The Minnesota gay marriage showdown

[Benj]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In Minnesota, everything other than a "yes" vote (e.g., not voting at all) is counted as a "no" for voting purposes.

To clarify, an undervote is when a voter votes in one contest but fails to vote in another. So, for example, if a voter voted in the Presidential race but left the referendum question blank, that voter cast an undervote on the referendum question. Typically, there are a chunk of voters who only vote for President and don't fill out the rest of the ballot. There were about 40,000 such votes in Minnesota in 2012.

As Verin explained, those undervotes are counted as "No" votes on referendums in Minnesota. Their treatment in other states varies. In this case, it didn't matter, as "No" alone had more votes than "Yes", but the referendum would still have failed if "Yes" had less than 40,000 more votes than "No".

[Benj]

House vote is coming on Thursday:

http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_23188690/minnesota-gay-marriage-bill-set-thursday-vote-house

Good sign. I doubt Thissen would bring this up if he didn't have the votes.

Apparently he thinks he does, even without any Republican defectors:

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/05/07/minn-senate-committee-to-review-gay-marriage-bill/

[Benj]

They're currently debating an amendment to eliminate all civil marriage in Minnesota and replace it with civil unions. This is amusing.

Edit: The amendment fails, predictably, 22-111, and now to the third reading and final debate.

[Benj]

Voting now.

Edit: Passes 75-59!

Some Republicans (at least two, if no Democrats defected) voted yes, not sure who. That's despite no House Republicans having publicly stated their support before the vote. There is a public Republican supporter in the Senate, though, and the Senate was generally considered the easier battle. So, yay!

[Benj]

Republicans Loon, Garofalo, Kieffer and Fitzsimmons voted yes. Democrats Fritz and Sawatzky voted no. All others voted with their parties.

[Benj]

Good news. So what are we looking at next?

2013 - Illinois (legislature), California (Supreme Court?)
2014 - Hawaii (legislature), Oregon (ballot), Colorado (ballot)
2016 - Nevada (ballot), Arizona (ballot), Michigan (ballot), Ohio (ballot)

Not sure where to place New Mexico and New Jersey but, looking at the map of party control of state legislatures and Governors, it's pretty much maxed out after those 23.

If not California by Supreme Court this year, then likely by referendum next year. Not sure on the progress of the Colorado referendum proposal; it's been quiet. Hawaii could happen this year, too; they still have a lot of time.

As for the 2016 states, that's a pretty random assortment. I'm not sure on referendum laws by state, but I know there's something of a push in Wisconsin to have a referendum there to repeal the Constitutional amendment.

I would not be surprised if NJ gets a veto-proof majority in favor, or if Christie relents on the referendum, or if we hold a referendum, by 2016. If not, 2017, as soon as Christie leaves office. I don't know enough about Susana Martinez's position on the issue to say whether New Mexico is possible while she's in office, but she's up for reelection in 2014, so things could change, though her approvals are quite high at the moment.

[Benj]

Good news. So what are we looking at next?

2013 - Illinois (legislature), California (Supreme Court?)
2014 - Hawaii (legislature), Oregon (ballot), Colorado (ballot)
2016 - Nevada (ballot), Arizona (ballot), Michigan (ballot), Ohio (ballot)

Not sure where to place New Mexico and New Jersey but, looking at the map of party control of state legislatures and Governors, it's pretty much maxed out after those 23.

If not California by Supreme Court this year, then likely by referendum next year. Not sure on the progress of the Colorado referendum proposal; it's been quiet. Hawaii could happen this year, too; they still have a lot of time.

As for the 2016 states, that's a pretty random assortment. I'm not sure on referendum laws by state, but I know there's something of a push in Wisconsin to have a referendum there to repeal the Constitutional amendment.

I would not be surprised if NJ gets a veto-proof majority in favor, or if Christie relents on the referendum, or if we hold a referendum, by 2016. If not, 2017, as soon as Christie leaves office. I don't know enough about Susana Martinez's position on the issue to say whether New Mexico is possible while she's in office, but she's up for reelection in 2014, so things could change, though her approvals are quite high at the moment.

For 2016, I was thinking of when would be the best timing for those to pass (presidential election year turnout). I know there's a push to get a ballot measure this year in Ohio which is probably too soon and it could even end up on the 2014 ballot. In Nevada, the legislature has already started the process of repealing the previous constitutional amendment, something that requires legislative passage in both 2013 and 2015 before going to the 2016 ballot. I admit Arizona is out there but I think it's more likely than Montana or Alaska.

Also Wisconsin doesn't have any constitutional initiatives so it's up to the legislature to refer a repeal which is unlikely considering the vicious gerrymander.

Looking at the list of states with constitutional amendment initiative processes, I could definitely see Florida in 2016. On the other hand, Ohio, Michigan and Florida all also have heavily gerrymandered GOP legislatures that wouldn't ever pass gay marriage. It's not clear to me whether there could/would be an amendment that would enshrine same-sex marriage in the state constitution.

[Benj]

Looking at the list of states with constitutional amendment initiative processes, I could definitely see Florida in 2016.

I can not bring myself to be optimistic that we could win a referendum in Florida that soon. Maybe things can change by then but it's not a great state for this.

More likely than Ohio or Michigan, at least, I think.

[Benj]

Doesn't Florida require a 60% majority to pass a constitutional amendment?

In most circumstances. The ways to amend the FL Constitution are:

-60% of the Legislators voting in favor (not going to happen, both are solidly R)
-The Constitution Revision Commission (meets in 2017 to consider/propose amendments) - made of the AG, 15 picked by the Gov, 9 by the Speaker, 9 by the Senate President, and 3 by the CJ. Don't hold out much hope for this.
-Voter initiative to propose an amendment to appear on the ballot (possible).
-Voter initiative to call a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments (simple majority; unlikely).

After that happens, the amendment needs 60% of the voters in the next general election, unless it's creating a new tax (2/3) or the Legislature (3/4 majority) calls for a special election.

I could see gay marriage getting majority support in 2016, but not 60% of voters.

Ah, yeah, then not possible any time soon. Montana and the Dakotas would get to 50% earlier than Florida would get to 60%. (Maybe the former in 2020? But by then we're probably looking at legislatures being willing to amend constitutions themselves.)

[Benj]

Assuming gay marriage is legalized by the legislature, signed by the governor, and then subsequently put to popular referendum, what is the likelihood that Minnesota voters will uphold gay marriage?  Are there any recent polls on this?  

The legislature must propose referendums in Minnesota. So the Republicans would need to take over the legislature again.

So when are they voting on it?


And on a vaguely related note, what happened to Illinios' gay marriage attempt?

Still pending a vote in the Illinois House. The Illinois legislature is slow. They're trying to get yes votes nailed down first. It will be voted on before the end of the legislative session at the end of May, most likely.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/illinois-gay-marriage-pat_n_3252785.html?utm_hp_ref=chicago - Source says they have 58 yes votes nailed down (need 60)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-quinn-calls-on-house-to-send-him-gay-marriage-bill-20130509,0,4965924.story - Quinn says they have the votes, House is just being slow

[Benj]

Civil unions amendment fails 30-36-1. On to final debate.

The votes are probably *there* in Illinois, but many of them are being non-committal. Just like in Minnesota when all the "undecided" Democrats broke towards same-sex marriage, I think something like that would happen in Illinois (although they probably all wouldn't break in the same direction, but most would vote for same-sex marriage).

Quinn is speaking out of his ass, but he's probably right.

I agree. But they won't hold a vote until they're forced to, i.e., probably on the last day of the legislative session (May 31).

[Benj]

I like the Senator who is giving her whole (pro-gay marriage) speech in Spanish.

[Benj]

Vote is about to happen as soon as Maj. Leader Bakk finishes speaking.

Passes 37-30! Interestingly, that means at least three Democrats voted no (since there was one known Republican yes).

[Benj]

Democratic Nos were Koenen, Sparks and Stumpf. Petersen was the only Republican Yes.