Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Sizzling issues — religious freedom, sports betting, athletes and the anthem

It’s hot — meteorologically and politically. Several simmering issues may hit the boiling point, especially decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Public Opinion.

The now-famous baker, Jack Phillips, argued that his First Amendment rights of free speech and religious expression allowed him to decline to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Human rights advocates argued harm to the LGBT community and other minorities if Phillips prevailed. The Supreme Court artfully dodged a final constitutional determination on the matter by issuing a narrow ruling supporting Phillips because he was unfairly treated by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Can this controversy be resolved?

Pignanelli: "The civil rights movement was based on faith.” — John Lewis

This case evolved into a classic melodrama with Phillips as the hapless victim engendering sympathy because of persecution by the villainous commission, which mocked his religious beliefs during the initial hearing. The court was compelled to play the hero and prevent further government-sponsored criticism of First Amendment rights.

Many Americans express concern with the heavy hand of government forcing the baker to provide products for use in same-sex marriages, which his faith opposes. But ask those same Americans if the baker can refuse service because the customer is African-American, Jewish or Mormon, and the sentiment immediately disappears as such conduct is outrageous discrimination.

Thus, the dilemma.

Americans have a fundamental constitutional right to express their religious beliefs in an open manner. But merchants in the public arena are prohibited — by equally important principles — from using faith to deny goods and services to customers solely for their race, creed, religion or sexual orientation. The Supreme Court will eventually structure a coexistence of both absolutes, because to rule otherwise will encourage supremacists to use a religious ploy in commerce to denigrate and harm minorities and not suffer legal ramifications — a frightening scenario.

No need for the boos and hisses of a melodrama. Americans can respect each other's religious beliefs while allowing all to participate in the public marketplace without fear of discrimination.

Webb: The court showed that reason, compromise and goodwill can sooth conflicts between freedom of religion and unfair discrimination. But both sides must be willing to concede a little and acknowledge some merit in the other side’s viewpoint. The problem is militants on both sides would prefer to fight and call names rather than solve problems.

It’s not easy, but usually doable, to find middle ground in these cases. For example, a store that sells everyday commodities to the public ought not to be able to pick and choose its customers. But an artisan using his or her creative talent should not to be forced to create something for a neo-Nazi celebration, or a same-sex marriage, if doing so violates one’s heartfelt religious convictions.

If I tried to buy an oil filter at an auto parts store and was refused service because I’m a Mormon, that would be improper discrimination. But if I asked a professional photographer to capture the joy of my daughter’s wedding on the steps of an LDS temple, a photographer who thinks Mormons are a cult should not be forced to participate.

NFL owners are requiring players to stand for the national anthem or stay in the locker room during that ceremony. The White House canceled the traditional appearance with Super Bowl victors Philadelphia Eagles. Is the NFL action a breach of First Amendment rights, or do owners have the right to demand compliance?

Pignanelli: Players have a right to peaceful protest. Fans will tolerate — to varying degrees — players’ expression of beliefs until such actions infringe upon performance or inhibit enjoyment. Then ticket sales will resolve the matter.

Webb: The owners certainly have the right to order players to respect the flag and anthem, especially because the players have an out by entering the field after the anthem is played. I have no sympathy for players who hijack a football game to make a political statement that most Americans oppose.

As for President Donald Trump disinviting the Eagles, he should simply end the tradition of sports teams going to the White House. It’s obvious that many sports superstars don’t like Trump and will try to embarrass him by saying they need to stay home and mow the lawn.

The Supreme Court recently authorized states to engage in sports betting. It also is expected to rule on state political district gerrymandering and allowing states to collect sales taxes on internet purchases. Do these cases give cause for Utahns to rejoice or grumble?

Pignanelli: Utah will continue to prohibit gambling (thank goodness, since I am easily tempted). Online sales taxation has received little attention, but it will impact every Utahn. This issue needs to be solved so Utah and other states can adapt their revenue policies accordingly.

Webb: The Supreme Court, thankfully, seems to favor turning a little power back to the states. Utah may be the last state standing against any form of gambling, and that’s OK. Every state needs its niche, its competitive advantage. Clean, safe and respectable isn’t a bad one.

The four hard-fought ballot initiatives — what’s next?

Three far-reaching proposals are now officially on the ballot for voters to approve or reject in November. A fourth, the Count My Vote proposal, was disqualified after opponents rescinded just barely enough signatures to keep it off the ballot. Myriad questions remain, such as potential lawsuits, the merits of the proposals and whether each will win or lose.

The lieutenant governor has ruled Count My Vote won’t be on the ballot. What’s next?

Pignanelli: "If you are sure you understand everything that is going on, you are hopelessly confused." — Walter F. Mondale

This ongoing drama has much in common with the "Star Wars" saga — sequels, endless spinoffs and activists who resemble scary aliens. Utahns will continue to endure this struggle between hostile forces for years.

Count My Vote is supported and well-funded by some of Utah's most prominent families. Further, they are just as tenacious as the Republican delegate militants, but nicer and less obnoxious.

So initiative supporters are not going away and will continue to push party nomination reforms through litigation, legislation and other means. In addition to requesting changes to Utah's primary system, they are now focused on the rescission process.

Readers are advised to approach this issue as they do "Star Wars": Enjoy the current offering knowing another installment is in the future.

Webb: Much has yet to play out on the Count My Vote disqualification, and it’s difficult to predict the outcome. The vast majority of Utah voters support Count My Vote and would like to affirm that support at the ballot box. The Utah Supreme Court will likely decide if they get that privilege.

The good news is that whether or not Count My Vote is on the ballot, the dual track to the primary election remains in force. The Count My Vote initiative would have improved the SB54 law, but it’s pretty good the way it is. The hundreds of candidates who have gathered signatures to get on the ballot will continue to do so, and Utah is not going back exclusively to the outdated, elitist, exclusionary caucus and convention system. We’ve crossed a tipping point in opening Utah’s election system to all voters — and we’re not going back.

The proposal to make marijuana readily available at the recommendation of almost any medical professional will go before voters. Are voters likely to approve?

Pignanelli: Politicos were shocked that the well-respected opponents (i.e. Utah Medical Association, law enforcement, prominent Mormons) could not obtain more rescission signatures — a clear indication of organizational problems. Also, this initiative was filed June 2017, but few bothered to read and explain concerns until a few months ago, far too late. Currently, the apprehensions with the initiative are far outweighed by the fear of the existing alternatives — opioid addiction and ineffectiveness of current FDA approved medications.

Webb: Despite polls showing widespread support for the marijuana proposal, the tide can easily turn. Prominent medical, law enforcement and community leaders are pointing out serious problems in this flawed proposal bankrolled by the multibillion-dollar marijuana industry.

It’s entirely possible that elements found in the marijuana plant have medicinal qualities. If so, let’s do it right and go through the approved process to create safe medications. This proposal allows widespread marijuana use without the normal safeguards used to regulate prescribed medications. Marijuana states like Colorado and California are seeing serious negative consequences. This is too big a gamble.

Medicaid expansion qualified for the ballot. Will it become law?

Pignanelli: Supporters were unchallenged while gathering signatures. That free pass now ends. Opponents will soon advise Utahns that buried in this initiative is a sales tax increase to fund the state obligation of 10 percent of medical services for the additional Medicaid recipients. So, messaging will determine the outcome of this. Is the opportunity to obtain millions of federal dollars to assist Utah's poorest greater than the fear entitlement programs are exploding the national debt? Does a tax increase make sense when the state budget is in surplus? The winner will have conveyed the simplest, most emotional missive.

Webb: Our health care system — except the emergency room — remains inaccessible for many low-income families. The system needs significant reform, especially at the federal level. In the meantime, we have the opportunity to bring home hundreds of millions of dollars we’re currently paying to the federal government. This money could help provide insurance and health care services for low-income families. Makes sense to me.

Voters will decide whether to set up an independent redistricting commission. Is gerrymandering a thing of the past?

Pignanelli: Gerrymandering coexists with the Constitution and is difficult to completely remove from our system. A Supreme Court decision in the very near future could impact how proponents and opponents message this initiative. Stay tuned because we will have opinions.

Webb: The authors of this initiative have struggled mightily to take the politics out of politics. It won’t work, but it will be fun to watch.

The Year of the Golden Spike

Those affiliated with Foxley & Pignanelli are aware that 2019 is the year of the Golden Spike. Our founding partner, Douglas Foxley, was selected by Governor Gary Herbert to serve as the Chairman for the committee to plan the commemorative ceremony of the Golden Spike 150th anniversary to be held on May 10, 2019.


To say this has escalated to something more than a passion project for Doug would be an understatement as the anniversary represents many of Doug’s interests. He is a Utah history enthusiast and has proudly represented Union Pacific Railroad for over 20 years. He is leaving no detail overlooked. Doug is working with local and national businesses and government officials to ensure the celebration is consummate with the grandeur of the impact the Transcontinental Railroad has has on our country. It is his mission to share this important historical event with everyone, to inspire youth to imagine the next big thing, and preserve this historical site for generations to come. Some of his plans include: partnering with the Beverly Taylor Sorenson Art Works for Kids program to implement a statewide history course for 8th graders to learn about the transcontinental railroad; he is designing a commemorative Winchester rifle to replicate the model manufactured for the 100th anniversary; and working to have the Golden Spike National Historic Site recognized as a national historic park. 


Last week Doug testified before Congress to ask them to support Congressman Bishop’s HR 5751 which recognizes the upcoming celebration and re-designates the site as a national park. We at Foxley & Pignanelli are proud of Doug’s hard work and look forward to the entire state catching the Spike 150 fever with us.

To watch Doug's presentation to congress, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugKjT87Hhjk

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: What’s the future of Utah’s newspapers?

Recent newspaper layoffs in Utah raise questions about the rapidly changing communications world and what it means for our local news media. We explore the ramifications.

What do the layoffs and low media approval ratings say about our news media locally and nationally?

Pignanelli: "Fifty percent of people won't vote, and fifty percent don't read newspapers. I hope it's the same fifty percent." — Gore Vidal

Our constitutional rights of freedom of speech and press are sacred fundamentals. Therefore, as a good Italian I must use a food analogy to highlight their importance. These protections are the vegetables of the American body politic providing nutrients, fiber and healthy regeneration. Although not always tasty, without them everything else withers.

The endless Twitter disparagement by President Donald Trump is often blamed for the challenges confronting news media. Yet, Trump is an amateur compared to his predecessors. Richard Nixon worked the IRS and the Justice Department to harass the media. A prominent constitutional law scholar (aka Barack Obama) subpoenaed reporters, targeted leakers and unreasonably limited access to information. Founding Father John Adams pushed the Alien and Sedition Acts to criminalize newspaper conduct. The businesses of newspapers are struggling not because of Trump, but because of what underlies Trump’s success — the internet.

Utah’s relatively small population supports two major statewide and many regional newspapers. This indicates Utahns still consider periodicals critical to understanding local and national current events.

So, Utahns love and want their vegetables, but no longer in the traditional recipes.

Webb: It is actually quite remarkable that Salt Lake City has two competing newspapers. Few, if any, similar markets anywhere in the country have two papers. The only reason both papers survive is they operate under an agreement allowing them to share a lot of operations and expenses. In other industries, such an arrangement would violate antitrust laws, but newspapers were given an exemption.

Many years ago, I was in a meeting with the top leadership of the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune. Tribune Publisher Dominic Welch, who was also president of the Newspaper Agency Corporation, made this statement: “One day there will only be one newspaper in this city — and it won’t be the Deseret News.” How wrong he was.

I believe the LDS Church really does want the Tribune to survive. The church is subject to criticism for dominating Utah’s culture and society, so having a dissenting voice in the state is actually good for the church.

As long as the Tribune is there, the church can say, “See, there’s a lot of diversity and alternative voices in Utah. We don’t really dominate.”

How important are newspapers and other media in supplying reliable information to the public about politics and elections?

Pignanelli: The biggest stories of the last two years (Weinstein and other sexual harassment revelations, Russian meddling, payments to porn stars, etc.) were revealed by newspapers and magazines. Utah’s daily publications continue to shed an important light on legislative, executive and local governmental activities. The press, in traditional and new formats, continues to provide the valuable check on the powerful.

Dystopian futures are frequent scenarios for the movies and television. But the real nightmare is the void of free speech. Journalists are the greatest soldiers and defenders of this right, and we need to keep them engaged whether through newspapers, magazines, blogs, television, YouTube, paid subscriptions or whatever. The health of our democracy depends on them.

Those who want their news for free all the time are sacrificing freedom to save pennies.

Webb: Despite their challenges, the traditional media still set the agenda. Most social media posts and online media stories link back to traditional media. And despite their obvious biases, the traditional media still produce the most reliable and factual stories.

Are newspapers, in particular, dinosaurs awaiting extinction, or will they make a comeback?

Pignanelli: The Facebook controversy taught Americans an invaluable lesson — nothing is free. So paying a minimal fee to participate in privacy secured social networking platforms will eventually prompt customers to subscribe to media outlets for their news consumption. Entrepreneurs will discover multiple methods to publish newspapers at a profit.

Webb: The Deseret News has a chance to survive because it is part of a family of communications-related businesses, including KSL TV, KSL Radio, KSL.com, LDS Church News, Deseret Digital Media, DeseretNews.com and Deseret Book.

Those relationships provide synergies and collaboration that a stand-alone newspaper doesn’t enjoy. Reporters, editors, photographers, etc., can provide and share content across a number of print, online and broadcast platforms, which provides a lot of economies.

Unlike the Tribune, the Deseret News and its sister companies also have a worldwide audience, providing news and information to millions of members of the church. That’s a big market.

How fair is the citizen initiative signature rescission process?

It’s nail-biting time for supporters and opponents of the four initiative proposals that citizens are trying to place on the 2018 November ballot. Tuesday, May 15, is the deadline for initiative opponents to turn in documents rescinding signatures. After Tuesday, the lieutenant governor’s office will total the number of signatures verified, the number of signatures rescinded, and will determine which initiatives qualify for the ballot. That likely won’t end the controversies, however.

If passed, the initiatives would institutionalize Count My Vote, fully expand Medicaid, create a commission to propose political district boundaries and allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes. The rescind efforts have sparked accusations of deception and even bullying. What is going on here?

Pignanelli: “Democracy is not just an election, it is our daily life.” — Tsai Ing-wen

Supporters and opponents of the initiative efforts are accusing the other of unfair tactics, misleading messaging, false representations, intimidating behavior and other outrageous activities. So the initiative campaigns have devolved into … resembling every political contest for the last 10,000 years of human history.

Direct democracy is just as nasty, brutish, competitive, energetic and important as representative democracy. Until this year, Utahns only infrequently experienced such trauma. Two initiatives passed in 2000 and a referendum (to repeal the legislative sponsored school voucher law) in 2004. In response to both, the Legislature established such high hurdles any similar attempts for ballot measures since then faltered or were voluntarily extinguished.

But our local political environment has dramatically changed. The CMV compromise legislation created a permanent signature gathering industry. Data analytics provides better targeting of, and messaging to, voters. Social media inexpensively and efficiently enthuses supporters and detractors. Large well-funded special-interest groups commit massive resources. These dynamics breed emotional controversy.

A nightmare for well-adjusted Utahns, the new battle lines and weapons used by contestants supporting and opposing initiatives are intriguing for those of us in the demented political hack species.

Webb: I have mixed feelings about the rescind efforts because I strongly support Count My Vote and want the rescind effort to fail. But I strongly oppose the marijuana initiative and would like the rescind effort to succeed.

This issue is fascinating, because we really are in uncharted territory. This is the first time under current law that statewide citizen initiatives have successfully gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot and have faced rescission efforts. No one really knows how difficult or easy it is to defeat a proposal by asking petition signers to remove their signatures. But we’ll know in the next few days. Lawsuits are likely, along with complaints to the lieutenant governor’s office.

s the process allowing opponents to defeat an initiative campaign by potentially removing just a few signatures a fair process?

Pignanelli: Fairness is a much desired, but missing, element in politics. I have participated on both sides of state and municipal initiative efforts — fighting to keep the number of signatures above a threshold or scrounging for rescissions to prevent ballot placement. Such activities are tactics, not policy indicators, in public affairs campaigns.

As with any other political campaign advertisement, messages to solicit signatures — whether through media or in person — are imbalanced and minimally factual. So a rescission effort is the very imperfect but necessary means to provide the opposing viewpoint and ability for voters to retract their decision.

Webb: The question is whether some equivalency should exist in the difficulty of gathering signatures and the difficulty of rescinding signatures. It is incredibly difficult to obtain at least 113,000 signatures of registered voters with the required distribution in at least 26 of Utah’s 29 state Senate districts. Success requires an immense effort engaging hundreds of volunteers and paid staff over several months, costing a million dollars or more.

Hypothetically, all that effort could be negated if opponents of the ballot proposal rescind just a very few signatures in just one Senate district. The practical reality is that initiative supporters must gather far more verified signatures than the 113,000 to protect against rescind campaigns. Even then, a dedicated group of activists, or someone with enough money to hire paid signature removers, will have a shot at removing a proposal from the ballot by focusing on just one or two districts and rescinding a relatively few signatures.

Under Utah’s Constitution, citizens clearly have the right to make laws. And the courts have clearly held that the process must not be so difficult as to make citizen lawmaking nearly impossible. Given the rescind campaigns we’re seeing, some smart lawyers could make a pretty strong case that the hurdles to citizen lawmaking under the current rescission provisions are too high. I think the courts might agree.

When all is said and done, will any of the rescind efforts be successful? Will the Legislature make any adjustments to the process?

Pignanelli: An overwhelming number of signatures creates impossible obstacles for rescission efforts. Thus, the marijuana initiative is safe. But the others could be in jeopardy. Legislators may tinker with some procedural details, but not eliminate the current process.

Webb: I can’t predict. Certainly, enough signatures can be rescinded to kill an initiative if the opponents are well-organized, well-funded, have a detailed campaign plan and ready to execute immediately when the rescind period begins. The opponents probably weren’t quite that well organized this year.

The Legislature doesn’t particularly like citizen lawmaking, so I don’t expect any action there.

Play ball!

We at Foxley & Pignanelli love Utah summers, soaking in some rays, sipping on a cold Coke and enjoying America’s favorite pastime – taking in a Bees baseball game! We are incredibly appreciative of our clients, friends, and family who support us and to show our gratitude, we want everyone to have the opportunity to enjoy a game at the ballpark- on us! If you are interested in attending a game please reach out to our office via foxpig@fputah.com to view available dates May- September. We offer up to six tickets per game so you can enjoy the game with your friends and loved ones.

Batter up! 

Renae Cowley Guest Opinion on Utahpolicy.com: Millennials & Donald Trump

My generation of Republicans relates to Donald Trump over more than just our mutual proficiency in communicating using 280 characters or less. We love his “take no prisoner” attitude, bigger than life persona, and unconventional leadership.

Millennials were raised in a reality TV culture. We accept roommate fist fights, life-threatening stunts, and scandal, as the norm for characters we watch on TV. Keep in mind, when I was in high school, “The Apprentice” was debuting; “American Idol,” “Survivor,” “Lost,” and “The Bachelor” were must-watch TV. What older generations might call Trump’s outrageous Twitter antics, we call regular MTV after-school programming.

I like to envision Trump kicking back in the White House residence for a little “Netflix & chill” while the strong admonition from his staff to take just one night off from Twitter is still ringing in his ears. Then the leader of the free world, with his iconic smug expression says to himself, “I’m still gonna send it,” and fires off another fire tweet. (Mom, if you didn’t get that joke watch this viral video. It’s YouTube gold!)

Millennials dream big. For us, the sky's the limit. Thanks in large part to the ability to launch a business online together with our creative bent, the American dream is alive and well for my generation. Tell us it can’t be done, and we will find a way to do it (probably starting with a quick Google search or YouTube tutorial).

We understand Trump’s rebellious reaction to the establishment telling him how things should be done -- pushing the same, tired, broken strategies and agenda that have failed time and time again. Trump bucks conventionality and dares to try something new while telling the swamp, “Hold my beer,” and we dig it!

I am proud to count myself among the ranks of Millennials. We are creators. We are community conscious. We DO work hard, despite what our predecessors may say.

Now before you call us racist, fake news fearful, misogynists for supporting Trump, keep this in mind. We may like his style, but not always his sentiments.  Our support for the president isn’t a blank check of support for everything he does or says. Millennials are tolerant and often have a libertarian streak in our views on social issues.  Of course, we recognize that running the greatest nation the world has ever known is not a reality show.  However, we believe in the Trump style that “you should do you” and “imma do me.”

At the end of the day, regardless of what generation you belong to, results matter and Trump gets results. He tackled major tax reform his first year in office contributing to record highs in the stock market. Because of his leadership, there has been a reduction in offshoring of jobs and investments and even an increase in wages. Whether or not you like his “my button is bigger than your button” tactics, the world now knows America’s red line is not to be crossed.

With Trump in the White House and my peers fueling the economy and our entrepreneurial spirit one gigabyte at a time, together we are Making America Great Again. 

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Issues of the day: 'Insider baseball,' or should Utahns care?

Often, politicos focus with intensity and passion on issues that are mostly ignored by the saner parts of society. Several such issues are generating much controversy within the media, politicians and operatives. But are Utahns paying attention?

The Legislature conducted a special session last week and overrode Gov. Gary Herbert’svetoes of two bills, one defining the process when there is a conflict between governmental clients of the attorney general and the other providing the Legislature the ability to intervene in court actions as a matter of right. Is this a defeat for Herbert? Does this create an imbalance of power? Should Utahns care?

Pignanelli: "I think most Americans don't really care about politicians bickering.” — Ted Cruz

Parking was plentiful at the state Capitol on Wednesday, even though almost everyone impacted by the vetoed bills was at the special session. Politicos describe such situations as “insider baseball."

Veteran observers were surprised that Herbert's intense efforts to prevent the override did not include his usual and effective strategy of sustaining a veto with a promise to develop a better alternative. Such an approach was needed last week.

As a former lawmaker, I have absolute sympathy with legislators’ frustrations requesting legal opinions and how laws are defended. Many in the legal community (our firm represents the Utah State Bar) understood lawmakers' concerns but were apprehensive with specific details of the solutions (e.g. not mandating the attorney general to the same ethical standards as other lawyers).

Our democracy works best with separation of branches, each receiving appropriate support. So legislative angst is legitimate. Whether one agrees or disagrees with their solutions, lawmakers are commended for attempting a resolution. Hopefully, the special session will spur additional legislation and potential constitutional amendments. Clarifying the obligations of the attorney general, and consideration to make the position appointed, will help.

The first inning of this insider baseball game just ended.

Webb: The capacity of my old and feeble mind is quite limited, so I try not to clutter it with political minutiae that is never going to impact my life. That said, the founders set up tension between the branches of government to protect citizens from any individual or entity that wants to become a despot. So these tussles over power are natural, and Herbert need not feel bad about losing this round. He’s won most of his fights, and there will be others.

The war between President Donald Trump and former FBI Director James Comey is titillating, but does it mean anything? Will it make any difference, and should Utahns care?

Pignanelli: Witnessing the former leader of the venerated FBI engaging in horrific dispersions of the president’s hair, hands and moral fiber is a new dark element in politics — especially since Comey is burdened with his own ethical baggage.

Aside from appropriate disgust, Utahns should care about this controversy. The difficult part is the denigration of our government institutions. But the good — and strange — factor is that the kerfuffle emphasizes that no one is above public criticism in America.

Webb: Trump is Trump, and billions of words have been written (with more to come) about his plentiful failings. But Comey isn’t much better. He’s convinced he’s the only honorable person in Washington (maybe in the universe); he’s sanctimonious, pretentious and condescending. It’s outrageous for him to gossip on TV about all sorts of salacious rumors and innuendo and then say he doesn’t know if it’s true — but, you know, it could be.

Both Republicans and Democrats have ample reason to dislike Comey. He usurped the authority of the Obama administration attorney general. The top levels of the FBI were politicized under his leadership. He took notes about his private conversations with the president and promptly leaked it to the press. Through it all, he maintained his superiority and haughtiness — the only righteous swamp rat in the slough.

Four initiative petition campaigns turned in an impressive number of signatures (each exceeding 100,000), to county clerks. The clerks and the lieutenant governor’s office have a month to verify signatures and determine if the proposals qualify for the ballot. Politicos are chattering about these ballot proposals. Should Utahns care?

Pignanelli: These initiative campaigns were able to raise millions of dollars to collect signatures — a clear signal that Utah politics is changing, impacting future elections and legislative deliberations.

Webb: It is rare (as it should be) that voters get to take lawmaking into their own hands. It’s still possible not all of the proposals will make it on the ballot. Efforts to rescind signatures on some of the proposals are already underway.

These are all substantive and impactful issues — Medicaid expansion, Count My Vote, redistricting commission and marijuana liberalization. Multimillion-dollar campaigns will be run for and against them in advance of the November election. All voters should study each proposal very carefully, understand the pros and cons and ramifications and vote accordingly.