Post by Adam on Nov 16, 2006 13:38:01 GMT -5
Why the marijuana initiative didn't pass in Nevada
I’d like to share my analysis of last week’s 44% to 56% defeat of the Marijuana Policy Project’s ballot initiative to end marijuana prohibition in Nevada.
And, if you were one of the thousands of supporters who donated money and/or volunteer time to the campaign, I want to extend my most sincere appreciation to you. Thank you.
By all accounts — including those of Nevada opinion leaders who were opposed to our initiative — we ran a solid campaign. Our TV ads and radio ads and mail pieces were widely acclaimed; the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative spearheaded an effort to build the first-ever coalition of religious leaders to call for an end to marijuana prohibition (which generated a huge amount of positive news coverage five weeks before Election Day); our initiative received three out of six newspaper endorsements, including an endorsement from the Las Vegas Review-Journal , which is by far the largest newspaper in the state; the overall news coverage was balanced; we had no campaign scandals; our Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) operation (which included targeted mail pieces, live phone calls, prerecorded auto-calls, and door-to-door canvassing) was executed flawlessly; and — thanks to our funders — our campaign was able to lock in good advertising rates early on. Yet we fell six percentage points short on Election Day.
Back in 2002, the loss of MPP's first Nevada initiative was attributed to (1) the initiative's attempt to "legalize" three ounces of marijuana instead of one ounce, (2) the White House drug czar's taxpayer-funded TV ad campaign, which ran a markedly higher volume of ads in Nevada during the seven weeks before Election Day, (3) three high-profile vehicular manslaughter tragedies that were blamed on drivers being under the influence of marijuana, and (4) a low Democratic turnout and enormously effective Republican GOTV program.
This year, only the last point of the four points above was true. For example, our initiative received 44.1% of the vote — which was more than the 43.9% that the Democratic candidate for governor received, and more than the 41.0% that the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate received. The Democratic wave that rocked most of the country did not rock Nevada; frankly, this was because the campaigns for all top-of-the-ticket Democratic races in Nevada were poorly run, with no visible GOTV programs.
The poor Democratic showing and impressive Republican showing made it virtually impossible for MPP’s initiative to pass. That said, had the Democratic/Republican turnout been reversed, our initiative would have come close to passing, but it probably would have still fallen short ... with perhaps 48% or so of the vote.
So where does that leave us for the future? Because public support for marijuana "legalization" is increasing at the rate of about 1% per year nationally, we have a strong shot at victory in Nevada in 2010.
MPP will maintain an on-the-ground organizer in Nevada over the next four years, working to educate the public and build coalitions of supportive individuals and organizations across the state ... and we will then try again to end marijuana prohibition in Nevada in November 2010.
(For every 100 people who voted, we need to persuade only six out of every 56 who voted "no" to switch their votes to "yes" the next time around. In other words, we need to hold our base of 44% and, additionally, to persuade about 1 out of every 10 "no" votes to change their vote. This is eminently doable.)
You might be wondering, "Why is MPP so determined to pass a ballot initiative in Nevada?"
To achieve our ultimate goal of regulating marijuana like alcohol across the nation, we need to (1) change state laws through ballot initiatives and state legislatures, and (2) change federal law to give states the right to craft their own marijuana policies.
To succeed with this two-pronged strategy, we must first pass a ballot initiative ... somewhere. (Because legislators in the 50 states and in Congress aren't exactly bold, it will be the people — not legislators — who will be the first to end marijuana prohibition.)
Only 23 states even have the ballot initiative process. Of those that do, the two states that are the most supportive of ending marijuana prohibition are Alaska and Nevada. These two states also happen to have small populations and are therefore affordable for us to campaign in.
MPP already has a strong presence in Nevada, so we're choosing Nevada as the state that will most likely be the first to bow out of marijuana prohibition. And then we'll move on to Alaska and other states — including Vermont, where we already have a bill pending to end marijuana prohibition.
I want to thank our 21,000 dues-paying members who have brought us this far. Your support is what makes our work possible.
Sincerely,
Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.
I’d like to share my analysis of last week’s 44% to 56% defeat of the Marijuana Policy Project’s ballot initiative to end marijuana prohibition in Nevada.
And, if you were one of the thousands of supporters who donated money and/or volunteer time to the campaign, I want to extend my most sincere appreciation to you. Thank you.
By all accounts — including those of Nevada opinion leaders who were opposed to our initiative — we ran a solid campaign. Our TV ads and radio ads and mail pieces were widely acclaimed; the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative spearheaded an effort to build the first-ever coalition of religious leaders to call for an end to marijuana prohibition (which generated a huge amount of positive news coverage five weeks before Election Day); our initiative received three out of six newspaper endorsements, including an endorsement from the Las Vegas Review-Journal , which is by far the largest newspaper in the state; the overall news coverage was balanced; we had no campaign scandals; our Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) operation (which included targeted mail pieces, live phone calls, prerecorded auto-calls, and door-to-door canvassing) was executed flawlessly; and — thanks to our funders — our campaign was able to lock in good advertising rates early on. Yet we fell six percentage points short on Election Day.
Back in 2002, the loss of MPP's first Nevada initiative was attributed to (1) the initiative's attempt to "legalize" three ounces of marijuana instead of one ounce, (2) the White House drug czar's taxpayer-funded TV ad campaign, which ran a markedly higher volume of ads in Nevada during the seven weeks before Election Day, (3) three high-profile vehicular manslaughter tragedies that were blamed on drivers being under the influence of marijuana, and (4) a low Democratic turnout and enormously effective Republican GOTV program.
This year, only the last point of the four points above was true. For example, our initiative received 44.1% of the vote — which was more than the 43.9% that the Democratic candidate for governor received, and more than the 41.0% that the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate received. The Democratic wave that rocked most of the country did not rock Nevada; frankly, this was because the campaigns for all top-of-the-ticket Democratic races in Nevada were poorly run, with no visible GOTV programs.
The poor Democratic showing and impressive Republican showing made it virtually impossible for MPP’s initiative to pass. That said, had the Democratic/Republican turnout been reversed, our initiative would have come close to passing, but it probably would have still fallen short ... with perhaps 48% or so of the vote.
So where does that leave us for the future? Because public support for marijuana "legalization" is increasing at the rate of about 1% per year nationally, we have a strong shot at victory in Nevada in 2010.
MPP will maintain an on-the-ground organizer in Nevada over the next four years, working to educate the public and build coalitions of supportive individuals and organizations across the state ... and we will then try again to end marijuana prohibition in Nevada in November 2010.
(For every 100 people who voted, we need to persuade only six out of every 56 who voted "no" to switch their votes to "yes" the next time around. In other words, we need to hold our base of 44% and, additionally, to persuade about 1 out of every 10 "no" votes to change their vote. This is eminently doable.)
You might be wondering, "Why is MPP so determined to pass a ballot initiative in Nevada?"
To achieve our ultimate goal of regulating marijuana like alcohol across the nation, we need to (1) change state laws through ballot initiatives and state legislatures, and (2) change federal law to give states the right to craft their own marijuana policies.
To succeed with this two-pronged strategy, we must first pass a ballot initiative ... somewhere. (Because legislators in the 50 states and in Congress aren't exactly bold, it will be the people — not legislators — who will be the first to end marijuana prohibition.)
Only 23 states even have the ballot initiative process. Of those that do, the two states that are the most supportive of ending marijuana prohibition are Alaska and Nevada. These two states also happen to have small populations and are therefore affordable for us to campaign in.
MPP already has a strong presence in Nevada, so we're choosing Nevada as the state that will most likely be the first to bow out of marijuana prohibition. And then we'll move on to Alaska and other states — including Vermont, where we already have a bill pending to end marijuana prohibition.
I want to thank our 21,000 dues-paying members who have brought us this far. Your support is what makes our work possible.
Sincerely,
Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.