Measure on ballot (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 10, 2024, 12:16:58 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Measure on ballot (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Measure on ballot  (Read 1763 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« on: September 28, 2004, 10:28:01 PM »

SC has two amendments on the ballot, neither of which would be likely to affect the presidential race even if SC were a swing state.

Amendment 1 allows bars to dump minibottles in favor of free pour.  It'll probably pass.

Amendment 2 allows corporate agribusinesses to get the same advantageous property tax assessments that family farms get.  It hasn't gotten much attention, so I have no idea how it will do.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2004, 11:37:19 PM »

SC is the only state that still requires minibottles.  Because of their size (50 ml = 1.7 fl oz) they make mixed drinks in SC more potent than they are elsewhere. They also make mixed drinks that use more than one variety of liquor rediculously expensive, so most bars don't bother with anything complicated.  MADD and the restaurant owners both support this amendment.  The biggest opposition is coming from the liquor warehousers.  They make a good deal of money off of minibottles and they have a sunk investment in the space used to store the bottles.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2004, 07:53:23 PM »

SC usually has a couple of amendments on the ballot each general election.  We don't have the initiative process, but our process for amending our constitution requires a vote of the Assembly, a referendum at the next general election, and a vote in the Assembly as elected by that same general election.  I don't really care about that one so I may abstain.  Since I am in favor of eliminating and not extending the scope of the preferential assessment rate on agricultural property, I will be voting against the second.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 10 queries.