A Tennessee lawmaker is vying for control of what Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cardholders can and cannot buy with federal dollars.

In January, State Rep. Sheila Butt introduced a bill that would ban Tennessee shoppers on public assistance from buying food with no perceived nutritional value. According to Butt, current rules allow taxpayer money to fund people’s “unhealthy lifestyle choices.”

“I go into convenience stores almost every day and see the most non-nutritional foods on the counters and in the aisles marked ‘EBT Approved,’” said Butt. “By allowing their purchase with EBT cards, we are actually enhancing diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and obesity in at-risk communities.”

The Republican Majority Floor Leader of the Tennessee House of Representatives plans to model the prospective junk food ban off statewide standards for public school cafeterias. First-time offenders who buy prohibited items would be fined $1,000, while second and third offenses would amount to $2,500 and $5,000 fines, respectively. Grocers caught selling the forbidden foods would be subject to the same fines as shoppers.

Historically, Republicans haven’t exactly been advocates of state welfare programs. GOP politicians, including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Congressman Mike Conaway, have been particularly critical of EBT cards, which are part of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)–formerly known as the Food Stamp program.

Considering Trump’s current administration, not to mention the Republican-controlled House and Senate, drastic alterations to EBT could very well happen under his term.

Within recent years, officials have suggested drug testing recipients to determine if they qualify for benefits. There has also been a reemergence of work requirements across the country. Today 22 states enforce that if you are an “able bodied person” between the ages of 18 and 49 with no dependents, and work less than 80 hours a month, then you are only eligible to use EBT benefits for three months out of every three years.

In June 2016 federal authorities rejected Maine Gov. Paul LePage’s efforts to remove soda and energy drinks from EBT-approved items. In a scathing letter to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, the conservative leader blamed the Obama Administration and “junk food manufacturing interests,” and threatened to overhaul Maine’s EBT program altogether. LePage claimed that “billions” of taxpayer dollars are being spent on “candy and soda.”

“It’s time for the federal government to wake up and smell the energy drinks,” said LePage in a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which funds SNAP programs “Doubtful that it will, I will be pursuing options to implement reform unilaterally or crease Maine’s administration of the food stamp program altogether. You maintain such a broken program that I do not want my name attached to it.”

Maine would have become the first state to pass such a provision. With 18 percent of Maine residents relying on EBT benefits (the third-highest rate in the United States after Oregon and Mississippi), LePage’s failed motion had the potential to severely impair nearly one-fifth of Maine’s population of 1.3 million.

While unhealthy foods encompass one side of the argument, Missouri Republican Rick Brattin would also like to prohibit users from buying certain “luxury” food items, such as steak and seafood. His intent is to bring EBT back to its original purpose: nutrition assistance. However, some critics consider this to be attack on poor people rather than a promotion of healthy eating habits.

“It just seems really repressive,” said Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University and author of the book “Living on the Edge: The Realities of Welfare in America.” “I don’t see how it makes any sense to ban some of these foods. Fish is something that should really be in your diet. And steak, what does that mean in this context?”

As these political figures tout their efforts to promote health and wellness, they often overlook systematic challenges that low-income Americans face. The percentage of obesity in the United States has increased from about 13 percent to 35 percent since the early 1960s. Oftentimes, these poor eating habits can result from a range of societal issues including, but not limited to, insufficient healthy food options in economically-challenged areas, inconsistent work opportunities, and lack of education–all of which can fuel the multidimensional cycle of poverty.

Although one may expect geographically isolated areas known as “food deserts” to be the leading cause of EBT recipients buying junk food, Joe Cortright from the Atlantic thinks otherwise. He attributes the influx of obesity and diabetes in poor communities to household income and education as well. After these factors are taken into consideration, distance from nutritional food explains less than 10 percent of the variation in consumption of healthy foods. Therefore, perhaps politicians should devote more energy to providing work opportunities and educational training for America’s poorest citizens, rather than punishing poor people with rigid diet restrictions.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Conservative Lawmakers Propose Stricter EBT Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

This November, the state of Maine “could change the face of democracy in America,” according to a recent article in Foreign Policy. Lauded as the second-most important election on November 8 by author Larry Diamond, the New England state is predicted to adopt a new voting system where gubernatorial, legislative, and senatorial candidates would be required to earn the majority of votes to secure power. Originally brought forth by a citizens’ initiative with over 61,000 signatures, the Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative (Question 5) is currently on the state ballot. If passed, Maine would become the first state to replace plurality with ranked-choice voting (RCV). Considering that Maine has a long history of multi-party elections, this hierarchal arrangement (where candidates are ranked on an ordinal scale) is designed to break away from today’s embedded two-party system–all while encouraging residents to vote for candidates they actually believe in. Not only could this measure set a new precedent for Maine politics, but it could also potentially motivate the rest of the country to redefine statewide elections.  

How It Works

If the referendum passes, the Pine Tree State would become the first to officially veer away from the “winner takes all approach” that has dominated American politics for decades. Also known as instant-runoff voting or preferential voting, Maine’s proposed system would require residents to rank political contenders in order of preference. Supporters of this approach believe it would ensure that the winner actually possesses broad appeal among voters. Already enforced in several U.S. cities and a number of countries (including Australia, Ireland, Malta, and New Zealand), many praise RCV for its potential to strengthen democratic institutions and empower less prominent candidates to fully participate in (and potentially win) political races.

In instances where a candidate does not yield more than half the votes during the first round of tallying, an “instant-runoff” would occur where the person with the least amount of support would be removed from the race. If a voter ranked the eliminated candidate as their top preference, then their vote would go  to their second-highest choice. By enforcing RCV, voters’ opinions won’t be diluted or forced to conform into a single vote. Depending on how many candidates are running, this process would repeat itself until somebody earns more than 50 percent of the votes.

Why is This Relevant to Maine & the Nation

Over the course of Maine’s history, plurality voting has allowed unpopular candidates to win by small margins. Since 1974, only two out of the past 11 elected governors earned a majority vote. During these gubernatorial races, five of these competitors came out victorious with less than 40 percent support. The most recent example of this trend is seen with Republican governor Paul LePage, whose “successes have been largely dependent on splitting the vote between Democrats and independents.” The incumbent governor won the election with 38 percent of the vote in 2010 and 48.2 percent in 2014.

Some also say that he represents a new era in Maine politics based on his hostility toward rival Democrats and racist remarks against people of color. Recently the public official made headlines for attributing Maine’s heroin crisis to black and Hispanic people, as well as vowing to veto every bill from Maine’s Democratic legislature until they approve his motion to eliminate the state income tax.

Seeing that LePage draws many comparisons to Donald Trump, it’s interesting to note that the Republican presidential nominee did not earn over 50 percent of the popular vote during the primaries and caucuses–instead he won the plurality of votes. Based on a report by FairVote, it’s possible that Trump wouldn’t have won the Republican contest if RCV was utilized based on simulated Super Tuesday results.

Possible Outcomes

A recent poll by the New Hampshire Survey Center saw that 48 percent of Maine voters were in favor of the referendum, while 29 percent were opposed to the measure and 23 percent were undecided. If implemented, ranked choice voting would restore the fundamental tenants of majority rule, requiring that officials earn an absolute majority (50 percent, plus one vote) to hold office. Voting “yes” on Question 5 would therefore make bipartisan elections less predictable by giving third parties more of a viable opportunity to participate in statewide general elections. Citizens would no longer feel dissuaded from “throwing away a vote” by voting for third-party candidates, which has been a common sentiment throughout this year’s presidential election. Instead of feeling obligated to vote for a candidate you don’t completely condone, RCV safeguards a diversity of public opinion.

“We need a system that works–where candidates with the best ideas, not the biggest bank accounts have a fighting chance,” said Dick Woodbury, who is part of The Committee for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. “You should never have to vote for the ‘lesser of two evils’ when there is another candidate you really like.”

For candidates to have successful campaigns, they will also be required to appeal to a wider range of constituents in order to receive more general support. Essentially this would eliminate strategic voting (voting for one candidate to ensure the other one loses) and discourage politicians from investing in negative campaigns against their competitors, according to the Committee for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine.

Critiques Against the Referendum

A prominent argument made against RCV involves its alleged complexity. After decades of utilizing plurality rule, voters may need to acquaint themselves with new procedures and logistics. Since RCV functions best with multi-party elections, this system would also require voters to be better educated about candidates and their platforms. Nonetheless, this could require voters to invest more time and effort in order to make informed decisions. Certain opponents, such as Maine Republican State Representative Heather Sirocki, also consider RCV to be unconstitutional based on Maine law. Sirocki argues that plurality is woven into the Maine constitution, saying that the election of governors and state senators or representatives require “a plurality of votes” to determine the winner. 

“Until recently, I assumed that all measures placed on the ballot were lawful. I was wrong,” wrote Sirocki in an op-ed featured in The Maine Wire. “Blatantly unconstitutional questions may appear on the ballot as long as enough valid signatures are certified by the Secretary of State.”

An additional constitutional concern for RCV is the manner in which the votes will be calculated. It is specified in the Maine constitution that votes must be tabulated at a municipal level. The implementation of RCV, however, could require a different process for counting ballots. Critics are particularly disapproving of this caveat due to the inflated levels of time and money required to facilitate a election. Enacting RCV would likely cost more than Maine’s current $248,000 budget for elections.

Conclusion

With the legal challenges surrounding Question 5 laid out on the table, the referendum would certainly necessitate an amendment to Maine’s current constitution. In the event that Maine votes “yes” on the initiative, its final application would be contingent upon a two-thirds approval of Maine’s legislature and voter approval at a state-wide referendum. As far as legality goes, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap remains confident that his state’s legal framework can be altered via statewide plebiscites or the legislative process.

“It’s a matter of opinion,” said Dunlap. “Formally, everything considered and passed either by the people directly or through their representatives in the Legislature is considered to be constitutional unless and until challenged successfully before the Law Court. The folks in the black robes have final say on constitutionality.”

There may be a ripple effect throughout the country if Mainers decide to pass Question 5. As the national election quickly approaches, many Americans seem dissatisfied (not to mention misanthropic) over this year’s outcome. Simply put, neither the Republican or Democratic nominee are well-liked among a majority of citizens. The federal incorporation of RCV, however, would alleviate two major criticisms of the American electoral system: ensuring that the winner truly has the approval of the electorate and empowering voters to support their first choice–regardless of whether or not they are truly capable of winning or not. If RCV were to be federally implemented someday, candidates like Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson would possibly be better equipped to someday compete against today’s uncompromising bipartisan culture.

Resources

Ballotpedia: Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative, Question 5 (2016)

Bangor Daily News: Maine Group Launching Campaign for Ranked-Choice Voting

Bangor Daily News: LePage: I’ll Veto Every Democratic Bill Until Legislature Agrees to Kill Income Tax

FairVote: Simulating Instant Runoff Flips Most Donald Trump Primary Victories

Foreign Policy: The Second-Most Important Vote on Nov. 8

League of Women Voters of Maine Education Fund: Ranked Choice Voting Basics

The Maine Wire: Ranked Choice Voting: Wrong for Maine & Blatantly Unconstitutional

New York Times: How Controversial is Gov. Paul LePage of Maine? Here’s a Partial List

Portland Press Herald: Our View: Ranked-Choice Petition First Step Towards Reform

Portland Press Herald: Ranked-Choice Voting: Costly, Complicated, Undemocratic 

Portland Press Herald: Question 5 Advocates Try to Allay Confusion About Ranked-Choice Voting

Vox: Maine Could Become the First State in the Nation to Have Ranked Choice Voting

 Editor’s Note: This article was updated on 10/31/2016 to clarify language on the possible ramifications of Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. 

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Citizens’ Initiative in Maine Calls for Ranked-Choice Voting appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I like to keep an open mind about our government and how different states run differently, but there are some things that I feel like would make more sense if every state did them the same way. Maine’s Governor, Paul LePage (R), has reinstated a policy that would make people have to work for food stamps. No more sitting around on your ass waiting for that welfare check to come in, nope, you have to actually work for the money.

“People who are in need deserve a hand up, but we should not be giving able-bodied individuals a handout,” LePage said in a statement. “We must continue to do all that we can to eliminate generational poverty and get people back to work. We must protect our limited resources for those who are truly in need and who are doing all they can to be self-sufficient.”

I think that this is one of the greatest ideas ever, but I also wonder why they have to reinstate such an idea, and why aren’t other states doing the same thing? Wasn’t the original idea of food stamps and welfare just to help people who are down on their luck and trying to find a job? When did we allow welfare to become a way of life? In fact, when did we start allowing people on welfare to become lazy and just accept a handout without having to work for it? I can’t say  that I remember a time when everyone understood the value of a dollar and what a good work ethic is because I’ve never lived in a time where that held true, but I know that at one point in this country our citizens knew what they had to do in order to get by. Nowadays you can pop out a couple of kids, get on welfare, and just sit around waiting for that money to be deposited in your account. You don’t have to actively look for a job, volunteer, or commit to attend a workforce program. You can just say you need the money and the government will hand it on over, the more kids you have the more money you get.

I am no stranger to the ways in which some people have found to manipulate the system. I’ve heard stories of people who will get on food stamps or welfare, take the government’s money, and buy themselves a brand new iPhone or a new pair of Jordans or any other material thing that you don’t need when you are living off of welfare. Do you know where that “government money” is coming from? That money is coming from my pocket. That money is coming from the guy who works a 50-hour work week on minimum wage trying to make ends meet because he understands what hard work and supporting his family are really all about.

Do people not realize that when it comes from the government it’s actually coming from the people!? That’s why we pay taxes, so our government can supplement the many things that we need as a nation, and part of that goes to supporting those who are on welfare. If you are an able-bodied person who can work and is on welfare then there should be a stipulation that says you have to be doing something rather than sitting at home watching Real Housewives of New Jersey or hanging out with your friends. Why not volunteer or participate in a skills training program? Be an active member of society, be a part of your community in a positive way, and teach your kids that a handout is something to be ashamed of. Teach your kids good work ethic and respect for our government.

Under Maine’s new policy people capable of working would be limited to three months of food stamp benefits over a three-year period unless they work a minimum of 20 hours a week, volunteer a certain number of hours for a community agency, or participate in a state skills-training program. This was the point of welfare: to help you out until you can get back on your feet and support yourself and your own family again. Reinstating this policy is something that all states should think about doing (if they aren’t already)!

Way to go Governor LePage and good luck to the people of Maine!

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Hopson via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You Actually Have to Work for Food Stamps in Maine appeared first on Law Street.