The initiative and referendum process has long been a tool for advancing progressive drug policy reforms. This year is different. 

[image:1 align:left caption:true]

Election Day is three weeks away, and as usual, several states have drug policy-related initiatives on the ballot. Unusually, unlike in past years when activists used the initiative process to advance progressive drug reform agendas, this year's drug policy-related initiatives seek to reverse or backtrack on that progress. 

According to a Ballotpedia analysis, the shift from progressive to punitive criminal justice initiatives occurred during the 2022 elections. Between 2012 and 2020, progressive criminal justice initiatives outnumbered punitive ones 11 to five, but since 2022, all 16 criminal justice initiatives have moved in a more punitive direction. Twelve of those measures made it harder to get bail. 

This year's initiatives run the gamut, from an effort to roll back marijuana legalization to an effort at increasing some drug sentences to one defining drug traffickers as terrorists to one that would take away from voters the right to determine a state's drug policies. 

Here's what initiatives voters will decide on in three weeks:

Arizona—Label drug cartels terrorist organizations

Proposition 317 would officially declare that drug cartels are terrorist organizations and require the state Department of Homeland Security to do "everything within its authority to address the threat posed by drug cartels." 

The initiative defines a drug cartel as an association of people whose members engage in drug trafficking, human smuggling, or any act of terrorism. And it defines threat as anything designed to violate, harm, or disturb individual rights or the public welfare. 

This initiative is not the work of citizen activists but of the Republican-led state legislature, which passed a bill to the same effect in 2023, only for Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs to veto it. Republican lawmakers approved the initiative for this year's ballot last year. 

"Labeling drug cartels as terrorist organizations to deploy state resources is not a real solution and is not a state function," Hobbs wrote in her veto message at the time. 

But Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro said he supports Prop 317 because he believes it will help law enforcement agencies go after the drug cartels.

"Number one, it makes sure that our law enforcement agents across the state can use every tool, every resource possible to them to combat this terrorism coming across the border," he said. "We also want to send a message to these terrorists, these organized crime entities, that Arizona is not a place that is open for your visit."

There is no known polling on Proposition 317

Colorado—Increase fentanyl penalties

Proposition 132 would create harsher penalties for possession and distribution of fentanyl, which has been linked to hundreds of deaths in the state annually in recent years. 

Under current state law, possession of less than four grams of fentanyl is a misdemeanor; this initiative would make possession of more than one gram a felony punishable by prison time. Possession of less than one gram would also be charged as a felony, but that would be a Level 4 treatment-mandated felony, meaning the defendant would be eligible for court-ordered drug treatment. 

The initiative would also enact a mandatory minimum sentence of eight years for certain fentanyl distribution offenses and allow for a maximum sentence of up to 32 years in prison. It would also remove sentencing discretion in cases where fentanyl is implicated in a death. 

The initiative is sponsored by Advance Colorado, a conservative advocacy group that works to "push back on progressive policies." A relatively small number of Republican elected officials support it, arguing that the new penalties would reflect the seriousness of dealing fentanyl and that it would protect communities combating addiction and overdose deaths. 

Opponents include advocacy groups such as the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition and the League of Women Voters, as well as the Colorado Education Association and the Colorado Nurses Association, along with Republican and Democratic elected officials across the state. They argue that it would divert law enforcement resources to low-level, less important cases and that it is a distraction from the lack of drug treatment funding in the state. 

There is no known polling on Proposition 132. 

Idaho—End the use of the initiative process as a means of changing drug policies

 Uncertain that they can continue to maintain marijuana prohibition by leaving it up to the voters, the state's Republican lawmakers have passed a legislative initiative asking voters to give up their authority to change drug policy through the initiative process. That measure, Grant Legislature Exclusive Authority and Prohibit Citizen-Initiated Measures on Marijuana, Narcotics and Psychoactive Substances Amendment (HJR 4), is on the November ballot.

The measure passed the House 58-10 and the Senate 29-6 after proponents claimed it would protect the state from being influenced by "rich weed companies."

"The proposed constitutional amendment ensures that out-of-state weed barons are not able to hijack the Idaho ballot initiative process and legalize marijuana," argued Blaine Conzatti, president of the arch-conservative Focus on the Family-allied Idaho Family Policy Center. "The adoption of HJR 4 would reserve those decisions for the people of Idaho acting through their elected representatives."

But Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), begs to differ. In an op-ed published in Marijuana Moment, he qualified the effort as anti-democratic.

"House Joint Resolution 4 seeks to amend the state constitution so that voters no longer have any say in determining Idaho’s drug policies. That’s not anti-marijuana, that’s anti-democracy," Armentano wrote. "The message behind this resolution cannot be clearer. State officials don’t trust voters to do their bidding on the marijuana issue."

The Republican-dominated state legislature has fended off marijuana reforms for more than a decade, with not even medical marijuana getting through. Likewise, no marijuana legalization initiative campaign in the state has ever qualified for the ballot. Still, lawmakers and supporters of HRJ 4 are determined to keep voters from making a choice they disapprove of. 

There is no known polling on the initiative.

Massachusetts—Roll back commercial marijuana legalization and home cultivation

The Question 8 ballot question would repeal key parts of the state's law legalizing recreational marijuana. It would eliminate licensed retail sales and commercial production of marijuana, while still allowing adults 21 and older to possess and transfer small amounts. It would also recriminalize the home cultivation of marijuana. The state’s medical marijuana program would remain in place. 

Backed by the leading marijuana prohibitionist organization, Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), the initiative campaign is running into strong headwinds in the Bay State. Gov. Maura Healey (D) said she will vote against it. 

"We’ve got to keep recreational marijuana here in Massachusetts. It’s an important industry, the cannabis industry, and I hope the voters keep cannabis," Healey said in a radio interview. 

Healey is not the only Bay State political figure to embrace the state's existing legalization scheme. 

"Cannabis legalization and regulation is positive for small businesses, local communities, and restorative justice. And keeping marijuana legal in Massachusetts is both economic justice and racial justice policy," said Rep. Ayana Pressley (D-MA) in a statement released by the No on 8 campaign. 

Politicians are in step with public opinion, with recent polling showing the initiative is set to fail by a wide margin.

"There’s no ‘buyer’s remorse’ among Massachusetts’ voters when it comes to legalizing cannabis, and this fact will become even clearer come November," NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said in a statement. "That’s because these policies are largely working as intended and because Massachusetts voters prefer legalization and regulation over the failed policy of marijuana prohibition."