Summary of Results: Peace & Life Referendums 2024
compiled by Rachel MacNair
For details on the referendums and explanations of why consistent-lifers have an interest in them, see:
Peace and Life Referendums
Good News
West Virginia passed a state constitutional amendment to protect patients from assisted suicide. However, it was a squeaker — 50.4%.
Joining the trend for states with state constitutions that abolish slavery – to remove the exception for those convicted of a crime: Nevada.
Minimum wage increases and paid sick leave together passed in Alaska and Missouri. Paid sick leave alone passed in Nebraska.
Updating official language to be less dehumanizing passed by huge margins in Nevada and North Dakota. We’re concerned about this because practices of dehumanizing can be lethal, and even when they’re less than lethal, they can be one of the root causes leading to violence against the targeted population. We’ve put this under “discriminatory practices” on our website. That’s our issue of opposing racism, but also expands to other marginalized groups – women, those with disabilities, etc.
On abortion state constitutional amendments to enshrine it as a “right”:
- It was defeated in Florida, but only because it required 60% for a constitutional change and only got 57%..
- In South Dakota, it was defeated decisively, with 61% voting it down.
- In Nebraska, it was defeated, and the alternative measure that prohibits after the first trimester with the normal caveats (which is current state law) was passed.
Bad News
State constitutional amendments that overturn some form of abortion ban: Arizona and Missouri. For Arizona, it was a decisive defeat. It was much closer in Missouri. Since Missouri only had one abortion facility left at the time Dobbs came down, and since it has the example of neighboring Nebraska with its alternative amendment passing, and since the main pitch of the side for the amendment was “Missouri’s abortion ban goes too far,” without reference to how far that amendment went, it seems likely that Missourians will come up with another ballot measure for 2026.
Amendments that put the “right” to abortion in the constitution, but legal status was already secure in state law: Maryland, Montana, New York, Nevada. And Colorado passed abortion funding.
Arizona passed harsher rules on immigrants, who are often fleeing war or similar horrific violence
California turned down a minimum wage increase, but that was to put it up to $18 per hour, which is far higher than other proposals. Current minimum wage is $16, which is also higher than most of the country.
South Dakota trounced a move to change the language in its state constitution to be gender-neutral rather than masculine when not merely masculine is meant.
Overall Commentary by Our Issues
Euthanasia isn’t often on the ballot, and when it is, it’s usually to allow it where it’s currently not allowed under the euphemisms of “assisted suicide” or “medical aid in dying.” Fortunately, there were none of those on the ballot this year. There was a measure that took the opposite tack, protecting patients from it. This was framing the point well, and in West Virginia it did pass. But only by a small margin.
The death penalty wasn’t on the ballot anywhere this year.
War is rarely on the ballot, to the point that when we put measures under the war category, they can seem more ambiguous. Harsher treatment of immigrants could clearly go under either poverty or racism as well. We put it under war because so many immigrants are refugees are fleeing war, including gang war. But in Arizona, the measure passed.
Poverty is mainly addressed in referendums with minimum wage raises. Also, we’re especially enamored of paid sick leave because of the long-standing link of family and medical leave to a more humane workplace that fosters fewer pressures to abort, as Henry Hyde explained eloquently. These generally do well on the ballot, and all but one (California) passed this year.
Racism, expanded to “Discriminatory Practices” to include additional marginalized groups, included one trend that we’ve had before and will hopefully cover again: finally abolishing all slavery by removing the exception for those convicted of a crime. This passed handily in Nevada this year. Another common trend is to update language for people with disabilities, and that passed handily in Nevada and North Dakota.
As for the biggy, abortion, results are mixed. Though the media is likely to talk about how most of the “reproductive rights” measures passed, we can see that they mainly passed in places where pro-abortion sentiment is strong and their passage will cause no immediate difference whatsoever in the law. For those places with some sort of ban (that is, protection for children) in place, that ban remains in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota. That will by iffy in Florida since a majority did vote for it but not a large enough majority. But results were strong in Nebraska and even stronger in South Dakota.
Not sure what immigration, the minimum wage, and “gendered” language have to do with the consistent life ethic. Far too many activists are eager to turn the consistent life ethic into a form of pro-life leftism. Very silly.
The underlying value of the consistent life ethic is to regard each human being (at a minimum – many CLE activists extend this to the rest of the natural world) as of inherent value, worthy of respect, dignity, and all the necessities of life. This underlying value is not limited to them not being killed.
The desperate plight of the people at our borders calls on our hearts to respect their need for an adequate home situation in a place much safer than their original country. The minimum wage respects the dignity of each human by giving them the means for adequate shelter, food, and clothing. Respect for each person also means not using language that gives a feeling of exclusion.
Mother Teresa famously said, “If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.” At its heart, the CLE is about fully recognizing that we belong to each other, which means wanting to see everyone else have what they need for a good life. We are one human family, and we need to care for one another as family.
I think both Miranda and Bill are correct. Nonviolence is the first and the absolute step required for respect for others. You can’t help them unless you first let them be. The next step is to listen to their pleas and respond to those pleas in so far as possible. The Consistent Life (N.B.) Ethic, and pacifism in general, have traditionally recognized the priority of that first step. We should continue to do so. This means that when we bring up other issues like minimum wage, we should normally include an explanation as to how this is just one of many additional steps we may take after we have acknowledged the right of our neighbors to exist in the first place. If we fail to communicate this non-violence as our first and fundamental duty, we fail to prepare the very banquet we have undertaken to offer to the world. If we fail to mention some other good thing that others may need, like a minimum wage, we lose just a bit of icing on the cake we serve.
This blog post is a summary, so that leaves a lot out. If you go to the Peace and Life Referendums website or click on its state pages that are linked to in the post, you’ll find that we explain out in more detail and documentation why certain referendums are covered under a broad understanding of the consistent life ethic.
The fact is that even with this very broad understanding, there are only a very small number of referendums that can apply. Abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia/assisted suicide are straightforward. But war, racism/discrimination and poverty will all be more ambiguous as referendums and need to be explained – as we do on the website.
Part of the strategy here is to draw in people very interested in different kinds of referendums and show them how their interest fits in.
Sometimes the issues are more interrelated than “first this, then that.” The right to live out one’s full natural lifespan, without being killed at any point before life’s natural end, is indeed essential to any other rights. And there are certain basic needs, like a living wage, that are essential to survival, i.e., to life. If someone dies because they can’t afford or access basic necessities, their right to life has not been respected. Society has failed such a person, probably on multiple levels.
There is also a right to a life befitting human dignity that is less fundamental than life tout court, but still is something more than just icing on the cake. Some people might be able to survive sleeping on the streets for some time, and these people’s lives and dignity are being disrespected less directly and less finally than if they were killed outright, but they are still not getting the basic dignity they are owed as human beings.