Anti-Health Insurance Mandate Passes in Oklahoma, Arizona, Fails in Colorado
Voters in three states had an opportunity to express their disapproval of one the health care overhaul's key provisions yesterday. Oklahoma, Arizona, and Colorado all featured ballot measures intended to make it illegal to require that citizens purchase health insurance, a requirement included in the recent health care overhaul. The measures passed easily in Oklahoma and Arizona, but failed in Colorado. Politico talked with Mike Krause, who led the campaign to pass the measure in Colorado, and it seems the state's anti-mandate campaign effort was fairly small:
Mike Krause, campaign coordinator for Colorado's Amendment 63, said his side struggled against strong liberal organization and tight campaign races. While Arizona and Oklahoma had longtime Republican senators, John McCain and Tom Coburn, to help solidify report, Colorado had a tight race between incumbent Democrat Michael Bennett and challenger Ken Buck.
"Democrats and the left have built a very impressive capacity to get out the vote that flipped the state blue in 2008," Krause told POLITICO. "I think that capacity, which is quite impressive, is still in place."
Krause also notes that the health reform opt-out amendment fared much better than other conservative issues on the Colorado ballot. An anti-abortion measure that would have declared life as beginning at conception, for example, only received 25 percent of the vote.
The ballot initiative campaigns ranged greatly in size and scope. Arizonans for Health Care Freedom raised and spent about $2 million, running television ads and distributing 700,000 flyers over the weekend. The backers of Amendment 63 in Colorado ran a much smaller-scale operation, relying on about 7 to 10 volunteers driving 3,000 signs around the state and using Facebook advertising to get their message out.
"With $2 million we would have won," says Krause. "We'd be lucky if we even spent 15 percent of that."
As with a similar measure that passed in Missouri last August, it's not clear whether these measures will actually prevent the implementation of the mandate in the federal law. Most legal experts say the measures are symbolic in that they show opposition to the health care law in general and the mandate in particular, but won't carry the force of law. Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute has put together a list of reasons why these ballot measures might, in fact, stand up to legal challenge. Regardless of the how the legal issues play out, the political message from voters in Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arizona is pretty clear.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
States are not required to catty out any federal mandate. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this about the Brady Bill.
"We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the states to enact or enforce a
federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that
prohibition by conscripting the state's officers directly. The federal government
may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor
command the states' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer
or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is
involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such
commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual
sovereignty." [Printz v. US, USC, 117 (1997)]
http://www.limitedgovernment.o.....rf5-21.pdf
Atleast these are direct challenges to the interstate commerce line of thinking and I hope that the Supreme Court has to argue against that. I think that a precedent against the healthcare bill could set a whole bunch of Interstate Commerce laws a-toppling
Unfortunately the Supreme Court doesn't even have to hear the case, if it doesn't wish to do so.
Why should voters decide this?
Isn't there one unknown unelected appeals court judge somewhere in this land who can speak for all Americans?
I can't even fathom not being forced to buy health insurance. Compel me, Barack!!
Good. Hoist that middle finger, states!
about