The days are quickly ticking down to November 8th, and we’re all feeling the pressure to make sure we’re informed, registered to vote, and know who and what we’ll be voting for.

The U.S. is gearing up to chose our next president, cannabis initiatives are on the ballot in nine states, and, of course, there are several down ballot elections each of us will be voting in.

It’s also important to remember just how many Americans can’t vote, many times because of prior drug war convictions.  

We hope this issue of the Monthly Mosaic serves as a helpful guide as you contemplate your ballot, and that it will inspire you to consider some of the ways in which the drug war has impacted our electoral system.

Do an SSDP DARE, and get 10 points on the SSDP Chapter Activity Tracker! Don’t know what that is? Email Frances at frances@ssdp.org.


BALLOT INITIATIVES FOR TOR THE 2016 ELECTION

The November 8th election will extend far beyond who will be the next President of the United States. This year, a combination of  ballot initiatives on marijuana, tobacco, and more will be presented to voters, totaling 163 ballot measures overall.

The 2016 electorate will be the most diverse in U.S. history, and that is likely to impact election results. 82 million Americans live in one of the nine states that have a marijuana initiative on the ballot this year, and the results of these elections will almost certainly affect the rest of the country’s efforts to end cannabis  prohibition once and for all.  Millennials—the vast majority of whom, across parties,  support legalizing marijuana  use—will be crucial to passing  these initiatives, which is why it is imperative our chapters do their part to get out the vote.

October Monthly Mosaic GOTV

Even if all nine initiatives do pass, legalization alone will not be enough to alleviate the harms of decades of marijuana prohibition policies. As we’ve seen in Colorado, racial disparities in the enforcement of illicit marijuana activities are not immediately eliminated through successful legalization initiatives. As criminal penalties are reformed and new opportunities emerge within the legal marijuana industry, it is critical that policy activists assert the need to have inclusive policies for marijuana industry licensing and enforcement of new laws.

In Oklahoma, voters will have the chance to decide on criminal justice reform issues addressed by State Questions 780 & 781. SQ 780 resembles California’s Proposition 47, and would change simple drug possession crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, while SQ 781 directs the costs savings from SQ 780 to a state fund that would allocate money to counties to fund mental health and substance use disorder services.

October Monthly Mosaic GOTV

 


THE CANDIDATES ON DRUG POLICY

This year’s election has been contentious, with candidates under intense scrutiny on all the issues.  Here is a brief overview of where the four most notable candidates stand on drug policy…

Gary Johnson (Libertarian)

Hillary Clinton (Democrat)
WATCH: SSDP Board Member Evan Nison asks Hillary Clinton on ABC News whether she would vote for marijuana legalization if it were on the ballot in her state.

WATCH: SSDP Board Member Evan Nison asks Hillary Clinton on ABC News whether she would vote for marijuana legalization if it were on the ballot in her state.

 

Donald Trump (Republican)

Jill Stein (Green) LEARN MORE: The Marijuana Policy Project has produced a helpful guide to the candidates’ positions on marijuana policy. 


THE WAR ON DRUGS PREVENTS MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES FROM VOTING

The War on Drugs has been one of the main reasons for the rapid rate of increase in America’s prison population. Almost two million people fill U.S. prisons and jails, and those who do are disproportionately people of color.

Voting rights for persons convicted of felonies differ greatly from state to state. Only two states allow incarcerated people to vote while in prison, and only 14 automatically restore voting rights as soon as an individual is released. Meanwhile, in 10 states, the formerly incarcerated can permanently lose the right to vote. Within each state the restriction of voting rights may be contingent upon the type of crime, may be reinstated upon completion of parole, or may be restored automatically following completion of a sentence.

screen-shot-2016-10-30-at-5-01-29-pm

This is especially important to consider in swing states.  In Florida, for example, many nonviolent drug possession offenses are counted as felonies, and even drug-offenders who never faced any time in jail can lose their right to vote permanently. 31% of all African-American men in the state were barred from voting in the 2000 presidential election, which could have significantly changed the outcome.

There have been several attempts at the state and local levels to reinstate voting rights for individuals convicted of a felony over the decades.

In 1976, California’s constitution was amended to expand voting rights and end permanent disenfranchisement of people with felony convictions. Anyone who is a California resident over the age of 18 and not currently serving a sentence for a felony or on parole for a felony could vote. On September 28th of this year, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB2466- Voting Rights Clarification, a bill that expands voting rights for people with felony convictions by ensuring that people currently imprisoned in county jail do not lose their voting rights.

Earlier this year in February, the Maryland General Assembly successfully established the restoration of voting rights for individuals following the completion of their term of incarceration.

However, when Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe issued an executive order in August restoring voting rights to people convicted of a felony who had completed their sentence, andtheir parole or probation period, the Virginia Supreme Court overturned his action.

The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition’s “Can I Vote?” program serves as an excellent example of what advocacy looks like at the local level. The CCJRC is the state’s only civic engagement program focusing exclusively on people with criminal records. The coalition works to educate formerly incarcerated people, state officials, and community members about the “nuances of voting eligibility for people with criminal histories.”

LEARN MORE: For the full list of actions on voting rights for persons with felony convictions, check out the National Conference of State Legislatures’ information page.


TAKE ACTION.

Do an SSDP DARE and get 10 points on the SSDP Chapter Activity Tracker!


GET INVOLVED.


CONTRIBUTIONS.

Each Monthly Mosaic is edited by Frances Fu and Kat Murti. This issue also features contributions by Miranda Gottlieb, Rachel Wissner, and Sarah Merrigan.

Each month, SSDP’s Diversity, Awareness, Reflection and Education (DARE) committee publishes the Monthly Mosaic, a newsletter dedicated to exploring intersectionality and the War on Drugs. Previous issues have covered topics such as  domestic violence, trans awareness, Black Lives Matter, and women’s unique experiences with the drug war.

The DARE committee strives to promote inclusivity within the SSDP network, and facilitate collaboration and engagement with presently underrepresented perspectives, individuals, and movements. In order to ensure that the Monthly Mosaic more intentionally and meaningfully reflects these values, the DARE committee is pleased to invite members of our student and alumni network to submit ideas for upcoming issues.

If you have any questions, please contact Frances at frances@ssdp.org. We look forward to reading your submissions!