⭐ Start off 2025 with a powerful boost to your portfolio: January’s freshest AI-picked stocksUnlock stocks

Bear hunting and sharia law among ballot measures in U.S. election

Published 11/05/2014, 02:47 AM
Updated 11/05/2014, 02:50 AM
Bear hunting and sharia law among ballot measures in U.S. election

By Julia Edwards

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - While Maine voters were asked to weigh in on bear hunting regulations in Tuesday's U.S. elections, voters in Alabama were given the chance to insure that state courts never rule according to sharia law.

The 146 ballot measures show a broad spectrum of issues that are relevant to each state and vary widely among the nation's disparate cultures and political views.

Citizen groups and state legislatures have historically used the ballot process to decide politically sensitive issues through a direct vote.

Such was the case in Alabama where voters passed Foreign Laws in Court Amendment 1, which was added to the ballot by the state's legislature in an effort to put a controversial bill in the hands of voters.

Alabama Senator Gerald Allen first introduced the idea of explicitly prohibiting sharia laws from the state's courts as a bill in the state legislature. The bill did not pass and instead became a ballot measure that asked whether the courts should answer to any foreign law.

Unlike codified Western law, sharia is a loosely defined set of moral and legal guidelines based on the Koran, the sayings of Prophet Mohammad and Muslim traditions. Its rules and advice cover everything from prayers to personal hygiene.

A critic, Randy Brinson, president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, called the vote a "tremendous waste of effort," in an interview with Birmingham News last week.

"Sharia law is not going to be implemented in Alabama, it just isn't," Brinson said to Birmingham News.

Maine's referendum on bear hunting also met resistance. The citizen-led initiative, sought to ban the use of bait, dogs and traps in bear hunting.

Maine's Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife issued a statement, saying it "vigorously opposed" the measure, which would "cripple the Department's ability to control the bear population."

The Department said such hunting tactics account for 93 percent of bear population control during a period it referred to as the "annual bear harvest."

The measure was too close to call early Wednesday morning.

Both Oregon and Colorado considered ballot measures that would require genetically modified foods to carry a label to alert customers.

Colorado blocked the bill. The vote in Oregon was too close to call early Wednesday morning.

Vermont passed a similar law earlier this year, bringing the public's attention to genetically modified ingredients and simultaneously instigating a lawsuit from the grocery industry.

Other unusual measures were on the ballot in Arizona, where voters passed a bill for terminally ill patients to try drugs that have not yet been approved by the FDA; in Colorado, where voters blocked a measure expanding horse track betting; and in Arkansas where voters chose to end alcohol prohibition in the state's large number of dry counties.

(Reporting By Julia Edwards; Editing by Ken Wills)

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2025 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.