[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. As the vote count goes on in the presidential race and some other races, many people around the country aren't just waiting to see who the president will be or who some of those other candidates will be. They're also waiting to learn which state and local ballot measures will be adopted. Some things though have been approved already.

Oregon voters, for example, said yes to a measure that decriminalizes certain drugs in addition to marijuana. California voted on at least two measures you could describe as conservative in a mostly progressive state. One seemed to go against affirmative action, the other against gig workers for companies like Uber and Lyft. Joining me now to run through some ballot measures from around the country is Thomas Fuller, San Francisco bureau chief for The New York Times. Hi, from New York, Thomas. Thanks for getting up early for this.

Thomas Fuller: Hi, Brian.

Brian: Welcome to WNYC. What happened in California? Let's start with your state.

Thomas: It's interesting. What you just said, I think is really relevant to-- We had all these opinion polls before the election that were so disappointing because we feel blind, we don't get a sense of how people really feel. There's an argument that ballot measures really give us a sense of the mood of the country. For California, in particular, a very blue state, it goes without saying, huge vote totals for Biden, but the ballot measures show the nuances, show the complexity of California and maybe show the mood of the voters right now.

Let's look at taxes, for instance, a lot of little tax measures passed, but a really big one that would have changed the way that property taxes are assessed from big commercial companies, in other words, they would have raised the property taxes of big companies, it looks like it's not going to pass. It's not yet confirmed, but it's on a path to being voted down.

You have an anti-tax sentiment, which by the way, we also saw in Illinois. We saw a tax measure there that would have raised taxes only for people earning more than $250,000 a year and that went down. What does that say? Is there a message for the Democrats, for the country? Maybe in the middle of a pandemic with a bad economy, it's not a time to ask people to raise taxes, even if it's not going to directly affect them.

Brian: How about the affirmative action vote in California?

Thomas: That's a really interesting one. California back in the '90s put a ban on affirmative action for government contracts for education. In other words, you can't use race, ethnicity as a determinant in hiring someone in a government position for a government contract and that ban on affirmative action in California again, very liberal state, was upheld. California voters decided not to overturn it. What does that say? It's a good question. I think it shows that California is yes, liberal, but it's also libertarian and I think it also shows the complexity of the demographics in California.

There is no majority in California. Non-Hispanic whites make up about 37% and the Hispanic contingent is large. Asian Americans make up 30% of San Francisco for instance. What does affirmative action mean in a state where you don't have a majority, where everyone's a minority? Maybe that was a factor there. There are also technical questions, the wording. You have to be a lawyer to figure out what some of these ballot measures will actually do. They're written by the attorney general's office. There, again, shows the nuance, you can go very strong for Biden at the same time, say, no, I'm not for affirmative action.

Brian: In this time of national reckoning, in a place as blue as California, voters rejected a measure that many saw as a step toward equity, do you have the demographics of that yet?

Thomas: No, I haven't seen it, but it was a pretty strong rejection and it was polling that way from the start. Again, how much is this-- it wasn't very strongly supported, you didn't see too many ads on TV about it. How much did that play a role, et cetera? There are technical factors, where was it? Some people will even go deeper into the weeds and say, where was it in the actual ballot, which in California, there's so many measures, it's a little booklet you have to fill out. It's your page after page. I think-

Brian: New York, for example, doesn't have the same system. All our New York listeners thinking, "God, they vote on all these particular things in California. Only our legislators do this." That's pretty much true because the state laws are different and California law allows more initiative and referendum to take place. What about the other one that we could call a conservative outcome in a California vote that did not give the protection to drivers for Lyft and Uber and DoorDash and other gig workers like that, that the proponents were seeking?

Thomas: That's another interesting one. There was a lot of money thrown into that campaign by Uber and Lyft. A few interpretations, some would say well-- and so the background on this is that California passed a law that said to Uber and Lyft and other gig economy companies, ride-sharing and delivery companies, they said, "You have to treat your drivers as employees. You have to give them benefits. They need to have unemployment insurance if they lose their job."

This proposition, the question was, do you want to repeal the law? The answer was, yes. It was the most expensive ballot initiative. In other words, more money was spent on this, more than $200 million, than in the history of ballot measures in the country, so very, very hotly contested. What does it say? It's a big defeat for labor and it's also a question of timing.

If you're at home trying to shelter yourself from the coronavirus and you see an initiative that says, well DoorDash or whatever, a food delivery company might get a lot more expensive or might go out of business, maybe you think twice about that ballot measure. Again, there it was timing. Young people may have been concerned as well. They'd get around by Uber and Lyft in huge numbers out here in the West Coast and maybe to them, it was a threat to a lifestyle of just being able to call a cheap Uber.

Brian: A different kind of democracy voting on the price of something you're a customer of, which might be what that came down to for a lot of people, you're saying. Oregon became the first state to decriminalize small amounts of drugs other than marijuana, including cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine, also Psilocybin or magic mushrooms, psychedelic mushrooms. Were those two separate ballots?

Thomas: They were separate ballots and this is a really big deal. Oregon's the first state to decriminalize what have long been considered much harder drugs, as you said, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and under the law, if you are found to possess small amounts of these drugs, then you get basically the equivalent of a traffic violation, no jail time, $100 fine and if you attend some kind of therapy session then you don't have to pay the hundred dollars. This is a big shift. Will it catch on in other parts of the country? We don't know.

But certainly, marijuana has been separated from other types of-- Let's put it this way. There are blue states in America, there are red states, and then there are green states and they don't necessarily have any connection with Republican or Democrat. The green states have passed marijuana legalization measures. It's just rolling, marching on every year. We're now up to 36 States that have some kind of marijuana legalization, medical or recreational and the West Coast is entirely, from Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, and Nevada, Colorado. The West has legal recreational marijuana in all those States.

Brian: The Psilocybin or psychedelic mushrooms, that's where a different purpose or why was that on a separate question from heroin and methamphetamine and cocaine?

Thomas: First of all, it's the legalization of magic mushrooms, not the decriminalization but it's also pitched in a different way. There's a different procedure and it was pitched as something that could help with therapy, treating depression, anxiety, and addiction. It's something that is pitched as a little more medically oriented. Again, it's the legalization.

Brian: Does that mean like marijuana it can be sold in dispensaries or in stores?

Thomas: Yes, but I think there's a process. There's a process to be licensed to sell it and it's different from marijuana. I think it resembles a little more closely medical marijuana than the recreational marijuana where anyone can walk into a store as long as you're 21 and buy it.

Brian: Let me take a caller who wants to react to the upholding of the affirmative action ban. That's a double negative defeat of the repeal of affirmative action banning in California. Maybe that's a triple negative, but I think everybody gets it by now. Jamell in Manhattan. You're on WNYC. Hi, Jamell.

Jamell: Hi. I'm just calling because I've been thinking about this bill for a long time leading up to the election. My question is, the guest seems to suggest that it would be voted down based on conservative sentiment, but isn't it possible that voters saw a bill seeking to strip the language, saying the state shall not discriminate based on race, sex, and so forth, could see a future where that would be used for the exact opposite of what it was seeking to do. It seems like it's a lot more nuanced than it was defeated by conservatives.

Brian: Got a thought on that theory?

Thomas: I think it's a very, very good point. It goes to this idea that these ballot measures are worded in a very confusing way, as you pointed out, you are voting to overturn a ban on affirmative action. The double negative does really confuse you, but also yes, that can cut both ways. If you're saying, "Well, we are not going to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity." You say, "Okay, that sounds good to me but we are not--" In other words, I think a lot of people did have that reaction. I think it's a good point.

Brian: We're getting some tweets in. One of them says, "All morning, I thought Brian Lehrer was asking how California's new law would impact Jordache. It's DoorDashs," writes one listener. Another one, on a more serious note, says, "Wanted to mention the ballot measure in Nebraska, removing language allowing slavery as a punishment for a crime and the removal of the word plantations from Rhode Island's official state name," and the listener asked better late than never. Are you familiar with those terms?

Thomas: Absolutely. These, there were a trilogy of this idea, let's call it revisiting the past or redress maybe in Rhode Island. The official name of Rhode Island was before this measure was asked, the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Well, voters decided, they agreed that Providence Plantations should be removed. Now Rhode Island is just Rhode Island.

This question had come up a decade ago and it was rejected. It's interesting, maybe with the Black Lives Matter movement, maybe with the murder of George Floyd, that people are more sensitive to this idea. It was called an old-festering wound that needed healing and voters agreed. I would add to the list Mississippi ballot measure where the state flag, which had the Confederate cross on it until this summer, that state flag was decommissioned and voters were asked to approve a new state flag that has just some red, yellow, blue stripes and a Magnolia flower in it, the words 'In God We Trust' as well. Voters approve the new flag.

Brian: Let me throw you a curveball before you go here. Since you're the San Francisco bureau chief for The New York Times, I don't know how much of the West you cover, but this just in, in the presidential race, the Trump campaign is filing another lawsuit in Nevada. It alleges, "That at least 10,000 people voted in Nevada, despite no longer living there", Is this the first you're hearing of it and I wonder how they would prove something like that?

Thomas: I saw that before we started talking. Nevada is again, the disappointment with the polls. Nevada was polling very strongly for Biden and the returns so far, that's important to point out, showed a much tighter race. I don't know if 10,000 would make the difference, but certainly, we know how every outstanding state right now is so crucial to getting to 270. This is one of the many lawsuits that the Trump campaign has said they might file across the country.

Brian: All right. Obviously, we'll get more details on that claim as they emerge. Thomas Fuller, San Francisco bureau chief for The New York Times. Thanks for filling us in on all those ballot initiatives.

Thomas: You're welcome. Thank you.

Copyright © 2020 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.