34
votes
US election results (other than presidential) thread
A place to collect articles about what happened in all the other contests.
Edit: please post what the election results were (with a link to the article) at top level and then we can discuss them underneath it.
Ohio continues to just disappoint me more and more. We could have fixed our shitty gerrymandering problem with Issue 1. But the asshats at the top changed the language to make it so incredibly confusing to the aver voter that its not a surprise that it did not pass. We also lost Sherrod Brown - who was such a goddamn fine Ohioan its an absolute fucking shame.
Local democrats really need to do some soul searching - get out of their focus groups and actually talk to working class folks.
The race being called against Sherrod Brown was where I lost it last night. I can't believe t hat one of the most reliably blue districts has flipped and we have lost Brown's tenure and consistency.
I am pretty disappointed with the results of the School Bond/Levys and the libraries as well. Most failed. But a few, mostly in the pretty (D) heavy areas did pass.
Sarah McBride becomes the first openly transgender person elected to Congress (NPR)
Abortion rights ballot measures pass in 7 states, fail in 3 others (MSNBC)
Very happy that MO passed it. Though I was pretty confident Missourians would do so. Missouri is a strange place. Consistently voting for "progressive" constitutional amendments and such, yet electing people who will try their hardest to tear down those very same amendments.
As such, the fight for reproductive rights in MO is not by any means over. Watch; Republicans in the legislature will send via referendum some confusingly-worded constitutional amendment that restricts or again bans abortion, to the people.
It happened some years back where we Missourians voted for lobbying and redistricting reform via constitutional amendment. But like 2yrs later, before any of it went into play, the state house referred a very confusingly-worded amendment to voters to essentially undo all of it. One of those yes-means-no-no-means yes ballot questions. And voters approved it. Not by great margins, like the original reform vote, but enough that it passed. We never even got to see what non-partisan districting would look like.
Republicans will definitely do this with reproductive rights, too.
Pretty unhappy that we couldn't manage to get it passed in Florida, but maybe the fact that it failed by only 3% of the votes means that we can try again in the future, though it won't be easy.
I'm glad most of the other measures passed.
For additional context: over 6 million people in Florida voted to protect abortions, 4.5 million voted against it.
It received 57.2% of the votes, but needed 60%.
I'm mostly happy with NC's state elections.
It's just crazy to me that our state politicians did pretty well but the state still went red nationally.
In hindsight Harris is a historically bad candidate. Many down ballot democrats ran ahead of her, which is the opposite of 2020.
Top of the ticket should be pulling down ballot up, but basically across the board Harris dragged them down instead.
It is very difficult to parse the different aspects of the problems she had. I am sad for women democrat swing state contenders such as Whitmer and Klobuchar who now very likely won't get the opportunity to try for the presidency. Running Biden's VP might have been the problem. Running a three month race might have been the problem. (And politicians were not stepping up to offer to try). Running a woman might have been the key problem.
Personally I want presidential nominees for my team to have experience winning contested elections, not come from solid blue states and or districts.
Seems that both times we've run women candidates, they've lost. A huge proportion of white dudes that voted for Biden last time just stayed home this election and while I can only gesture at the implications given 2016, it seems pretty obvious that Candidate White Dude(TM) is the winning strategy.
I would have loved to see Harris elected, but it seems we are far more sexist than racist in this country.
The unanswered question is did they lose because women, or did they lose because they weren't winning candidates. I mentioned Whitmer because she is very popular in Michigan, a place where you have to deal with the right as a politician in a way that California and new York just don't.
I wonder how much of it was was that Harris and Clinton were woman candidates, so much as they were delivered to us on a silver platter and were not forged in the fire of a contentious primary. Clinton was passed over by Obama in 2008, but 2016 was her coronation, Bernie aside. Harris fell off the 2020 primary early before the progressive Voltron endorsed Biden, was brought back as his VP, then was put in the corner until they needed somebody who wasn't Biden, and could never really get message discipline outside of she wasn't Trump, she wasn't going to break from Biden, and... stuff. Had a woman candidate went through the slings and arrows and was more able to win people over as opposed to the powers that be declaring that she is to be loved and relatable, would we be in the same situation we're in?
I just don't think most people give it this level of thought. It starts and ends with, "meh," because it's the result of an implicit bias.
Harris was a good choice legally, given a hostile SCOTUS that could refuse to accept Biden's late withdrawal.
I don’t see that since legally it seems like they had it covered? But I can make a different argument: given how late it happened, there were tight deadlines for getting on state ballots and choosing a VP. I had briefly hoped for an open convention mostly because it would be interesting to watch, but it was probably too late in the year to really do it.
If we’re going to talk about what might have been, having real, contested primaries would have helped.
I feel the same way as you. I know that the state went red nationally, but it seems locally we are starting to lean blue. I'm cautiously optimistic about the trajectory of the state at this point.
I'm hoping that it means we'll be at least somewhat protected by some of the poor federal decisions that will be coming down the pipeline. But after the national results, I should probably just prepare myself to be further disappointed.
Colorado ballot measures generally went the direction I expected, and hoped, they would:
Passed — Amendment G: Allow more disabled veterans to access a state property tax exemption
Passed — Amendment H: Setting up a judicial discipline board
Passed — Amendment I: No bail for defendants in first-degree murder cases
Passed — Amendment J: Remove the same-sex marriage ban from the state constitution (Gay marriage already legal, this is just removing old language)
Failed — Amendment K: Earlier deadlines to set the ballot (I have no problem with the state having more time to verify ballot measure signature, I do have a problem with them taking that time out of the time allowed to gather the signatures, glad it failed)
Passed — Amendment 79: Enshrine legal abortion in the state constitution
Failed — Amendment 80: Constitutional right to school choice (Knocked that conservative school voucher bullshit out)
Failed — Proposition 127 — Ban the sport hunting of big cats
Passed — Proposition 128: Parole eligibility for people convicted of violent crimes (Disappointed in this as it just lets the private prison system make money for longer period)
Passed — Proposition 129: Creating the profession of Veterinary Professional Associates (This one is going to piss off a lot of people, I'm not convinced of either side's argument)
Passed — Proposition 130: $350 million in state funding for law enforcement (Disappointed in this one too)
Failed — Proposition 131: All candidate primaries and ranked-choice voting (Ranked choice = good, All candidate primary = bad - How this got on the ballot when Colorado has a "one issue per measure" law I do not know)
Passed — Proposition JJ: Allow the state to keep all of the taxes it’s collected from sports betting
Passed — Proposition KK: A new excise tax on gun and ammunition sales
Individual politicians went pretty much as expected and yes, carpetbagger Boebert won in the new district she's stinking up, but that's expected of western Kansas.
Thanks for the breakdown, I couldn't find this when I was looking for it on CPR this morning. I did find the general Pass/Fail, but it didn't break down what each measure was and I couldn't remember.
My city also repealed its pitbull ban, which I'm thankful for, as my old guy has something of that in him.
How do you feel about 127?
127 seemed unnecessary to me and something put on the ballot by good intentioned Animal Rights people, but not necessarily well considered.
Hunting big cats already requires a license and I trust our wildlife management to figure out what's an acceptable amount of hunting to maintain a population. Lynx are endangered still, so they're already off the menu.
Chiming in to say that as an angler and an elk/deer/turkey hunter I really hate the method of take in big cat hunting. I wish CPW would change it but I don't know what the alternatives are. That said, they do a good job of managing our wildlife and I think they appropriate tags well. I'm left wing but I voted against the ban.
You know what I'd like to see passed? People should automatically get a tag for the GMU that you fucking live in. I'm tired of driving miles to hunt when I could just go out my backyard (my house literally borders BLM land), while seeing out of state plates at every campsite within 20 miles of home. Why are they giving draw tags in great units to people from Ohio while forcing locals to go OTC at units hours from home? $$$$$
That one jumped out at me too haha! What does Augustus have against big cats?
See @BeardyHat's response as it will be the same as mine - https://tildes.net/~news/1jwk/us_election_results_other_than_presidential_thread#comment-e1d3 - it's unnecessary and puts both a much greater financial strain on Colorado Parks and Wildlife along with making it more difficult to reverse when the consequences of the ballot measure come to roost had it passed.
No worries, I just thought it was bit of a funny non-sequitur amongst all the political stuff
I hear you. I love the big kitties, they just don't love me or love too hard.
Pretty pleased that a referendum measure limiting PAC donations to $5000 passed in Maine with an overwhelming majority.
In less serious news, Question 5 (changing the Maine flag) failed.
Vexillologists in tatters (pun intended).
While the proposed flag isn't great, it does have precedence so I'll give it that. The current flag is terrible though.
I am in Maine and I'm glad this amendment passed but I do find it a little ironic that a PAC was formed to support the ballot question and accepted donations greater than $5,000 to get it funded.
https://mainecampaignfinance.com/#/exploreCommitteeDetail/483635
I am just waiting for Rep Golden's race to get called. But I'm happy my state rep got replaced by an independent candidate
https://www.centralmaine.com/2024/10/02/sharon-frost-maine-house-58/
I wonder how effective that will be. Can the ultra-wealthy just buy property in another state to get around this?
California decided to keep slavery. And make it easier to put people in it.
What are you referring to?
Prop 6, which would've banned slavery of the incarcerated, failed and prop 36, which increases penalties for shoplifting and drug offenses, passed.
36 wasn't surprising. "Hard on crime" and "get the homeless off the streets" are the not so quiet parts for Californians as of now. Blame shifting is a universal issue.
6 was stupid. It doesn't change anything but it would be nice security for the future (and we could use all the security we could muster). The War on Drugs only got worse with the Fentanyl crisis. So guess who'd make up most of those incarcerated individuals...
California Proposition 6. Prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude.
This proposed amendment to California's constitution would bar slavery in any form and repeal a current provision allowing involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime.
No 54,9% 5 009 420
Yes 45,1% 4 112 224
California Proposition 36. Increases penalties for certain theft and drug crimes.
This ballot measure would increase penalties for repeated theft offenses and certain drug crimes, including some involving fentanyl. It also would create a drug court treatment program for people with multiple drug possession convictions.
Yes 70,4% 6 552 792
No 29,6% 2 754 947
I talked with someone last week (not a citizen) who was adamant that people in prison should be put to work to pay for the costs of their incarceration. I think that is a common thought and I'm actually pleased there was only a 10% gap there. I personally voted in favor of Prop 36. I think the drug-related measures need to be followed up with increased funding for housing and and healing addicts. As for shop-lifting, IMO if you shop-lift 3 times you've been given more than enough warning that you need to stop. It's something you should be afraid to do even once and we're going to give people little more than a ticket 3 times in a row.
if you got nothing to lose, then you'll take the heat. Is it a coincidence theft increases as the economy worsens and more people are homeless?
We're just punishing the poor for being poor. And with the Fentanyl crisis we're now just further punishing addicts (prescribed from a convicted company) instead of getting them help
Now they have something to lose (assuming they actually prosecute).
I think comprehensive police/justice/housing reform would be best (just build a fucking shitload of housing please - I don't care if the owners fear for their home values). And in this state I think it's possible we can make massive improvements there. But short of that we should make our system more coherent. Change often needs to come incrementally. That can leave you in an awkward intermediate position. What I've seen in liberal areas of the country is we're able to take the first step and then stall out on the next ones. I'd love to go from drug decriminalization to safe injection sites to rehab and housing and jobs. But you can't just sit at stage one and pretend that's okay. I mostly pity the addicts. The status quo with them isn't working and is bad for them and everyone else. This prop is an incremental step towards an alternative approach. We'll see if we can take the next steps. I hope they're compassionate, but some steps will need to be compulsory. The only way to legally compel people is to prosecute them with crimes.
Yes, being put in prison where we also conveniently said we are okay with what's little more than slave labor. There's still some federal laws preventing the latter, but nothing the red wave can't fix.
in my experience, a cornered rat strikes back. They don't just "act good" suddenly just because you make a bigger punishment. Some criminals of convinience will be deterred for shoplifting, but we're making a huge assumption that drug addicted felons are rational actors.
What's our goal here again with solving the fentanyl crisis? hiding it under the rug?
Prop 5 seems to be leaning to fail. Close, but we needed 55% instead of a normal majority. I guess voting against our best interests is indeed the theme of 2024.
Yeah, that's why we had 3 props on the ballot trying to correct that. The fact that we still failed one of those show how delayed this can be for... reasons.
Most poor people don’t steal things, so I feel like we are actually punishing people for stealing rather than being poor.
I don’t disagree that poverty is a factor, and that it has a corrosive effect on what might otherwise be functioning morals, but the fact that some people are more willing to turn to theft when faced with adversity isn’t what I would consider to be an excuse so much as an explanation.
If I had more time and care, I'd love to challenge that with some research.
For now I'll make the slight correction in that I'd wager shoplifting skews towards the poor than some spoiled middle class kids.
What we call it doesn't really matter. It's all about results and this just perpetuates the idea that it's a crime to be broke.
I'll be extremely confident and suggest that that person in the streets down on luck isn't what's going to fix inflation, get rent back in control, or "give us our jobs back". It just continues the idea of places "looking good" whole ignoring the real issues with the state.
That's not a part of the measure, though, and it simply will not happen. The old law protected people from small amounts of personal drugs, this repeal could have not touched the drug portion of this law, but every time they've tried to repeal it (by my count it's been a measure every election year since it was passed) they've always tried to get rid of the drug portion as well. It's been a clear republican bill every time.
Of note, there's a billion ways this could have been solved by amending the existing law to simply have a limit of how many times. In fact, the very law itself does have limits of a total of $950 in a 12 month period specifically if you steal from your employer. It would be so easy to simply copy that language down from section b3 to e. But they didn't, every single time they've tried to repeal the entire thing because a war on drugs and locking people up is what they want to do.
In fact, the wording of the law in section e uses the words "distinct but related acts", which could be easily settled by the supreme court in California to mean shoplifting multiple times are distinct but related (and even apply some reasonable time-frame). This could even be enforced through the executive branch by having the governor or other folks instruct DAs to start prosecuting this as a violation of the law and grand theft and appeal it up to get a formal ruling.
But perhaps more importantly, even for the real extreme repeat offenders, the maximum amount of times you can actually do this is limited in a year. The maximum penalty for petty theft in California is a fine up to $1000 (which obviously they aren't going to be able to pay, because they are stealing to survive) and up to 6 months in jail. If you've ever talked to anyone who deals with sentencing these people, or talked to people who have multiple misdemeanors for this, you'll find that many of them will get locked up for a month then let out. That means they're violating the law at most 12 times a year once they've done it enough, which results in at most, $11.3k in theft. Ignoring the fact that this theft can be written off in taxes (as a loss) and is actually beneficial for many large corporations for balancing profits at other locations, the costs of a county jail are significantly less than a prison. While it's hard to find modern figures, historical studies have generally shown that it costs around 50% less to put someone in jail versus prison in California. As of 2024, the average cost per inmate in prison is $132,860. Assuming half the cost in jail and an immediate violation of the law and being put back in jail, by allowing these to be felonies we have just increased the total cost per theft by approximately $66.5k for every person we throw in prison (cost of jail vs. prison for 1 year for 1 person). Even if you subtract the cost of their theft ($11.3k) we've now made it $55k/yr more expensive per person we give a felony to. Given that expense and the current rates of ~310 prisoners per 100k population in California, assuming we only increase prison population by a modest 5%, this will likely increase the cost to California by approximately $400m/yr.
In addition to that, by branding these individuals with a felony, we will be significantly reducing the ability to employ these individuals in the future, reducing their ability to contribute to society. Modern figures on lifetime earnings show that convicted felons who go to prison earn approximately 52% less over their life then those who have no convictions. Folks with misdemeanors earn 16% less so by moving this from a misdemeanor to a felony we will also reduce their earnings by 36%. In California in 2023, the median annual salary was ~$85k. Using the same approximations above we've also now reduced gross income by approximately $190m/yr which results in approximately $28.5m in tax revenue, bringing our yearly cost up to ~$428.5m in the first year, and compounding by an additional ~28.5m reduction each year after that assuming a 5% YOY increase in prisoners (ignoring inflation, rising medical costs, and other prison employment overhead).
Unfortunately I don't have good figures or an idea of what the additional administrative cost will now be to be giving these people felonies which means longer court cases, more legal appeals, the need to now appeal prison sentences and attempt to get early release, and other costs.
Eh... There is, of course, validity in your statement i.e. it's first and foremost an illegal action, and furthermore, if you're stealing from a local/small shop, it's completely unethical)
On the other hand, both I and my partner have had the "pleasure" of being born into countries in the eastern parts of the European Union. Both of us have seen how bad poverty can get, and although both of us were fortunate enough to have just enough to survive during the worst parts without having to resort to illegal acts, I know that not everyone else around here is/was so lucky.
Personally, I've never not empathised with someone who was stealing food so they and/or their family wouldn't starve, or clothes for their kids. Hell, I even get pissed off at major supermarket chains putting shoplifting alarms on the fucking BABY MILK POWDERS of all fucking products. Like, you have a net profit of millions (or billions) of euros per year, just let them steal that specific product, for fuck's sake.
Now, I understand that not all cases are like this, but this what I've mostly been indirectly exposed to.
My vague understanding is that in the US, the shoplifting is typically done by one person and then the product is resold to an actual parent who buys it at a discount. That is, it's a system. The products that get stolen are the ones that are easy to resell, and that's what they lock up in stores.
But I don't know if the reselling is on the street, online, or through shady bodegas. Maybe all of the above? I've heard anecdotes.
In SF, at least, most of the theft is food products and they are sold on street corners.
Oh, interesting, that's not what I was expecting, Of course, If that's the case, it's fair to consider my "concerns" far less applicable to such scenarios.
I wouldn't know if that's the "typical" result of shoplifting or not, but I do know that back in Texas there were regular (as in every weekend, weather permitting) wink wink fell-off-the-back-of-a-truck wink wink yard sales and flea markets with discounted common goods available. Cases of baby formula, laundry detergent, shampoo, and other items of that nature. An entire micro-economy of day to day necessities available on a tax-free, cash-only basis. There are a ton of examples of these micro-economies in the poorer reaches of society as people do what they can to get by.
I don’t believe anyone is going to starve in this state if they are willing to go to a food bank. I agree that if the choice is starvation or theft it is okay to steal to keep feeding yourself and your family.
What's this about "little more than a ticket?"
There may be fines, but people aren't going to prison over repeated theft. My understanding is in San Francisco they don't even prosecute these cases.
Yes, and my understanding (not being an expert) is that therefore the penalties available for prosecutors to charge people with didn't seem to be the problem. If so, changing them seems unlikely to help?
Possibly, having different district attorneys and different police force priorities might help some.
Here in New York, we passed Proposition 1. The propose of this is to enshrine equal rights for people (and it doesn't harm girls sports or strips away parental rights from parents like some of my fellow New Yorkers think) and it also adds abortion to the constitution. And bars any law that could be passed from stripping these rights away. This is just adding to legal protections that included race, color, creed, and religion, prior to the amendment, now it includes
In the list of protections that is under my state's constitution.
California Prop Roundup: What Passed, What Failed, and What's Still Up in the Air (KQED)
…
…
…
So we fell for the bait revenge Proposition. Great job California. I bet Prop 33 failed too... yup. And we wonder why the rent is too damn high. I can only sigh.
Prop 32 is unsure as well (minimum wage hike) which is laughable. Really shows who can get out to vote. But at least that one is happening overtime regardless.
Prop 35 isn't the revenge proposition, that's 34. It seems that passed. I voted against it on principle, but I'm not sad about what happened to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. (Assuming it even holds up in court.) They write bad rent control propositions, even by the standards of people who want some rent control.
I wouldn't be sad if prop 33 actually passed. Honestly a bit of the best of both worlds. But this just shows that if you cross landlords they will use the people to smite you while manipulating them to vote against their best interests.
But yes, I hate enough drama on the internet, I wasn't going to play their games. They can take care of themselves without getting me or the people into their drama.
I'd love hearing more about this. I'm not going to pretend I'm well versed in rent control, merely spending a lot of time reading the short and long term effects. But we are definitely in a housing crisis where we need short term solutions, so I did indeed vote Yes for it.
One problem is that it can be used by cities (often rich ones) that want to stop new housing. Apparently there are limits on this - the courts could overturn measures that prevent landlords from making a profit. But who wants to go to court? It seems like it would become part of the NIMBY playbook and undermine pressure from the state to get cities to allow more housing to be built.
There are ways to allow more rent control that wouldn't affect the economics of new development much, like having it only apply to older buildings. Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act prohibits rent control on buildings built after 1995, and that's almost 30 years ago now, so arguably it needs an update, rather than repealing it.
Prop 21 in 2020 (which also failed) was more limited, only applying to buildings that have been occupied for 15 years. I don't know why they went for a full repeal this time.
Andy Kim won his race here in NJ and at least there's some small victory in a guy who seems pretty humble and down to Earth as a politician. A lot of people remember him as the representative that was photographed staying behind after January 6th to help clean up.
In Kentucky much of the election went as expected, but there were a couple of shining moments. We elected the first Black woman Kentucky Supreme Court Justice, and amendment 2 failed (it would have allowed the state to supply tax dollars to private schools). It's something.
North Carolina agriculture commissioner reelected while two more Council of State incumbents wait
‘The math says this is over’: San Francisco mayor faces long reelection odds (Politico)
...
That one is hardly surprising. SF is an increasingly grim place to live.
Here in Virginia, not really any hot elections/issues.
Tim Kaine (D) secured another 6yr Senate term over Hung Cao (R). 54% to 45%. Not sure if this was considered a possible toss-up, but with a spread like that, probably not. I'm new to VA, but I totally forgot about Tim Kaine. Even though he was HRC's VP choice. I feel like I rarely hear anything about or from him.
The only constitutional issue here was to expand property tax exemptions to spouses of soldiers "killed in the line of duty." Previously, it was only allowed if the soldier was "killed in action." I guess there's a difference between the two statuses, which I didn't know. It passed 93% to 7%. As expected, really.
"Killed in action" generally means death by an enemy/hostile force.
"Line-of-duty" generally means it happened while the individual was on-duty and not the result of their own "intentional misconduct" or "willful negligence".
East Bay votes to recall DA Pamela Price, Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao (SF Standard)
...
Opinions on the recalls?
Warranted. This soft on crime thing is and will be a death sentence in urban politics. Residents feel disorder acutely, and no amount of hand wringing about empathy will change people’s fundamental priority in self interest.
I've been trying to find the status for Congress, but all the big news outlets are focusing almost exclusively on the presidential election. Anyone know a good place to see the status of Congress?
Yeah, for some reason the other elections are harder to find info on this year despite being, arguably, much more important.
House: https://apps.npr.org/2024-election-results/house.html
Senate: https://apps.npr.org/2024-election-results/senate.html
For state by state results the best I've found is going here - https://apps.npr.org/2024-election-results/ - clicking on the state you're interested in, and then clicking on Senate/House links.
Will update if I find something better.
NYT Page is pretty good - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/06/us/elections/results-house-races-tracker.html - some very close races, but looks like the right might have control of all three branches of government soon. Oof.
NBC page has more info than NYT for close races: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/house-results
Looking like 47-53 in the senate and 215-218 in the house. Republicans will take both, but with very narrow margins in the house.
The Washington Post has a good summary page. The Republicans have taken the Senate and the House is not resolved.
Why Is Alameda County’s Vote Count So Slow? Official Blasts Sluggish Pace (KQED)
…
…
Nevada results are what they are. Most disappointing one is the failure of ranked choice voting, but what's done is done.