Last I heard Schwarzenegger was threatening to cut the budget of an office in CA government that is integral to California's licensure of Naturopaths. If this happens, many working naturopaths will suddenly be unlicensed in their state. And if California falls from the list of states that license Naturopaths we're likely to loose the battle in other states, in the short run at least.
So this is worth keeping up with, if you have an interest in regulation and licensing for naturopaths. I certainly do. Though I have not yet decided if I will practice in a state with licensing or without. If I work in a state where I may not prescribe, then I will be required to work in conjunction with an MD who will prescribe when such meds are indicated. I do not plan to limit myself only to food, herbs and exercise. All options are on the table in the attempt to heal or cure.
Interestingly, for me at least, is that one of the constituencies that adamantly opposes licensure of Naturopaths is the Libertarian crowd, many of whom greatly respect Ron Paul. The Libertarian argument goes along the lines that the government should not be involved in deciding who is fit to practice medicine at all, and so not even MD's should be licensed by the state or fed. The unfortunate thing about this stance is that its adherents don't do anything about removing the licenses from the already licensed, they just block new licensures. This leaves us stuck in a system that is dominated by insurance companies and medical suppliers, not by patients or doctors. It's hard enough to get decent care already.
At some level I agree with the Libertarians, that the market can and should be allowed to decide who is a good practitioner, and who is not. Unfortunately, this market knowledge can be very costly for the people in the unfortunate position of discovering that someone is a quack. The arguments are strong on both sides.