« "In many cases the judges who diverge from the advisory Guidelines ranges will do so for the wrong reasons" | Main | "Five Things You Need to Know About Lindsay Lohan's Pending Jail Stint" »

July 19, 2010

California Democratic Party punts on potent politics of pot policy

This Los Angeles Times piece, headlined "California Democratic Party decides not to endorse marijuana legalization initiative," reports on the latest interesting political move in the state with the most robust on-going debate on pot policy. Here are the basics:

The state Democratic Party decided Sunday not to endorse the marijuana legalization initiative on the November ballot after a swift, passionate debate that left little doubt most Democrats in the hotel meeting room intend to vote yes at the polls.

The party decided to adopt a neutral position on Proposition 19, leaving the many local Democratic committees and organizations free to endorse the measure.

Advocates for an endorsement cited many reasons to back the initiative, but opponents pressed one overriding concern: a yes vote could damage statewide candidates in competitive races.

"We're concerned that our candidates, Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer and others, who have actually come out against this are going to be compromised," said Steve Preminger, the chairman of the Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee, "so we're going to get lost in a discussion about the merits of whether we should legalize or not, when, really, we the Democratic Party want to put all of our efforts into electing our ticket."

Robert Cruickshank, public policy director for the Courage Campaign, which backs progressive causes, called for the vote in an attempt to overturn a party committee's recommendation to adopt a neutral position. He started by reminding the assembled Democrats that the party's chairman, former San Francisco state Sen. John Burton, has said pot was the issue that would motivate young voters to go to the polls in this off-year election.

"If we endorse Proposition 19 and take a courageous position to support reform, just as we took courageous positions on same-sex marriage and other contentious issues, we will win the moral argument, we will win Proposition 19 and we will win races in November," Cruickshank said.

Proposition 19 would allow Californians 21 and older to grow, possess and transport marijuana, and allow cities and counties to opt to regulate and tax marijuana sales.  Burton said he believes the issue will engage young voters, a key constituency for Democrats. He abstained on the vote but said he was not convinced that an endorsement would hurt Brown's campaign for governor, Boxer's bid for reelection to the U.S. Senate or the other Democrats running for top state offices. "The statewide candidates, I guess, are all antsy," he said....

The party's executive board, which includes elected officials and party representatives from across the state, voted 101 to 85 against an endorsement. But the Democrats, despite taking a cautious stance, appeared solidly behind the initiative, cheering and whooping much more raucously for the pro-endorsement speakers.

Given that Democrats are often accused by their opponents as being a party of big government that favors equality over liberty, I suppose few should be too surprised that this party in California will not get behind a proposition designed to put power in local government and individual hands.  In turn, I remain hopeful that some of the folks who vocally advocate for smaller government and greater individual liberty, especially those folks affiliated with the Tea Party movement, will get behind Proposition 19.

Some related posts on pot policy and politics:

July 19, 2010 at 12:34 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference California Democratic Party punts on potent politics of pot policy:


"A lot of alliteration from anxious anchorman placed in powerful post."

Posted by: lawhawk | Jul 19, 2010 3:38:38 PM

The whole thing could have been condensed: "California Democratic Party decides to stuff real views on dope into closet long enough to fool voters into supporting it; said views to emerge the day after the election."

Now there's principle for you!

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 20, 2010 9:25:36 AM

Ok, I understand that a state, if it so chooses, can repeal a criminal law and decide to stop putting its own resources into a futile enforcement effort and expensive, harmful incarceration and/or probationary supervision of dealers and users. But can somebody please explain how "cities and counties" could "tax and regulate" marijuana sales without interfering with the federal prohibition and enforcement scheme, in violation of the Supremacy Clause?

Posted by: Peter G | Jul 20, 2010 2:35:32 PM

Peter G --

Great question.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 20, 2010 6:22:09 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB