Source: arti​cle​-​3​.com

This is Bal­lot Watch. Today is the ninth in the series of arti­cles on the upcom­ing bal­lot ini­tia­tives and some key local elec­tions. Some of these will cover top­ics in com­mon with mul­ti­ple states, while oth­ers will look at a state level.

Today we take a step back from the geography-​​based Bal­lot Watches and cover our last issue-​​based Bal­lot Watch: same-​​sex marriage.

Four states are con­sid­er­ing bal­lot ini­tia­tives or voter-​​driven con­sti­tu­tional amend­ments that would impact same-​​sex mar­riage: Maine, Mary­land, Min­nesota, and Wash­ing­ton. I’ll run down the data on each of these in turn, but first some his­tor­i­cal per­spec­tive bol­stered with lon­gi­tu­di­nal national polling data (that is, polling data taken over time, some from 35 years ago).

Fol­low­ing George W. Bush’s razor-​​thin elec­toral vote vic­tory in the 2000 elec­tion, strate­gist Karl “Tur­d­blos­som” Rove was widely assumed to have engi­neered a strat­egy that assured Pres­i­dent Bush’s 2004 re-​​election: place same-​​sex mar­riage ini­tia­tives on key state bal­lots to fire up the “val­ues vot­ers” base and get out the vote for his can­di­date. In his 2010 mem­oir Courage and Con­se­quence: My Life as a Con­ser­v­a­tive in the Fight, Rove wrote a non-​​denial denial, say­ing that it wasn’t engi­neered by him, but he took advan­tage of it, and in any case it didn’t help Bush as much as it hurt Kerry:

We were com­fort­able with what we did, which was when the Mass­a­chu­setts Supe­rior Judi­cial Court in Novem­ber of 2003 pushed this issue into pol­i­tics, by say­ing that there was — that tra­di­tional mar­riage was under­mined in Mass­a­chu­setts by a deci­sion that said gays had a right to single-​​sex mar­riage, to same-​​sex mar­riage. It was the courts that pushed this into the campaign.

…

Gay mar­riage was an ugly fight we had not asked for but could win if we han­dled with care. Done right, our response to gay mar­riage could show it was pos­si­ble to bring a cour­te­ous and car­ing tone to a divi­sive issue. The issue also revealed the nut­ti­ness of the Left, which never saw how per­sis­tent America’s tra­di­tion­al­ism really was. Instead, the Left seemed con­vinced that Bush and I engi­neered the issue’s emer­gence to drive Bush par­ti­sans to the polls. But, of course, it was a lib­eral supreme court that brought the issue to the fore.

…

In the end, whether a state had a mar­riage bal­lot mea­sure didn’t affect Bush’s share of the vote: he increased his por­tion of the vote between 2000 and 2004 by an aver­age of 2.7 points in the states with­out ref­er­enda and by an aver­age of 2.5 points in the eleven states with defense-​​of-​​marriage ini­tia­tives on the Novem­ber bal­lot, a sta­tis­ti­cally insignif­i­cant dif­fer­ence … But the Mass­a­chu­setts Supreme Judi­cial Court deci­sion did affect the 2004 elec­tion by moti­vat­ing cul­tur­ally con­ser­v­a­tive Democ­rats and inde­pen­dents who might oth­er­wise have voted Demo­c­ra­tic to aban­don Kerry over his wob­bly views on marriage.

My analy­sis of his argu­ment is that he’s using these sta­tis­tics to obfus­cate the issue, and regard­ing his motives, we just have to take his word for it. (Or not, depend­ing on how much you trust Rove.) It’s really not impor­tant that Pres­i­dent Bush increased his mar­gin in Cal­i­for­nia from 42.1 per­cent in 2000 to 44.4 per­cent in 2004. He didn’t swing any elec­toral votes, and had no poten­tial of swing­ing them, in California.

It is impor­tant, on the other hand, that Ohio moved from 50.5 per­cent for Bush in 2000 to 50.8 per­cent in 2004 (stay­ing red in both years). One could argue the same-​​sex mar­riage ini­tia­tive kept Ohio in the red col­umn. It’s also impor­tant that Bush made seri­ous chal­lenges in the 2000 blue states of Michi­gan (46.4 per­cent and 18 elec­toral votes in 2000 to 47.8 per­cent and 17 elec­toral votes in 2004) and Ore­gon (47.2 per­cent in 2000 to 47.4 per­cent in 2004, with seven elec­toral votes both times), which brought Bush closer to flip­ping those 24–25 elec­toral votes even though they stayed blue. Rove’s strat­egy was not nec­es­sar­ily to flip states, but to make Kerry expend resources defend­ing states he shouldn’t have needed to defend, and more impor­tantly, moti­vat­ing the “val­ues voter” base in the one key swing state where polling data said Kerry was going to flip the state — Ohio. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have reached 272 elec­toral votes in 2004, enough to win the White House. Eleven states had same-​​sex mar­riage ini­tia­tives in 2004 (Arkansas, Geor­gia, Ken­tucky, Michi­gan, Mis­sis­sippi, Mon­tana, North Dakota, Ohio, Okla­homa, Ore­gon and Utah); few were close enough to mat­ter, and are there­fore unim­por­tant to the analy­sis, though Rove throws them in his cal­cu­la­tor any­way. Rove was fight­ing for swing states.

Over the past eight years, how­ever, there has been a sea change in Amer­i­cans’ atti­tudes toward same-​​sex mar­riage, as is evi­dent from lon­gi­tu­di­nal Gallup polling data over the past 16 years. In 2004, those opposed to same-​​sex mar­riage held a 55–42 (13 per­cent­age point) advan­tage over those in favor. In this year’s May sur­vey, those in favor of same-​​sex mar­riage have a 50–48 advan­tage, a swing of 15 per­cent­age points. This is a slight rever­sion to the mean from the 2011 sur­vey, which was almost exactly flipped from the 2004 results:

 

Gallup polling data on same-​​sex mar­riage (annual May val­ues sur­vey), 1996–2012

 

The trend­line for sup­port­ers of same-​​sex mar­riage has moved steadily upward since 1996, while the opposition’s trend­line has moved steadily down­ward. This appears to be dri­ven by a demo­graphic shift. Among 18 to 34 year olds, 66 per­cent favor same-​​sex mar­riage. In the 35 to 54 group, 47 per­cent are in favor, while in the over 55 group, only 40 per­cent are in favor.

Region­ally, vot­ers in the East are most likely to sup­port same-​​sex mar­riage (56 per­cent) while those in the South are least likely (40 percent).

Only 22 per­cent of Repub­li­cans are in favor of same-​​sex mar­riage, com­pared to 57 per­cent of inde­pen­dents and 65 per­cent of Democrats.

Gallup has help­fully plot­ted the trend­line for a “morally accept­able” ques­tion along­side a “same-​​sex mar­riage valid” ques­tion, and you can see that the two track very closely to one another over time:

 

Going back a bit fur­ther, there has been a huge shift, with sim­i­lar num­bers, in a Gallup ques­tion that asks whether peo­ple are “born” gay or “choose to be” gay. (As a sci­en­tist, I’d say they’re ask­ing the wrong ques­tion, but that’s another arti­cle for another day).

Gallup poll data on causes of homo­sex­ual behav­ior, 1977–2012.

As Nate Sil­ver has pointed out, if Pres­i­dent Obama has a tremen­dous get-​​out-​​the-​​vote effort, he will cruise to an easy reëlec­tion. Might these ini­tia­tives have an oppo­site effect in 2012 than they did in 2004, reflect­ing the changed polling data?

It appears that three of the four states listed may approve same-​​sex mar­riage in the Novem­ber 6, 2012 election.

Maine Ques­tion 1

Ques­tion 1 would double-​​flip a leg­isla­tive ini­tia­tive passed and signed into law by Demo­c­ra­tic then-​​Governor John Bal­dacci which allowed same-​​sex mar­riage. In 2009, Maine vot­ers over­turned that law 53 to 47 per­cent and in 2010 elected a Tea Party-​​supported gov­er­nor, Paul LeP­age, who vot­ers now say, in PPP polling, they wish they hadn’t elected. His approval rat­ing is now minus 11 per­cent: 41 to 52.

This year, sup­port­ers of same-​​sex mar­riage are try­ing to over­turn the over­turn. Despite the com­pli­cated his­tory of the bal­lot ques­tion, the actual word­ing on the bal­lot is very simple:

Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue mar­riage licenses to same-​​sex couples?

Of course, even in sim­plic­ity there is con­flict. Oppo­nents of same-​​sex mar­riage pre­ferred this language:

Do you favor a law allow­ing mar­riage licenses for same-​​sex cou­ples that pro­tects reli­gious free­dom by ensur­ing no reli­gion or clergy be required to per­form such a mar­riage in vio­la­tion of their reli­gious beliefs?

The lat­est avail­able polls, taken in June, show 57 per­cent in favor of the ques­tion and 35 per­cent opposed.

Mary­land Ques­tion 6

Maryland’s Ques­tion 6 bal­lot lan­guage is as follows:

Estab­lishes that Maryland’s civil mar­riage laws allow gay and les­bian cou­ples to obtain a civil mar­riage license, pro­vided they are not oth­er­wise pro­hib­ited from mar­ry­ing; pro­tects clergy from hav­ing to per­form any par­tic­u­lar mar­riage cer­e­mony in vio­la­tion of their reli­gious beliefs; affirms that each reli­gious faith has exclu­sive con­trol over its own the­o­log­i­cal doc­trine regard­ing who may marry within that faith; and pro­vides that reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions and cer­tain related enti­ties are not required to pro­vide goods, ser­vices, or ben­e­fits to an indi­vid­ual related to the cel­e­bra­tion or pro­mo­tion of mar­riage in vio­la­tion of their reli­gious beliefs.

A vote “in favor of” would pre­serve the same-​​sex mar­riage statute passed by the leg­is­la­ture and signed by Demo­c­ra­tic Gov­er­nor Mar­tin O’Malley, which is being held pend­ing the out­come of this vote. The leg­isla­tive pro­vi­sion was designed to not take effect until 2013, and oppo­nents have taken the oppor­tu­nity to put the issue to a vote, gath­er­ing over 100,000 peti­tion sig­na­tures. If passed, Mary­land would be the first state in the nation to sup­port same-​​sex mar­riage at the bal­lot box (since the polls close ear­lier in Mary­land than in the other states listed).

Demo­c­ra­tic Del­e­gate Emmett Burns, Jr., a pas­tor at the Ris­ing Sun First Bap­tist Church, set off a firestorm when he demanded that Bal­ti­more Ravens owner Steve Bis­ciotti muz­zle Bren­don Ayan­badejo, a player who pub­licly sup­ported Ques­tion 6.

…as a Del­e­gate to the Mary­land Gen­eral Assem­bly and a Bal­ti­more Ravens Foot­ball fan, I find it incon­ceiv­able that one of your play­ers, Mr. Bren­don Ayan­badejo, would pub­licly endorse Same-​​Sex mar­riage, specif­i­cally, as a Raven Foot­ball player…I am request­ing that you take the nec­es­sary action, as a National Foot­ball Fran­chise Owner, to inhibit such expres­sions from your employee and that he be ordered to cease and desist such inju­ri­ous actions. I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayan­badejo is doing.

Burns later dis­cov­ered that Ayan­badejo had First Amend­ment rights. The brouhaha shows the divi­sions within the African-​​American com­mu­nity, par­tic­u­larly the same gen­er­a­tional divide seen in the nation­wide polling cited above.

There don’t appear to be any recent polls on Ques­tion 6; PPP polling done in May shows a 20-​​point (57–37) advan­tage for sup­port­ers and a late July Hart Research poll shows a 54–40 mar­gin in favor.

Min­nesota Same-​​Sex Mar­riage Amendment

This ini­tia­tive would add a Sec­tion 13 (not Sec­tion 8) to the Min­nesota State Constitution:

Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or rec­og­nized as a mar­riage in Minnesota.

In poll data released Sep­tem­ber 12, PPP found the ini­tia­tive would suc­ceed, and same-​​sex mar­riage would be banned, by 48 per­cent to 47 per­cent. Pre­vi­ous polls found 43 per­cent in favor and 49 per­cent opposed (June) and 48 per­cent in favor and 44 per­cent opposed (Jan­u­ary). As PPP says, “this one looks like a toss-​​up”. Tellingly, sup­port is low among Democ­rats (16 per­cent), high among Repub­li­cans (80 per­cent) and more closely divided among inde­pen­dents (51 per­cent in favor of a ban, 42 per­cent opposed). The suc­cess or fail­ure of this con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment will likely rest on par­ti­san get-​​out-​​the-​​vote efforts.

Wash­ing­ton State Ref­er­en­dum 74

Ama­zon founder Jeff Bezos has ponied up $2.5 mil­lion in sup­port of Wash­ing­ton State’s Ref­er­en­dum 74, which would uphold a leg­isla­tive sanc­tion for same-​​sex mar­riage. Recent (not John) Elway polling, gath­ered Sep­tem­ber 8–12, shows 52 per­cent in sup­port of the ref­er­en­dum, and 40 per­cent opposed. (The same poll shows mar­i­juana legal­iza­tion Ini­tia­tive 502, which I wrote about pre­vi­ously, at a 50–38 mar­gin, up from a nar­row two point lead in July.)

The ref­er­en­dum bal­lot lan­guage is as follows:

The leg­is­la­ture passed Engrossed Sub­sti­tute Sen­ate Bill 6239 con­cern­ing mar­riage for same-​​sex cou­ples, mod­i­fied domestic-​​partnership law, and reli­gious free­dom, and vot­ers have filed a suf­fi­cient ref­er­en­dum peti­tion on this bill.

This bill would allow same-​​sex cou­ples to marry, pre­serve domes­tic part­ner­ships only for seniors, and pre­serve the right of clergy or reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions to refuse to per­form, rec­og­nize, or accom­mo­date any mar­riage ceremony.

Should this bill be:

[ ] Approved

[ ] Rejected

In sum­mary, Maine, Mary­land, and Wash­ing­ton appear to be the first three states in which vot­ers will sanc­tion same-​​sex mar­riage, while in Min­nesota, the con­sti­tu­tional ban appears to be bal­anced on a knife edge.

Related arti­cles