Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
The Tuesday Count: Michigan's wolf hunting referendums would have short-term effect on law
October 14, 2014
Edited by Tyler King
 |
|---|
|
This week's Tuesday Count features how an anti-wolf hunting campaign in Michigan is moving forward following legislative actions rendering the group's referendums moot, fracking and GMO bans in California, and the toppling of voter-approved same-sex marriage bans in multiple states.
Michigan's wolf hunting referendums have little practical effect
Approximately $816,768 was spent to get not one, but two, anti-wolf hunting veto referendums on the general election ballot in Michigan. That's about $2.53 per signature or $1,241 per wolf in Michigan, based on the state's Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) 2013 wolf population estimate.[1] Nonetheless, neither measure will have much practical effect on wolf hunting due to some legislative maneuvering and a strategic pro-wolf hunting indirect initiative. Essentially, the two ballot measures - Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 - have been rendered moot and will not affect state law if approved by voters.
Keep Michigan Wolves Protected (KMWP), the campaign group sponsoring the measures, is planning to initiate litigation against the pro-hunt Natural Resources Commission Initiative, arguing the initiative's content was too broad. The organization still wants people to turn out and vote "no" on November 4, just in case the pro-hunt initiative is overturned by a court in the future. As Jill Fritz, director of KMWP, said, "If those referendums are overturned in November, and the initiative is overturned in court, wolves could not be hunted for trophies."[2] KMWP cannot initiate a third veto referendum, however, as the pro-hunt initiative contained appropriations for the DNR to battle invasive Asian Carp, a matter unrelated to wolf hunting. In 2001, the Michigan Supreme Court determined the state constitution protected all laws making appropriations from veto referendums.[3]
Opponents of the wolf hunt, realizing they can still send a message of disapproval to lawmakers, are continuing their campaign.[4] Also, the two measures, if passed, would block the wolf hunt until the pro-hunt initiative goes into effect in late-March or April 2015.[5] Since the veto referendums are on the table, and the pro-hunt law isn't in effect yet, the state did not schedule a wolf hunt for 2014.[6]
Spotlight
- Santa Barbara County Fracking Ban Initiative, Measure P (November 2014): Opponents of Measure P have collected nearly 20 times the campaign funds currently in the war chest of fracking ban supporters.[7]
- Humboldt County "Genetic Contamination Prevention Ordinance" GMO Ban Initiative, Measure P (November 2014): With attention focused on the high-profile Maui measure seeking a moratorium on genetically modified organism (GMOs) and statewide efforts to require labeling of GMOs, Measure P - an important initiative seeking to prohibit all GMOs in Humboldt County, California - is not receiving a lot of attention.[8]
Other measures in the news
Since the United States Supreme Court's October 6 decision to not to hear cases related to upholding same-sex marriage bans, a number of voter-approved laws regulating marriage to between one man and one woman have been struck down by federal judges. Since October 6, 2014, same-sex marriage has become legal in the following states:
- Oklahoma Marriage Question 711 (2004)[9]
- Utah Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Amendment 3 (2004)[9]
- Virginia Question 1, Marriage Amendment (2006)[9]
- Wisconsin Marriage Amendment, Question 1 (2006)[9]
- Colorado Definition of Marriage, Initiative 43 (2006)[10]
- Idaho Marriage Definition, HJR 2 (2006)[11]
- Nevada Marriage Amendment, Question 2 (2002)[12]
- North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage, Amendment 1 (May 2012)[13]
- Alaska Marriage Amendment, Measure 2 (1998)[13]
West Virginia's governor and attorney general applied the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court's precedent without a judge directly ruling the state's law unconstitutional. The state's ban was a legislatively-passed statute and not a voter-approved constitutional amendment.[14] Likewise, Indiana's statute ban, which the Supreme Court refused to address, was not voter approved, and same-sex marriage was legalized there on October 6.[9]
See also
| 2014 ballot measures |
| Tuesday Count • 2014 Scorecard |
Footnotes
- ↑ Michigan Department of Natural Resources, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Gray Wolves and Eastern Wolves," accessed October 14, 2014
- ↑ MLive, "Michigan wolf hunt ballot proposals: Will your vote matter?" October 7, 2014
- ↑ MLive, "Michigan Election 2014: How Asian Carp money makes new wolf hunt law immune to referendum," October 8, 2014
- ↑ Toledo Blade, "Mich. voters can to make statement on wolf hunts," October 9, 2014
- ↑ The Detroit News, "Ballot language approved for wolf hunting referendums," September 4, 2014 (dead link)
- ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Want to hunt Michigan wolves? You'll have to wait until at least 2015," September 11, 2014
- ↑ The Santa Barbara Independent, "Measuring Measure P Funds Raised," accessed October 2, 2014, archived October 2, 2014
- ↑ Redwood Times, "Measure P seeks to ban GMO crops," October 13, 2014
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Washington Post, "Supreme Court lets stand state rulings allowing same-sex marriage," October 6, 2014
- ↑ Washington Post, "Same-sex marriage is legal in Colorado," October 7, 2014
- ↑ Huffington Post, "Idaho Same-Sex Couples Can Begin Marrying On October 15," October 13, 2014
- ↑ NPR, "Appellate Court Strikes Down Gay-Marriage Bans In Idaho, Nevada," October 7, 2014
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 NPR, "North Carolina And Alaska Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses," October 13, 2014
- ↑ New York Times, "Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Echoes as West Virginia Relents and South Carolina Persists," October 9, 2014
