My sense of the election (non-expert, to be sure) is that Obama is not worried about California. Colorado has more potential to be a swing state, among medical marijuana states, less likely but potentially New Mexico and Michigan. One source I found online that makes predictions about 2012 swing states, linked from a Wikipedia article but which I’ve heard of before, is the site Real Clear Politics .
Regarding the impact that federal anti-medical marijuana activity in Colorado could have on the election, I think there are several aspects to consider. Medical marijuana is popular nationwide, including in Colorado which enacted it. But this is not automatically the same thing as supporting the specific medical marijuana system that is in place in the state. A lot of people are upset at the direction that the industry has gone, even while supporting medical marijuana generally. These kinds of people may well view the federal actions as aiming to “tighten up” on things, not ending medical marijuana but moving it toward something more “under control” and more truly focused on real medical needs. If so, the crackdown could help Obama with that group of people, to the extent that they correspond to the “swing vote” in the state.
With that in mind, looking at how the crackdown may play out in Colorado, I believe there are three general groups to factor into the equation. There is an engaged constituency for medical marijuana in the state now, people served by the state’s medical marijuana system, involved in administering the system, or close to such people.; these are potential swing voters, but not the largest group of them. Secondly, there are people who don’t have that level of engagement with medical marijuana, but who are generally sympathetic to marijuana reform and who think the new scene is “cool”; these may be swing voters, but my guess is they are mainly Democratic base. The third group is the set of typical swing voters.
Obama needs swing voters to pick him over other candidates, and he needs base Democratic voters to show up. The crackdown could have a dampening effect on base voters, and there are some swing voters who could leave Obama over it. My guess is that there are other issues having more of an impact on both base and swing voters, and that Obama probably perceives a greater campaign need in the area of winning the swing voters. And my guess is that the typical swing voter is not heavily focused on medical marijuana, but generally leans toward the view that things are not quite right in the way medical marijuana has played out in the state. In a recent phone conversation, Roger Goodman suggested an additional, related effect. The federal raids could have a subtle but national effect of fostering a “law and order” impression for the administration, thus helping with swing voters national albeit only slightly.
On the question of what is motivating the crackdown, having just outlined a political motivation for Obama to support it, I think we also need to consider the possibility that something else is going on. With all due respect to Kevin, whose legal knowledge vastly exceeds my own, it is nevertheless the case that the Dept. of Justice is “different” from other agencies in its hybrid nature. DOJ is not supposed to simply follow the directives of the president, but is also entrusted with a responsibility to uphold the law as its officials interpret it. Too much of strong head by the President, or even the Attorney General, is frowned upon. In practice this means that a dance or balancing act takes place between the policies and priorities of the President and the decisions made individual Justice officials as law enforcement officers. A lot of the decision-making in turn is spread out to the US Attorneys and other decision makers in the states. A president and an attorney general can exert influence on those decisions, but the structure is not command top-down. This is even more the case in the aftermath of the US Attorney firings scandal during the Bush administration. This was one of the major scandals of the last decade, and it had an enormous impact on Washington. As a result, it is more politically difficult now than ever before for officials in Washington to exert centralized control in DOJ. Traditionally an incoming president has requested resignations from most sitting US Attorneys, influencing DOJ practices in the states by appointing new officials who share the president’s desired approach, rather than through ongoing management during his one or two terms. Obama did not do this, presumably because of the political situation left by the firings scandal made that untenable — imagine what Republicans would have done with that — at least one US Attorney even took advantage of it to increase her profile. Adding to these factors to even further reduce DC-based control over DOJ branches is that Eric Holder despite being Attorney General is not so well respected in that sphere, perhaps because of his role in some controversial pardons granted by Pres. Clinton.
I’m not saying that Obama should be let off the hook, and my political arguments above may even suggest that he personally should be targeted as to blame, if only as a political strategy. I also believe that Obama could influence the situation more than he is doing so, if he chose to do so. I have also heard there is evidence suggesting that Obama in fact has ordered the crackdown and/or acceded to Justice officials who pressed for it. Nevertheless, I don’t think things are as straightforward as simply blaming Obama for what the government is doing. Even in other agencies it is not a simple top-down structure, in practice not even in matters where it should be, and this is even less the case with DOJ. Most of all I think we know too little about what is driving the situation and need to learn more, but I don’t know how we can learn more.
Regarding Mike’s comments, I have also wondered if Obama in a second term would do more to prioritize criminal justice reform. I had an interesting conversation before the DPA conference last year with a researcher at ProCon.org (a nonprofit, medical marijuana is one of their major areas and their first area) who previously had worked as an intern at ONDCP. The guy was on the young side, but extremely bright and informed. He told me there was a belief or understanding at ONDCP that Obama in a second term would take on criminal justice reform. What I didn’t get a chance to ask, and perhaps will reach out to ask, is what made people there believe that. It could be real, but it could also just be wishful thinking based on one or more comments they heard. Also, if it is for real, I would still guess that the reforms even if significant would not point in the legalization direction, but would be more along the lines of what Obama has had to say about criminal justice in the past, e.g. undoing mandatory minimums, shifting the balance of resources toward treatment and prevention, addressing profiling, some level of decrim, that sort of thing.
