No Vote for the Bosses’ Parties and Politicians!

On Ballot Props: Vote for
Defending Basic Rights

NOVEMBER 4 – The Internationalist Group has called repeatedly to “Break with the Democrats, Bosses’ Party of Racist Repression, Imperialist War and Gaza Genocide, For a Revolutionary Workers Party,” as an IG banner on May Day 2024 proclaimed. Last August, in an article published while the Democratic convention was in progress, we wrote: “in November, U.S. voters will have the ‘choice’ between immigrant-bashing fascistic Republicans preparing to introduce police state measures, and a Democratic ticket that smears pro-Palestinian protesters as ‘antisemitic’ and is careening toward a thermonuclear World War III. ‘Pick your poison’ is no answer. We say: no vote to any capitalist party or politicians.”¹

Now that the elections are upon us and people are headed to the polls (or have already voted), some who oppose both major capitalist parties and the alternatives nevertheless feel the urgency to vote on hotly contested ballot propositions, particularly on abortion. However, in many states there is a plethora of initiatives, often confusingly worded, and we have received a number of queries about where revolutionary Marxists stand on those questions. This article is in response to those questions, based on research concerning states where we have a presence or where key issues are being debated.

It is traditional that in just about every election year in the United States, there are propositions on the ballot concerning state and local laws, state constitutions, municipal charters and the like. While in principle direct votes by the population are a democratic measure, ballot initiatives are often worded to confuse voters as to their real purpose, and votes are often swayed by the infusion of large sums of corporate money. Moreover, propositions can be and often are used for reactionary, anti-democratic purposes.

A case in point was in California in 2020: after the state legislature passed a law (AB5) classifying app-based employees as workers, and thus able to unionize, the app-based taxi and delivery companies (Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart) responded by pouring upwards of $200 million into Proposition 22, which reversed that law. The Internationalist Group called to “Defeat Uber and Lyft Bosses’ Prop 22 in California!”² But Prop 22 won and was upheld by the state supreme court, so those taxi workers still do not have a right to unionize.

Abortion Rights

In 2024, amid a sharply polarized election between Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump, in anticipation of federal rollbacks on abortion rights in the event of another Trump presidency, a number of “blue” (Democratic) states have been stockpiling abortion pills, after the commonly used medication was outlawed in a Texas court ruling. Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022, four states have passed constitutional amendments to protect abortion rights. This November, there will be questions on the ballot to add abortion protections to state constitutions in ten states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska (where there is a competing proposition to ban abortion), Nevada, New York and South Dakota.

The IG urges a vote for pro-abortion props in all those states. At the same time, we warn that in a number of these, the protection is only limited: in seven cases, the right to abortion would only be until fetal “viability,” often pegged at 24 weeks since the beginning of pregnancy, meaning that third-trimester abortions would still be outlawed. In New York and Maryland (where the propositions came from state legislatures rather than citizen initiatives) abortion is not explicitly mentioned – New York uses the language of “reproductive healthcare” and “autonomy,” and Maryland calls it “reproductive freedom.” There is some ambiguity here, but the measures are supportable.

In Maryland, an abortion advocacy group, Freedom in Reproduction, sought to include the word “abortion,” but still backed the proposition codifying the right of an individual “to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue or end the individual’s pregnancy,” noting that the broader language also encompasses birth control. New York’s Proposition 1 “equal protection” amendment would ban “discrimination” not only on the basis of race, color, creed or religion, already included in the state constitution, but also on the grounds of “ethnicity, national origin, age, disability or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.”

Thus, NY Prop 1 is a broader equal rights amendment. Right-wing groups and Republican candidates are campaigning for a “no” vote, claiming the initiative is really about “undermining parental rights” over minors, stirring up anti-trans panic about “endangering young girls” in sports teams, claiming that the proposition would allow doctors to medically experiment on children, or would allow voting by non-citizens. None of this bigoted fearmongering is true. Reactionaries are whipping up hysteria precisely because they do want to discriminate against transgender individuals, and that bigotry must be defeated.

Meanwhile, anti-abortion forces are pouring in money to defeat the prop, including $6.5 million from Richard Uihlein, heir to the Schlitz Brewing fortune. Despite the filthy campaign against it, support for Proposition 1 in opinion polls has increased to 69%. The Internationalist Group supports NY Proposition 1, and calls on unions and workers to militantly defend all groups facing special oppression and to support women’s rights to abortion and birth control. We are against discrimination and support any measure that would bolster abortion rights anywhere.

We also point out that in Minnesota and Oregon there are already no gestational limits to abortion rights. And so that there are no illusions, it should be noted that if a national law banning abortion were passed, it would override provisions of state constitutions. As we wrote about the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning Roe v. Wade, “Prior to birth, the decision about terminating a pregnancy, or not, is and must be the sole decision of the pregnant person: husbands, boyfriends, priests and pastors, parents and the state, hands off!”³ The IG calls for free abortion on demand, and without question” as part of our fight for women’s liberation through socialist revolution.

We list below ballot propositions in selected states, our comments and recommendations to vote “yes” or “no.” In cases where the measures are ambiguous or contradictory, we explain those factors without making a recommendation:

California

Several props call to make it easier to pass bond issues, that is to issue debt that would be picked up by banks and other major investors. While conservatives often pose as opponents of increased national debt, calling for balanced budgets, “small government” and other shibboleths, the fact is that capitalists love public debt: bankers live off it, big industrialists often got their start out of it. Karl Marx waxed poetic vituperating against the “aristocracy of finance” consisting of a “brood of bankocrats, financiers, rentiers, brokers, stockjobbers, etc.” that amassed fortunes from owning (and trading) government securities. As we have written in response to “tax the rich” schemes pushed by liberals and reformists: “Revolutionary Marxists … are not in the business of advising the capitalist state on how to ‘fairly’ finance its apparatus of war and repression, but call to expropriate the capitalist exploiters.”

Propositions 2, 4 and 5 would all call for facilitating bond measures for schools, climate programs and general local government functioning. While the different projects may be worthy, how the bosses’ government pays for them is their problem.

Proposition 3 would officially scrap the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, introduced into the state constitution by Prop 8 in 2008, which effectively banned same-sex marriage. Yes.

Proposition 6 is the “End Slavery in California” Act, to end the practice of forced labor in state prisons. There is a long history of such involuntary servitude in California prisons, from chain gangs to mass incarceration today. Yes.

Proposition 32 would raise the state minimum wage from $16 to $18 an hour. Supported by unions including SEIU and Unite-HERE and opposed by the California Restaurant Association. While $18 an hour is still utterly inadequate, and it wouldn’t go fully into effect until 2026, some raise is better than none: Yes.  

Proposition 33 would repeal the 1990s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act which severely limits local rent control laws such as on single family homes or condos, or units built since 1997. It is backed by various tenant unions, but opposed by realtors associations and major newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, Orange County Register and San Diego Union-Tribune. Yes.

Proposition 34 poses as support for healthcare but actually is an attack on the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. No.

Proposition 35 would require that healthcare tax revenue be allocated to offset state Medi-Cal costs, requiring 99 percent of revenue go to patient care. Yes.

Proposition 36 would call for harsher drug punishment for theft and drug crimes and create a new class of felonies. Result: more mass incarceration. No.

Colorado

Public education is a focus of much of the election campaign in Colorado, under the rubric of “school choice,” a favorite theme of privatizers who want to starve public schools of funds, along with an abortion rights proposition.

Amendment 79 would write the right to abortion (which has been legal in Colorado since 1967) into the state constitution and remove bans on public funding for abortions, allow financing of abortions for state and local government employees and those on public health insurance as well, with no gestational limit. Yes

Amendment 80 would specify that “parents have the right to direct the education of their children,” and that school choice includes “neighborhood, charter, private, and home schools, open enrollment options” and more. This is an attempt to bankrupt public schools, and is being pushed by conservative think tanks, religious groups and anti-union outfits like independentteachers.org, which publicizes a how-to guide on disaffiliating from unions. It could also be used by ultra-rightist parents groups to sue school boards over curriculum. No.

Proposition 130 would allow the legislature to direct $350 million in state money toward helping recruit, train and retain local police and sheriffs, amid a fearmongering campaign about a non-existent rise in crime. No.

Amendment J would repeal the clause in the state constitution defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is presently legal in Colorado, due to U.S. Supreme Court rulings, but if those are overturned, that democratic right would be at risk. Yes.

Florida

In Florida, which has become increasingly Republican, there are important measures on abortion rights, education and drug use on the ballot. Hard-right governor Ron DeSantis pushed through a 2023 law banning abortion after six weeks from inception and a 2022 “Stop WOKE Act” targeting the teaching of black history; passed a 2023 law requiring public employee unions to be recertified if fewer than 60% of those represented pay dues, and a raft of other reactionary union-busting, teacher-bashing, anti-woman, anti-trans and anti-immigrant measures. Plus, he has used police-state methods to squelch opposition, and has mounted “election integrity teams” to harass voters and vote counting on November 5 (and after).

Amendment 1 would make school board elections partisan, listing candidates’ political affiliation. This would end the nonpartisan school board elections, won by a ballot initiative in 1998. Candidates not affiliated to the Republican or Democratic parties would be excluded, and the 4 million voters with no political affiliation would not be able to vote in primary elections. This exclusionary amendment would further politicize school board elections, with the aim of imposing a Republican hammerlock on public education. Candidates from a group like Class Struggle Education Workers, which opposes all capitalist parties, would be banned from such rigged elections. No.

Amendment 3 would legalize use of marijuana for personal consumption. The Internationalist Group opposes all laws banning use of substances, including drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc. Yes.

Amendment 4 would specify that no law could “prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health,” but would not eliminate the requirement of parental notification for minors. The amendment was placed on the ballot after a petition campaign gathered over one million signatures. DeSantis is so intent on defeating it that he dispatched officers from his special Election Crime and Security Unit of the state police to question (and intimidate) those who signed the petition. He has also used state funds for ads attacking the initiative. However, abortion rights proponents have made a major national push, raising $110 million to pass this amendment. A recent opinion poll showed 58% for vs. 32% against, but in Florida constitutional amendments require 60% of voters to approve. Yes.

Massachusetts

Of the five measures on the Massachusetts ballot, we have recommendations on four.

Question 2 would eliminate passing the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, a standardized test, from the requirement to graduate from high school. This test is especially hard on English language learners and students with disabilities. If the measure passes, it would still require high schoolers to take the test, but it would lower the stakes. The Massachusetts Teachers Association (NEA affiliate), its main proponent, and AFT/Massachusetts support Question 2, while a columnist for the New York Times opposes it. Yes.

Question 3 would create a new category of “transportation network drivers” who would have the right to unionize, which they are presently denied. This is an effort to get around U.S. Department of Labor rules under which app-drivers are classified as “independent contractors.” Yes.

Question 4 would legalize use of certain psychedelic drugs (“magic mushrooms”), as Oregon and Colorado already have done, as well as limited cultivation. As noted on Florida Amendment 3 above, the IG opposes all laws against drug use and possession. Yes.

Question 5 would phase out the tipped minimum wage if passed, which now stands at a ridiculous $6.50 an hour, and raise it to the meager $15 an hour statewide minimum wage. Vote yes, and fight to greatly increase the minimum wage from the present poverty pay.

New York City

In New York City, Mayor Eric Adams (now under federal indictment on multiple corruption charges) has promoted Propositions 2 through 6, which would change the NYC charter to give the mayor more power to block legislation and actions of the City Council. The ex-cop mayor has sought to overrule Council legislation limiting solitary confinement, requiring more extensive reports about random stops by the police, etc. In May, as the Council was about to approve a charter amendment to require that it “advise and consent” on appointments of city commissioners, Adams hastily created a Charter Revision Commission that in a few weeks came up with these measures, which are presented in deceptive ways.

Prop 2 purports to expand Sanitation Department jurisdiction to clean highway medians, but in the fine print would give the department permission to ticket immigrant street vendors. Prop 3 would allow the mayor’s Office of Management and Budget to provide its own cost estimates, giving Adams time to cook up more imaginary budget deficits to prevent laws from passing. Prop 4 would require that “public safety” agencies (e.g., the NYPD) be given 30-days’ notice before votes affecting them, giving these departments time to organize opposition. Propositions 5 and 6, under the guise of increasing transparency, would actually increase bureaucracy. These propositions all increase executive power against the elected legislative body. No to NYC Props 2-6.

Oregon

As noted above, Oregon already has an unrestricted right to abortion in the state constitution. Moreover, Oregon Health Plan, the state Medicaid provider, covers abortions for any residents, regardless of immigration status; the 2017 Oregon Health Equity Act requires all public insurance policies to provide reproductive healthcare, including abortion, with no out-of-pocket cost, while private insurance is also required to pay for abortion, unless there is a religious exemption; another provision allows those with health coverage through religious institutions that don’t permit it to have free abortion services paid by the state of Oregon.

There are a couple of election/legislative procedural motions on the ballot, including Measure 115 providing for impeachment of elected state executives, and Measure 117 providing for “ranked-choice” voting in federal and state elections. Advertised as measures to increase democracy, they could also be used to undercut it. Oregon already has a law providing for recall elections, and “ranked choice” is a far cry from proportional representation in elections, even further from the democratic principle of having representatives recallable at any time.

Measure 118, the Corporate Tax Revenue Rebate for Residents Initiative, would remove a cap on minimum corporate tax, and increase taxes on corporate sales, ordering that the revenue be distributed equally as rebates to all residents, estimated at about $1,600 per person per year. This is a variant of “tax the rich” schemes which we are not opposed to, but do not call for, as noted above. There should be no illusions that this measure would alleviate poverty or be a significant gain for the working class, since under capitalist rule, such measures will either be rolled back, or the cost passed on to workers through higher prices. It is, of course, vehemently opposed by giant corporations such as Nike, Koch Industries and Intel.

Measure 119, the Unionization of Cannabis Workers Initiative, would require cannabis businesses to submit to the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, an agreement requiring the business to remain “neutral” when labor organizations communicate with employees about collective bargaining rights. This is a straightforward right-to-organize measure, backed by United Food and Commercial Workers. Yes.

In 2022, Oregon Measure 114, billed as a supposed “gun safety” initiative, was narrowly passed in a referendum. The measure bans purchases of magazines carrying more than 10 rounds of ammunition. This proposition, like gun control laws pushed by liberals and Democrats across the country, is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which declared “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The Internationalist Group firmly upholds this basic democratic right, as should all supporters of the workers and oppressed, who have the right to self-defense against repressive and oppressive attacks. Measure 114 has been blocked by a series of challenges in state courts, and we would support initiatives to repeal it. Likewise, a California law in force since 2013 restricting sales of new handguns was blocked by a federal judge last year following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on firearms restrictions.⁴

There are a number of other reactionary measures on ballots around the country, including amendments to state constitutions, put forward by Republican legislators, in Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin that would formally ban non-citizens from voting. Since non-citizens are already ineligible to vote in those state and federal elections, the real purpose of these propositions, aside from whipping up hysteria about election fraud that hardly ever occurs, is to intimidate Latino and Native American voters.

In Nevada, Question 7 would amend the state constitution to require showing government-issued photo identification at the polls. In Arizona, Proposition 314 would empower local and state police and sheriffs to arrest and prosecute anyone suspected of crossing the border between legal ports of entry, although immigration policy is a federal matter. The Internationalist Group opposes all these measures, defends the right of all residents, whatever their immigration status, to vote at all levels; calls for full citizenship for all immigrants, however they arrived here, and has fought for asylum for refugees from the devastation caused by imperialism.

Amid the welter of measures on ballots, voters may be overwhelmed or confused by arcane or convoluted language, which is often the intent of the initiators. Revolutionaries, of course, have no confidence in capitalist elections, which are, for the bourgeoisie, the most convenient packaging for its class dictatorship during “normal” times. But as many of these propositions involve basic democratic rights, it is vital to remain vigilant against attempts to take those rights away or block their application. Amid all the talk of threats to “our democracy,” we stress that nowhere does bourgeois democracy provide full democratic rights for working people, the poor and oppressed. That will only come about by fighting for the far superior system of workers democracy through socialist revolution. ■