explicitly bans people from acting in politics as a corporate body because they are a religious corporate body.
The timeline is important. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came out in opposition to the ballot initiative last Spring. They did so with very well reasoned arguments against its scope. This was followed by forming a coalition in September.
The next step was in October the main supporters and opponants of the initiative agreed to a compromise plan, to stop pushing the initiative or heavily opposing it, and to seek to call a session of the legislature as soon as possible after the election.
The initiative passed, but some percentage of people who voted for it did so because they wanted to make sure the compromise was enacted. Others did so fully supporting the compromise. Due to less than forceful campaigning, we can not say what an all the stops campaign would have done to results. For one thing we cannot say how many people wanted the compromise, did not want the initial initiative, and knowing the compromise was on the way, didn't vote at all and only voted in other races.
The main contention of those who filed the suit is not even that the legislature cannot amend initiatives. This is clearly not the case, laws clearly can be amended, and there is no good way to argue that the tighter controls and rules like a licensed pharmacist must work in all dispensaries are not within the legitimate regulatory power of the state. Enforcing the rules through administrative fiat might not work, but there is no way to stop their enforcement through legislative revision.
The main contention of those bringing the suit is that the fact that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a party to the negotiations that led to the compromise is a violation of the Utah State Constituion provisions excluding control of the state by a religion. I on the other hand would content that provision in the state constition is a clear violation of the 1st amendment, was forced into the constition in an even clear violation of the constition, and if it were enforced how Anderson and his allies seek to have it enforced would lead to the effective disenfranchisement of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints within the current culture of American politics.
Hopefully this issue goes to the US Supreme Court and they hold as a violation of the constituion any provision that explicitly bans people from acting in politics as a corporate body because they are a religious corporate body.
Comments
Post a Comment