Prominent among them is CA. According to this November 05 page, by that stage, Mendocino and Marin had voted for a ban while Sonoma, Humboldt, Butte and San Luis Obispo had voted against. Trinity also had a ban by virtue of a board of supervisors vote.

The piece adds

Opponents of genetically modified crops have lobbied for outright bans in Hawaii and Vermont, but California remains the only state in the nation where voters have enacted such bans.

The bans are largely symbolic because few - if any - genetically engineered crops were grown in those counties. The same is true for Sonoma County, where the winemaking grape is king. No genetically engineered grapes are commercially available

The legislative traffic on GMOs in CA has not been all one way: in the 05/06 session of the lege, a bill with a provision along the lines of §123, SB 1056, managed (in one form or another) to pass both houses.

The bill passed the Senate 31-8 in June 05 and the Assembly 51-24 in August 06. It subsequently died - I assume because of unbridgeable differences between the houses.

In any case, what happened to SB 1056 rather suggests that legislators in CA (at least) see no electoral harm in goosing Monsanto, despite the contrary views of a bunch of Bay Area liberal hippies.

(The fact that CA lege members enjoy an obscenely safe incumbent gerrymander is not much comfort - incumbent MCs generally have a bit of a cushion themselves!)

I haven't seen a list of all those US jurisdictions which have legislated either a ban or a preemption: it can only be my hypothesis that banning GMOs is not a salient issue for most voters.

There is some polling: Pew has tracked opinion on GMOs, and their latest findings (at a cursory glance) suggest to me a grumbling distrust rather anything that might change votes significantly. (A food scare could change all that, of course.)

On the other hand - I suspect that the (relatively few) voters who oppose GMOs feel very strongly about it!

Plus - §123 is not a referendum on GMOs: it's a curb on regulation of GMOs. And Pew says voters want more, not less regulation. Many who wouldn't support a ban on GMOs might find that alarming.

That's Sixpack - what about the MCs?

I can't see any scorecards specifically on GMOs: for the purpose of this exercise, I haven't looked that hard! I'm not even sure whether there have been any on-topic roll call votes in recent times.

I suspect that a priori assumptions on voting inclinations get one only so far: for example, I doubt whether every rep for an agricultural district is a sure vote for §123: some will have countervailing interests, such as artisanal farmers (are there any left?) or (as with MN) Indians; others may be sufficiently dug in to be able to vote their personal preference against the section.

The kinds of agriculture in a district might affect the vote: not every crop has a GM version, for instance.

And you would expect reps in ag-heavy districts to need to roll logs for their constituents: even if a district wasn't affected by §123, quite possibly a vote in favor would buy something of value to it.

Then - groups opposing §123 (let's call them the antis) themselves have to figure their priorities: they may need to do some logrolling of their own with other groups for which §123 is less of a worry.

Plus - the antis have surely been engaged in lobbying on preemptive legislation like §123 for a good long while: they should have some sort of feel for the views at least of the ag committee members in each house, if not for how they'll cast their votes in the end.

However - I find it unlikely that the full House agcom would vote to strike a provision in a subcommittee chairman's mark; so §123 is likely to be in the text reported out.

At which stage, the party congas over to Rules. Rules is (by the rules) under Pelosi's thumb (as Peterson's Ag is not), and if Pelosi wants to speed the bill through to passage, the special rule under which the bill is taken on the floor will be tailored to achieve that. (I've no idea what her views are, on the bill or on §123.)

Rules, if they wanted, could substitute a text of their own; they could allow an amendment free-for-all, no amendments at all, or something in between. (My guess would be that they will not touch the text, and that the bill will get a modified closed rule, with amendments limited to those included in the text of Rules's report on the rule.)

Would the rule allow an amendment striking §123? Assuming the leadership wants §123, could there be any harm in allowing a vote if it were sure that vote would be safely against the amendment? Rather than than encourage a revolt at high-handed tactics which might join the GOP with a bunch of Progs in an alliance that was the stuff of Pelosi nightmares!

Is there the slightest chance that the vote on the amendment might pass? That a bipartisan combination of urban, suburban and exurban votes could swing it?

Meanwhile, presumably Harkin and his boys and girls are working on their version of the bill; and no doubt there will be a §123 in it in some form.

Antis will know that they will get a shot at an amendment to strike the section: will they manage enough votes to kill the motion to table? The Senate is surely more subject to the agribusiness boot on the neck, what with the weighting towards the emptier parts of the country. If the House can't stump up the necessary majority, surely the Senate doesn't have a prayer?

What the Senate does have, of course, is the filibuster, in all its forms. But - with the amount of corporate welfare at stake, cloture would pass by a mile. (And who, exactly, would be the filibusters? Feingold? Boxer?)

So - what then? What about a poison pill? There was, for example, the Schumer Amendment of beloved memory which killed the odious bankruptcy bill (what eventually passed as S 256 (109th)) in 2002.   

There's no germaneness requirement in the Senate, of course: and there would be a good deal more willingness to turn the farm bill into a Christmas tree (some 100 Hours bills may need to hitch a ride!) than to confront agribusiness directly.

Unfortunately, with so much moolah at stake, even if a pill passed, it would be yanked right out in conference.

My conclusion? Far too early for a conclusion!

Update [2007-6-1 19:0:0 by skeptic06]:

The fourth CA county with a GMO ban is Santa Cruz, according to this Salon piece.

The piece also makes a goo-goo point in favor of §123:

a county-by-country hopscotch approach to genetic modification also seems a bit screwy. Geneflow doesn't respect country borders -- if Sonoma says yes and Marin says no, that doesn't mean organic farmers in Marin are protected from Monsanto-itis spread from Sonoma. Some level of higher coordination seems essential.

His kicker, following on:

Which provides all the more reason why the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry is probably not the ideal venue for determining national policy on the issue.

About 220 years too late on that!