Nov 6, 2024
Although the ban hasn’t been in effect for nearly a decade, backers of the amendment said it was time to get the language off the books.
Way to go, Colorado!
I am so proud of you all! :')
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from Taiwan
seen from China
Although the ban hasn’t been in effect for nearly a decade, backers of the amendment said it was time to get the language off the books.
Way to go, Colorado!
I am so proud of you all! :')
The high court approved a ballot initiative to enshrine the right to "reproductive freedom" in the state Constitution. But the group behind
Reproductive freedom will likely be on the ballot in Nevada this November.
The Nevada Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling and issued a decision saying that such a measure has the right to be voted on as an amendment to the Nevada constitution.
Nevada already protects abortion through the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. Putting that right in the state constitution will further solidify that right.
The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled in favor of granting ballot access to a broad “reproductive freedom” ballot question seeking to enshrine rights to a wide range of birth control, fertility and abortion options into the state Constitution — though the group supporting the initiative is already moving forward with a proposal more narrowly tailored to abortion access. The 16-page decision released Thursday overturned a lower court’s ruling that said inclusion of topics such as prenatal care, abortions, vasectomies and infertility care under the umbrella of “reproductive rights” within a single ballot question was unconstitutional because the framing was too broad. “[A]ll the medical procedures considered in the initiative petition concern reproduction. To assert that they could not all be addressed together because they are separate procedures is improper,” read the opinion, which was signed by six of seven justices on the court. Justice Patricia Lee recused herself from the case because of a professional conflict of interest. But the ruling will likely not affect the petition’s chances of landing on the November ballot, as the group supporting it — Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom — has said it intends to prioritize collecting signatures on a narrower petition that focuses only on abortion rights. The high court will also rule on the constitutionality of that proposal — which received approval from a lower court judge in January — though Thursday’s opinion indicates that it is almost sure to pass legal muster from the state’s high court.
Like Nevada, New York and Maryland already protect the right to abortion. They too will hold referendums this autumn to place that right in their state constitutions.
Florida is poor on reproductive freedom and is set to get worse; but the passage of Florida Amendment 4 in November could fully restore reproductive freedom in the state now under the repressive rule of Ron DeSantis and his gerrymandered legislative supermajority.
Thanks to the Republican US Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, it's now up to the states to protect reproductive freedom. Placing that right in state constitutions is the highest level of legal protection available.
Tennessee is one of more than 20 states with slavery language still in its constitution.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — This November, five states, including Tennessee, will vote on measures that would remove slavery language from their state constitutions.
“Slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibited. Nothing in this section shall prohibit an inmate from working when the inmate has been duly convicted of a crime,” is the language Tennesseans will vote on adding to the Tennessee Constitution with Amendment 3. This language would take the place of Article I, Section 33, which currently allows both “as a punishment for a crime.”
According to the Associated Press, Tennessee joins Alabama, Louisiana, Oregon and Vermont in considering slavery provisions in their state constitutions. They follow movements in Colorado, Nebraska and Utah, which successfully amended their constitutions to remove the language entirely.
Colorado amended its constitution in 2018, while Nebraska and Utah did the same in 2020.
But more states still have slavery language on the books.
According to the Abolish Slavery National Network, a coalition fighting to remove slavery provisions from every state, 21 states currently have slavery and involuntary servitude language still in their constitutions or as laws, as do Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico. States that still contain slavery language are:
Can one still reform and improve the state and the people now? As little as the nobility, the clergy, the church, etc.; one can dissolve, destroy, annihilate them, not reform them. Can I transform something nonsensical into sense through reform, or must I drop it outright? From now on, what there is to be done is no longer about the state (the state constitution, etc.), but about me. With this all questions about royal power, the constitution, and so on, sink into their true abyss and their true nothingness. I, this nothing, will bring forth my creations from myself.
Max Stirner, The Unique and Its Property, pg. 247
We represent three moms seeking to take advantage of the state’s tax-credit scholarship program. The Montana Department of Revenue has excluded these families because they want to choose religious schools. Although the Montana program, like those in 18 other states with tax credit scholarships, was intended to include all accredited private schools—religious and secular alike—MDOR chose to exclude religious schools from the list of those at which families could use scholarships.
MDOR defended its rule as necessary to comply with the Blaine Amendment in the Montana Constitution. Blaine Amendments, which prohibit the use of state funds to aid religious schools, have become a favorite tool of those looking to derail educational choice programs. To date, however, every court IJ has appeared in has agreed with our argument: Tax credit scholarships do not involve the use of public funds—they are private donations. Furthermore, we point out that scholarship programs aid families, with only incidental benefit to private schools. MDOR must win on both counts to justify its exclusionary rule.
At the argument, MDOR’s attorney struggled to distinguish the scholarship tax credits from the typical array of tax benefits that Montana, like other states, provides directly to churches and to all private schools, including religious ones. Justices also questioned MDOR’s assumption that the Montana Constitution could not apply federal precedents distinguishing aid to students from aid to schools. IJ, of course, represented parents in the two U.S. Supreme Court precedents underlying both issues.
A California measure that would remove a 2008 ban on same-sex marriage from the state constitution is projected by the Associated Press to p
VICTORY FOR CALIFORNIA!
“If a future case should overturn Obergefell, it goes right back into that language that has existed in our constitution since a public vote
Michigan Senate Leader Brinks Threatens Legal Action Over Bill Blockade
: Michigan Senate Leader Winnie Brinks threatens legal action against House Republicans for blocking nine bipartisan bills, citing violations of the state constitution.
Michigan Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks takes legal measures against House Republicans for blocking the progression of nine passed bills. Brinks Leads Legal Push to Protect Michigan Constitution LANSING, Mich. — Michigan Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) has initiated legal measures against House Republican leadership, accusing them of violating the state constitution…