Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Policy

Anti-Health Insurance Mandate Passes in Oklahoma, Arizona, Fails in Colorado

Peter Suderman | 11.3.2010 11:18 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

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.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: It's Also Time We Put an End to Suffrage

Peter Suderman is features editor at Reason.

PolicyNanny StateObamacare
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (7)

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.

  1. IceTrey   15 years ago

    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

  2. Lost_In_Translation   15 years ago

    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

    1. smartass sob   15 years ago

      Unfortunately the Supreme Court doesn't even have to hear the case, if it doesn't wish to do so.

  3. Holy Cow   15 years ago

    Why should voters decide this?

    Isn't there one unknown unelected appeals court judge somewhere in this land who can speak for all Americans?

  4. Coloradan   15 years ago

    I can't even fathom not being forced to buy health insurance. Compel me, Barack!!

  5. Mr. FIFY   15 years ago

    Good. Hoist that middle finger, states!

  6. nfl jerseys   15 years ago

    about

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Texans Gain the Right To Try Individualized Medical Treatments

J.D. Tuccille | 6.6.2025 7:00 AM

Review: There Are No Top-Down Solutions to the Problems Depicted in Adolescence

Autumn Billings | From the July 2025 issue

Review: A Comic Book Villain Runs for Mayor of New York in the New Daredevil Series

Joe Lancaster | From the July 2025 issue

Brickbat: Friends in High Places

Charles Oliver | 6.6.2025 4:00 AM

Is the Supreme Court Really That Divided? The Facts Say No.

Billy Binion | 6.5.2025 5:21 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!