Survey USA polls show that the Voter ID Amendmennt appears to be cleared for landing – barring, naturally, a major change in the landscape – while the Marriage Amendment could be a squeaker.
Let’s start with the Marriage Amendment.
At first glance, the news is good; the amendment is up 50-43. Now, in elections for Constitutional Amendments, blanks ballots are counted as “no” votes. So if every single “Undeicded” in this poll either votes “no” or doesn’t vote on the amendment, it flails 51-48. On the one hand, that seems unlikely; it’s a lot more likely that some of the undecideds will break for the amendment; if an eighth of the undecideds vote “yes”, the amendment passes in a 50-plus-one-vote to 50-minus-one-vote squeaker.
Of course, it’s unrealistic to expect that the landscape will stay the same. Both sides are going to pour money into this state on this amendment in the next seven weeks. Given the deep pockets behind the left’s “grassroots” efforts, I suspect they’ll deploy a lot more money. I suspect, as I have all along, that his vote is going to be a tight one.
Voter ID, on the other hand?
The proposed Voter ID Amendment is unchanged since the last round of polling, over a month ago. It’s ahead by a 2:1 margin, with only 7% undecided. IF every single undecided vote is a “no” or an abstention, the measure will pass with a 3:2 margin.
The “yes” vote crushes among all age groups – even moreso among young voters (which makes sense; they’re the ones that see their classmates being approached to take part in the scams); it wins among every party and ideological stripe except among Democrats and self-identified liberals, and across all regions, income brackets and levels of education.
This measure is going to pass resoundingly.
I wonder how much they paid that older couple to endorse the Gay Marriage bill?
If Voter ID passes, T-Paw ought to be a mortal lock to retire Landslide Al in 2014.
Sorry to be Debbie Downer, but passing the amendment is only step one.
Step two is fighting off the inevitable new legal challenge from whatever left leaning groups get together.
Step three is getting the legislature to write the statute to avoid any problems or unintended consequences (easy with a GOP majority, nearly impossible if the DFL has one or both houses).
Step four is fighting off the next round of legal challenges that left leaning groups will file once the specific language is agreed on.
With next session being a budget year, the bill could be late in being passed, and with the legal challenges and appeals, it’s not out of the question for the DFL strategy to be simply drag this out long enough to have the 2014 elections without Photo ID.
Boss, it’s not mentioned in the video, but the couple has a gay son. For or against the amendment, that lack of disclosure is dishonest, and the couple’s proximity to the issue makes them non representative of the general public.
Dave,
Understood. But the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
There is no getting around the fundamental flaw in progressivism — it’s opposed to the republican form of government. You can’t be in the vanguard of social change if your views represent those of the majority. Their goal is not a self-ruling people, but a people ruled by themselves.
Dave did beat me to it. If you want a preview, look across the river in Wisconsin. The Fleebaggers hiding in Illinois didn’t work. The very expensive recall elections didn’t work. So the unions found themselves a judge and did it the Democrat way. Judicial Rule.
Mr. Franklin, what form of government have you given us? A Republic, if you can keep it.
We couldn’t. We are now ruled by public employee unions and an activist judiciary.
With next session being a budget year, the bill could be late in being passed, and with the legal challenges and appeals, it’s not out of the question for the DFL strategy to be simply drag this out long enough to have the 2014 elections without Photo ID.
That’s certainly the way to bet. I figure it this way — in Wisconsin, there are 17 circuit court judges in Dane County. So far, they’ve only gone through 2 of them to keep throwing spanners in the work on Act 10. And we have 29 district judges in Ramsey County. So the forum shopping could go on for years on Voter ID.
Mitch-
this journey begins with a giant leap, and it will be quite overdue. I just don’t want conservatives to get complacent when the ballot passes because they figure it is a done deal. Kind of like oh, maybe a certain recount election in Minnesota in 2008.
Setting aside the Catholic Church’s (perhaps one of the most active vote “yes” churches) confusion of this amendment with the Sacrament of Matrimony for a moment, let’s look only at the very legitimate concern of restricting the rights of the people within the constitution.
Article I of the Minnesota State Constitution — the only article that addresses the status of people in the state of Minnesota — is a Bill of Rights. It is not a Bill of Limitations.
All other articles of the constitution discuss limitations upon government. The constitution, therefore, grants power and rights to the people and restricts the power and rights of government. There is no place in the constitution for this amendment. Inserting it into the constitution would make the constitution itself internally inconsistent, because this amendment would violate Article I, Section 16 of the constitution’s own Bill of Rights.
Clearly this is not a constitutional issue. If the legislature wishes to limit the rights of the people, it should do so by means of laws that are subject to the vetting processes of the courts. If the political climate prevents passage of such an issue at this time, then patience, not an illegal amendment to the constitution, is what is called for.
I urge everyone regardless of their individual opinions on the issue of same-sex marriage to vote “NO” on this amendment. The constitution is not where such prohibitions should be rooted.
I don’t believe the “restricting the rights of the people” argument is nearly so clear with respect to the voter ID amendment, but it’s an argument that has been presented.
I disagree with Leslie. The MInnesota Constitution is the ONLY place for this. Amendments are how Constitutions should be changed. The Catholic Church snipe is a hoary Know-Nothing red herring: nobody seeks to impose Catholicism on the state. As SITD readers know, this is not really a social issue, it’s a trial lawyer’s fight and this is one battle they can’t afford to lose.
Gay marriage can’t win at the polls so it must be imposed by the courts, as in MA and IA, where lawyers argued the state constitution required the law to treat all citizens equally. Just as Black and White citizens use the same drinking fountain, straight and gay citizens should receive the same marriage license.
Minnesota’s Constitution does not include an explicit “equal protection” clause but Minnesota courts have decided it is an “inherent but unenumerated right” protected by the state constitution. Standard legal analysis says a right protected by the Constitution trumps a state statute. A trial court judge could easily decide that denying gays a marriage license violates the state constitution.
The fix is to add an explicit marriage statement to the state Constitution. No statutory change required. Standard legal analysis says the more recent, more explict statement over-rides the older court-imposed interpretation. As to marriage, equal protection would not be a constitutionally protected right. A trial court judge should be much more reluctant to order gay marriage and the appeals court much more reluctant to impose gay marriage.
Even if this amendment passes, it’s a delaying action only. In my lifetime, society’s view of homosexuality has gone from a mental illness to a constitutional right. All schoolchildren are taught it’s perfectly acceptable so in another generation, gay marriage easily will pass at the polls. At that time, the voters can change the Constitution again. Fine with me, each generation Should set its own social policy at the polls, that’s what Democracy is all about. I just don’t want trial lawyers subverting my generation’s social policy in the courts. That’s why this amendment needs to pass.
.
Mr. Hitner is obfusticating. The constitution belongs to the people. It’s authority comes from the people. There is no reason the people can not change it to say whatever the people like. Who has the authority to over rule them?
Ah..Terry, if the people choose to begin to limit the rights of the citizens in that founding document, we will all be taking many steps in a different direction – toward the many failed attempts at building just societies. Yes, the people can do this.
But should they? Is it wise?
I don’t think so. (This is a distraction, but I can’t help myself: The last (only?) time that the rights of the people were restricted in the U.S. constitution was – I believe – prohibition. How did that work out? – oder of smoked fish) Now, back to the task at hand…
I know that many people are concerned about “activist” judges, lawsuits, etc., but case law and the constantly changing (evolving?) solutions that we in America can arrive at is a power of this system. It is not a weakness. It’s messy. It’s sometimes very slow. But we often do eventually arrive at optimal solutions to our social problems.
When things like same-sex marriage are restricted by laws – as is currently the case – social conversations can continue and as a society we seek ever better solutions. When this issue is settled in the constitution (a foundation document)the conversation is over. Nothing can be done except to attempt to overturn the amendment.
That’s what supporters of this amendment want. They want to stop talking about this issue – and impose their beliefs on everyone else.
Leslie conceded my point, without admitting it. Let me clarify:
First, Leslie said: “If the legislature wishes to limit the rights of the people, it should do so by means of laws . . . .” It did: see Minn. Stat. 517.03.
Leslie continued: “. . . that are subject to the vetting processes of the courts.” No, that’s how gay marriage was snuck into Iowa and Massachussetts, it was imposed by the undemocratic trial court lawyers and activist judges. That’s what we’re trying to avoid by removing their ability to tinker with our laws.
Democracy doesn’t matter to Leslie and other gay-marriage proponants because it won’t work for them in this battle. They don’t fear activist judges overturning democracy, they count on it because ” . . . we often do eventually arrive at optimal solutions to our social problems.”
Did you catch that, readers? Your blinkered, Philistine, pig-ignorant opinions don’t matter. Trial lawyers will solve all social problems for you, and better than you could manage.
How do we know they can do it? Look at the history of solving social problems with litigation: Dred Scott, the fugative slave case, set off the Civil War. Roe versus Wade led to taxpayer-funded partial-birth abortion on demand for minors (without parental notification);, forced bussing led to riots in the streets. Race relations and abortion remain two of the most sensitive problems in America today precisely because the solution was imposed by the courts, not democratically negotiated, compromised, conceded or accepted at the grass roots level of state legislature.
I’m sure most totalitarians thought the solutions they imposed on people were “optimal”.
Leslie:
You claim to be concerned about limiting rights.
Right now the law is any man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. You’re not limited. What the amendment will do is tell judges the current law can’t be changed.
But Leslie if you’re concerned about limiting rights will you ask your lawmaker to:
* Repeal the age limit (after all if you’re under 18 to get married you have to have parent’s permission)
* Make it free to apply for a marriage license (after all doesn’t paying money place a limit on marriage)
* Make it legal to have more than one wife or husband (after all you don’t want my limit to marry)
* Allow no restrictions to change name after marriage (after all you don’t want to limit marriage). Before you laugh at this one keep in mind it affects what county you can apply for your marriage license in and if you have a criminal past it requires you in some cases to let the county attorney which convicted you to know that you want to change your name before you apply for the marriage license.
* Not to show ID at all when you apply for a marriage license (since that is a limit on marriage)
* Make it possible for the dream woman I want to marry me (even if she hates me and doesn’t want to date me) since you don’t want to limit marriage.
The point Leslie is that there are a lot of other limits on marriage now. The reason why this is a constitutional issue at all is because we are trying to tell judges not to change the law. Let the people which includes Leslie vote to change the law.
If Joe is right there is a day in the future when you and the people who want it will do it the right way. Part of our gripe with MA, IA, or CA is that the people who can’t get the people to win it by a vote wants it imposed.
Walter hanson
Minneapolis, MN
It is tiresome and annoying to deal with people who constantly pull new “rights” from their nether-regions, and then expect everyone else to recognize them.
Whether you are homo or hetero, we all have the same rights. Period.