On Elections, Dumbass Use of

[missroserose]

A bit of background for those not familiar with the political issues currently facing the Alaska Legislature: Late last year, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state government could not deny benefits to unmarried same-sex partners, because (since we so eagerly amended our constitution to define marriage as one man + one woman back in 1998) they were not legally able to get married and therefore were being denied equal pay for equal work, which is guaranteed by the State Constitution. A bit convoluted, but a logical decision given the circumstances. So, not a big deal - it's the Supreme Court, which means there's not really anything the rest of the government can do about the decision, so they'd better just accept it, right?

Wrong. Oh, so wrong.

The Alaska Legislature immediately convened a special session (with the associated costs of flying/boarding all the legislators and their aides and associated workers down here) with the specific purpose of overturning this decision. Proposed actions included passing a bill making it illegal for the state employment agency to take any action to implement the Supreme Court's decision (yes, you read that right - the Legislature wanted to pass a law making it illegal to follow the Supreme Court's orders). They end up spending a week effectively flapping their hands about something over which they have no say, and then finally decide to implement a special advisory vote to "let the people speak on the issue". To wit, we're spending $1.3 million on an election with exactly one question on the ballot:







Now, don't get me wrong - I'm all for letting the people decide when it's on an issue that directly affects them and that they're therefore most qualified to judge. The Supreme Court decision, however, does not directly affect anyone voting unless they are an employee of the state with a same-sex partner. In addition, this entire election is nothing more than an expensive and unscientific public opinion poll - there is nothing binding about any of it. If it fails, we'll have wasted $1.3 million. If it passes, we'll get to vote on a constitutional amendment that's already been declared unconstitutional and will very likely get struck down again, in the 9th Circuit court if not in the state.

I think what frustrates me the most, though, is that this is on an issue about which I care about pretty deeply. If they were spending all this money on something that I didn't care about as much, I could just say "this is bollocks, forget it" and not vote. But I feel like I can't in good conscience allow a ballot that could potentially discriminate against a minority pass without voting on it - protecting unpopular minorities is supposed to be what our state and national constitutions are for.

*sigh*

Has anyone else noticed how often those two tags seem to go together?

Comments

[jamesd.livejournal.com]

That's pretty crazy. Some really determined homophobes.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Well, Alaska was one of the first states to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which (if I remember correctly) went through with something like 65% in favor and 35% opposed. So I'm not surprised about all of this, although I'm somewhat happier to report that, while the measure passed, it did so by a margin of 55%, which is hardly the resounding sweep of public opinion that the lawmakers were hoping for. I think part of what helped was the fact that the campaign for the measure was really vindictive in tone, as well as the fact that the proposition was worded as voting to deny, rather than voting to protect (as the constitutional amendment was).

Still...I can't say I'm not looking forward to moving to a blue state.

[jamesd.livejournal.com]

Well, 55% is at least a sign of progress in the general population.

When it comes to blue states I always have to do a double-take because here blue is the color of the Conservative party and red the color of the Labour party. :)

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

It probably does indicate progress, but I think a large part of it has to do with how the question is phrased, too. Pretty much every large-scale study I've seen about people's opinions on gay rights gives pretty wildly different results based on the wording of the question. If it's phrased to imply that we're protecting something (i.e. "protecting the sanctity of marriage", "protect family values") people are much more likely to say they're in favor of something than if it's phrased as a denial (such as in this case where it was phrased as "deny benefits"). Most people don't think critically about emotionally loaded questions, and I'm guessing that a lot of folks who have a knee-jerk response to "protecting" traditional marriage haven't thought through the implications of such - namely, that they're denying committed and loving couples all over the US not only the benefits that opposite-sex couples enjoy, but the opportunity to declare their commitment to each other legally. (Sort of funny how so many people claim homosexuals are promiscuous and then refuse to give them a legal outlet in which to prove they're not.)

That's pretty funny - just goes to show how arbitrary politics are. =)

[errant-variable.livejournal.com]

Two days too late?

Except they couldn't hold elections on a Sunday.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Not a joke, unfortunately. *sigh*

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Human rights can't be left up to the majority to decide. Otherwise minorities would never have any.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Bingo. That's supposedly why we have things like a Constitution and the Supreme Court...unfortunately, whenever they make an unpopular decision, they're accused of "defying the will of the people". While government by the people sounds good in practice, what a lot of people don't realize is that "the people" are essentially a lynch mob - which is why we need the Supreme Court to be the place where the buck stops, so they can tell "the people" where to stick their prejudices.

[decibel45.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'm guessing that the supreme court doesn't get to repeal amendments. The court's job is to uphold the constitution, and amendments effectively change the constitution. It's essentially the 'ultimate veto'.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

The state supreme court, likely not; but I would think the Federal supreme court would be able to do so. You can't amend a state constitution with something that's illegal under Federal law, and "equal pay for equal work" is pretty fundamentally ingrained into our society.

Fortunately, it seems to be a moot point - short of some sort of divine intervention, there's no way the state House and Senate are going to be able to get the 2/3rds majority, even if we do have a bigoted governor who'd gladly sign the proposed amendment onto the ballot. *sigh*

[decibel45.livejournal.com]

True, hadn't thought about it from a state vs fed level.