style consistency, periods only for complete-sentence image captions (MOS:CAPFRAG)
Okumaya devam et...
← Previous revision | Revision as of 06:33, 9 May 2024 |
| Line 33: | Line 33: |
| The proposed motions in Washington and California were fairly similar: they sought to implement an immediate small increase with additional annual graduated increases, leading to $15 in both states by 2020 and 2021 respectively.<!-- ✓ Missing another money value? "Respectively" doesn't work as is --> The target [[2016 Maine Question 4|of the campaign]] in Maine was $12 by 2020 – a comparable increase to the other proposals.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...labor-under-trump-idUSKBN1343Q1|title=Minimum wage hikes in four states|author=Jim Young|date=14 April 2016|publisher=Reuters|access-date=16 July 2018}}</ref> | The proposed motions in Washington and California were fairly similar: they sought to implement an immediate small increase with additional annual graduated increases, leading to $15 in both states by 2020 and 2021 respectively.<!-- ✓ Missing another money value? "Respectively" doesn't work as is --> The target [[2016 Maine Question 4|of the campaign]] in Maine was $12 by 2020 – a comparable increase to the other proposals.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...labor-under-trump-idUSKBN1343Q1|title=Minimum wage hikes in four states|author=Jim Young|date=14 April 2016|publisher=Reuters|access-date=16 July 2018}}</ref> |
| All three proposals were initially successful by gathering the minimum number of required signatures: 365,880 for California, 23,200 for Washington DC; and 60,000 in Maine.<ref name="Mercury">{{Cite web|url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/01...ely-be-filled-with-propositions/|title=Voters beware: November 2016 ballot will likely be filled with propositions|author=Jessica Calefati|date=17 January 2015|access-date=12 August 2019|publisher=Mercury News}}</ref><ref name="WashingtonBallot">{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...86-11e5-97ae-30a30cca95d7_story.html|title=In nation's capital, $15-hour minimum wage is headed toward 2016 ballot|author=Aaron Davis|date=22 July 2015|access-date=12 August 2019|newspaper=Washington Post}}</ref><ref name="Bangor">{{Cite web|url=https://bangordailynews.com/2015/04...-maine-minimum-wage-by-2020/|publisher=Bangor Daily News|author=Mario Moretto|date=16 April 2015|access-date=12 August 2019|title=Referendum launched for $12 Maine minimum wage by 2020}}</ref> In Washington and California, support for the proposals placed pressure on the city and state governments, which caused both states to implement legislation equivalent to that in the initiatives; as a result, the proposals were withdrawn.<!-- ✓ Thinking of dropping the last fragment of the sentence --> In Maine the vote proceeded and was approved by 55.5% of the voters.<ref name="Maine">{{cite web|url=https://www.pressherald.com/2016/11...rkers-from-new-minimum-wage-rule/|title=Maine group starts petition to exempt tipped workers from new minimum wage rule|author=Dennis Hoey|date=23 November 2016|publisher=Portland Press Herald|access-date=15 July 2018}}</ref> After the vote there was a smaller campaign to reinstate the restaurant tip credit rule where tips could make up to 50% of staff wages, which would lower the effective minimum wage. {{As of|2018}}, restrictions on using tip credit were not being enforced.<ref name="Maine"/> | All three proposals were initially successful by gathering the minimum number of required signatures: 365,880 for California, 23,200 for Washington, D.C.; and 60,000 in Maine.<ref name="Mercury">{{Cite web|url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/01...ely-be-filled-with-propositions/|title=Voters beware: November 2016 ballot will likely be filled with propositions|author=Jessica Calefati|date=17 January 2015|access-date=12 August 2019|publisher=Mercury News}}</ref><ref name="WashingtonBallot">{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...86-11e5-97ae-30a30cca95d7_story.html|title=In nation's capital, $15-hour minimum wage is headed toward 2016 ballot|author=Aaron Davis|date=22 July 2015|access-date=12 August 2019|newspaper=Washington Post}}</ref><ref name="Bangor">{{Cite web|url=https://bangordailynews.com/2015/04...-maine-minimum-wage-by-2020/|publisher=Bangor Daily News|author=Mario Moretto|date=16 April 2015|access-date=12 August 2019|title=Referendum launched for $12 Maine minimum wage by 2020}}</ref> In Washington and California, support for the proposals placed pressure on the city and state governments, which caused both states to implement legislation equivalent to that in the initiatives; as a result, the proposals were withdrawn.<!-- ✓ Thinking of dropping the last fragment of the sentence --> In Maine the vote proceeded and was approved by 55.5% of the voters.<ref name="Maine">{{cite web|url=https://www.pressherald.com/2016/11...rkers-from-new-minimum-wage-rule/|title=Maine group starts petition to exempt tipped workers from new minimum wage rule|author=Dennis Hoey|date=23 November 2016|publisher=Portland Press Herald|access-date=15 July 2018}}</ref> After the vote there was a smaller campaign to reinstate the restaurant tip credit rule where tips could make up to 50% of staff wages, which would lower the effective minimum wage. {{As of|2018}}, restrictions on using tip credit were not being enforced.<ref name="Maine"/> |
| As the campaigns proved to be successful, the Project expanded their support to local initiatives in the states of [[Colorado]], [[Washington (state)|Washington]], and [[Arizona]].<ref name="FastCompany">{{cite web|url=https://www.fastcompany.com/4049269...ped-power-maines-medicaid-expansion|title=How The Fairness Project Helped Power Maine's Medicaid Expansion|author=Eillie Anzilotti|date=8 November 2017|publisher=Fast Company|access-date=16 July 2018}}</ref> The proposals for Colorado and Arizona also sought to raise the minimum wage to $12 by 2020, from $8.31 and $8.05 respectively.<ref name="4States">{{cite web|url=https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/09/pf/minimum-wage-state-elections/index.html|title=4 states just voted to hike their minimum wage|author=Jeanne Sahadi|date=9 November 2016|publisher=CNN Money|access-date=15 July 2018}}</ref> Washington, which already had certain areas with higher base wages, such as Seattle, settled on targeting $15.00 from $9.47 by 2020.<ref name="4States"/> | As the campaigns proved to be successful, the Project expanded their support to local initiatives in the states of [[Colorado]], [[Washington (state)|Washington]], and [[Arizona]].<ref name="FastCompany">{{cite web|url=https://www.fastcompany.com/4049269...ped-power-maines-medicaid-expansion|title=How The Fairness Project Helped Power Maine's Medicaid Expansion|author=Eillie Anzilotti|date=8 November 2017|publisher=Fast Company|access-date=16 July 2018}}</ref> The proposals for Colorado and Arizona also sought to raise the minimum wage to $12 by 2020, from $8.31 and $8.05 respectively.<ref name="4States">{{cite web|url=https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/09/pf/minimum-wage-state-elections/index.html|title=4 states just voted to hike their minimum wage|author=Jeanne Sahadi|date=9 November 2016|publisher=CNN Money|access-date=15 July 2018}}</ref> Washington, which already had certain areas with higher base wages, such as Seattle, settled on targeting $15.00 from $9.47 by 2020.<ref name="4States"/> |
| Line 49: | Line 49: |
| ==Medicaid coverage extension== | ==Medicaid coverage extension== |
| ===2017 ballots=== | ===2017 ballots=== |
| [[File:Medicaid expansion map of US. Affordable Care Act.svg|thumb|upright=1.35|[[Medicaid coverage gap#Medicaid expansion|ACA Medicaid expansion]] by state.<ref name=KFF-Medicaid>{{cite web |title=Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions: Interactive Map |url=https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-...-medicaid-expansion-decisions-interactive-map |publisher=[[Kaiser Family Foundation|KFF]]. Map is updated as changes occur. Click on states for details.}}</ref> | [[File:Medicaid expansion map of US. Affordable Care Act.svg|thumb|upright=1.35|[[Medicaid coverage gap#Medicaid expansion|ACA Medicaid expansion]] by state<ref name=KFF-Medicaid>{{cite web |title=Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions: Interactive Map |url=https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-...-medicaid-expansion-decisions-interactive-map |publisher=[[Kaiser Family Foundation|KFF]]. Map is updated as changes occur. Click on states for details.}}</ref> |
| {{legend|#2b83ba|Not adopted}} | {{legend|#2b83ba|Not adopted}} |
| {{legend|#89CC7F|Adopted}} | {{legend|#89CC7F|Adopted}} |
| Line 60: | Line 60: |
| In 2018, the Project expanded their support to three similar proposals in Nebraska, [[Utah]], and [[Idaho]]. As of July 2018, the Utah proposal had satisfied conditions to be voted on in the November elections.<ref name="KUTV">{{cite web|url=http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-hea...s-secures-place-on-november-ballot|title=Utah health care initiative passes signature requirements, secures place on ballot|author=John Yellend|date=4 May 2018|publisher=KUTV|access-date=16 July 2018}}</ref> The proposals of Nebraska and Idaho also submitted a number of signatures they believed to satisfy ballot requirements, and despite challenges on verification, the proposals were accepted.<ref name="Statesman"/><ref name="Lincoln">{{cite web|url=https://journalstar.com/news/state-...62-5426-ba00-9f70bf67a8ab.html|title=Medicaid expansion decision appears headed to voters|author=Don Walton|date=5 July 2018|publisher=Lincoln Journal Star|access-date=16 July 2018}}</ref> | In 2018, the Project expanded their support to three similar proposals in Nebraska, [[Utah]], and [[Idaho]]. As of July 2018, the Utah proposal had satisfied conditions to be voted on in the November elections.<ref name="KUTV">{{cite web|url=http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-hea...s-secures-place-on-november-ballot|title=Utah health care initiative passes signature requirements, secures place on ballot|author=John Yellend|date=4 May 2018|publisher=KUTV|access-date=16 July 2018}}</ref> The proposals of Nebraska and Idaho also submitted a number of signatures they believed to satisfy ballot requirements, and despite challenges on verification, the proposals were accepted.<ref name="Statesman"/><ref name="Lincoln">{{cite web|url=https://journalstar.com/news/state-...62-5426-ba00-9f70bf67a8ab.html|title=Medicaid expansion decision appears headed to voters|author=Don Walton|date=5 July 2018|publisher=Lincoln Journal Star|access-date=16 July 2018}}</ref> |
| The Project's support was important in gathering the signatures in Nebraska where $338,000 was spent to support the campaign (primarily by paid signature gatherers) - making up 93% of the pre-ballot spending.<ref name="Omaha">{{cite web|url=https://www.omaha.com/livewellnebra...f4-563a-b7c4-72fe2afef4dc.html|title=Petition drive to expand Medicaid in Nebraska forges ahead with national group's support | The Project's support was important in gathering the signatures in Nebraska where $338,000 was spent to support the campaign (primarily by paid signature gatherers) – making up 93% of the pre-ballot spending.<ref name="Omaha">{{cite web|url=https://www.omaha.com/livewellnebra...f4-563a-b7c4-72fe2afef4dc.html|title=Petition drive to expand Medicaid in Nebraska forges ahead with national group's support |
| |author=Martha Stoddard|date=7 May 2018|publisher=Omaha World Herald|access-date=16 July 2018}}</ref> Further spending in favour of a yes vote dramatically escalated, with the Project providing over 90% of the $919,000 total campaign expenditure in Nebraska by May.<ref name="Lincoln"/> Support in Idaho was comparatively lower in size and proportion,<!-- ✓ Comparatively less? Not actively reduced? --> though still significant, with expenditure slightly over half a million dollars, making up 50% of proposal expenditure.<!-- Where did the other expenditure (50%) come from? --> Support also needed to be more focused due to a [[#Ballot_Usage|harder signature process]] in Idaho than most ballot states.<ref name="Statesman"/> | |author=Martha Stoddard|date=7 May 2018|publisher=Omaha World Herald|access-date=16 July 2018}}</ref> Further spending in favour of a yes vote dramatically escalated, with the Project providing over 90% of the $919,000 total campaign expenditure in Nebraska by May.<ref name="Lincoln"/> Support in Idaho was comparatively lower in size and proportion,<!-- ✓ Comparatively less? Not actively reduced? --> though still significant, with expenditure slightly over half a million dollars, making up 50% of proposal expenditure.<!-- Where did the other expenditure (50%) come from? --> Support also needed to be more focused due to a [[#Ballot_Usage|harder signature process]] in Idaho than most ballot states.<ref name="Statesman"/> |
Okumaya devam et...