Same-Sex Unions 2009– Follow-Up

November 5th, 2009

Follow-Up on Same-Sex Unions Ballot Measures:

In Maine, the voting populace successfully vetoed the legalization of same-sex marriage (Question 1 on the November 3rd Ballot).  As of yet, no state has passed such a measure by popular vote,  according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

It is doubtful that legislation legalizing same-sex marriage would be signed into law in New Jersey or Virginia once the newly-elected governors take office.   New Jersey Governor-elect Chris Christie has stated:

“While, I have no issue with same sex couples sharing contractual rights, I believe that marriage should remain the exclusive domain of one man and one woman.  If a bill legalizing same sex marriage came to my desk as Governor, I would veto it.” (see the complete text of this issue position)

Virginia Governor-elect Bob McDonnell’s 2009 campaign website lists his position as follows:

“Bob McDonnell believes marriage is the union between one man and one woman.   As a legislator, Bob McDonnell was chief sponsor and author of a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage (Chief Patron, HJ 187, 2004).  As Attorney General, Bob supported Virginia’s marriage amendment and wrote an official opinion explaining that it would not affect the current legal rights of unmarried persons.”  (see the complete text of this issue position)


Washington’s Referendum 71, on the other hand, seems to have passed by a slim margin.  This will effectively treat domestic partnerships as equal to marriage under the law, except in name.

-Kristen Vicedomini, Research Director

Review of 2009 Ballot Measures: Elections and Officials FOLLOW-UP

November 5th, 2009

Follow-Up on Elections and Officials Ballot Measures:

Question 7 in Maine failed to pass, though unofficial election results indicate it was only by a few percentage points.  This constitutional amendment would have extended the amount of time to process direct initiative petitions and redefining the deadlines for people’s veto referendum petitions

In Texas, Proposition 7: Allowing Members of the Texas State Guard to Hold Civil Office and Proposition 10: Allowing Board Members of Emergency Services Districts to Serve Four Years both passed, along with the 9 other proposed constitutional amendments on the Texas ballot.  Preliminary tallies suggest that over 70% of voters voted “yes” on each of these Propositions.

Results of the 2009 General Election

November 4th, 2009

Unofficial results have been coming in across the country for the November 3rd election.  Here are the winners, state-by-state:

California: Congressional District 10

Maine: Ballot Measures

New Jersey: Governor and State Assembly, Ballot Measures

New York: Congressional District 23, Ballot Measures

Ohio: Ballot Measures

Pennsylvania: Justice of the Supreme Court

Texas: Ballot Measures

Virginia: Governor and State House

Washington: Ballot Measures

Review of 2009 Ballot Measures: Inmate Labor

November 2nd, 2009

If Proposal 2 in New York passes, the legislature would be authorized to amend the constitution in order to “allow [inmates in state and local corrections facilities] to voluntarily perform work for nonprofit organizations.”  Currently, Article III- Section 24 of the New York State Constitution reads as follows:

“The legislature shall, by law, provide for the occupation and employment of prisoners sentenced to the several state prisons, penitentiaries, jails and reformatories in the state; and no person in any such prison, penitentiary, jail or reformatory, shall be required or allowed to work, while under sentence thereto, at any trade, industry or occupation, wherein or whereby his or her work, or the product or profit of his or her work, shall be farmed out, contracted, given or sold to any person, firm, association or corporation. This section shall not be construed to prevent the legislature from providing that convicts may work for, and that the products of their labor may be disposed of to, the state or any political division thereof, or for or to any public institution owned or managed and controlled by the state, or any political division thereof.

In 2007, the state of Washington had a measure on the ballot to “authorize state-operated inmate labor programs and programs in which inmate labor is used by private entities through state contracts, and prohibit privately operated programs from unfairly competing with Washington businesses.”  This measure passed with 60.71% of the vote.

-Kristen Vicedomini, Research Director

Review Of 2009 Ballot Measures: Education

November 2nd, 2009

We are keeping track of two ballot measures relating to education in two states for the 2009 election.  One is on the ballot in Maine and the other is in Texas.

Question 3 in Maine is a statewide referendum attempting to overturn the school district consolidation law passed in 2007 the school district consolidation law passed in 2007 by the Maine State Legislature and subsequently amended in 2008.   The law attempts to consolidate Maine’s 218 school districts into 80 districts.   A yes vote supports repealing the law, while a no vote supports keeping it as it currently is.  This is a significant issue in Maine, and several pieces of related legislation have been discussed in the State House and Senate in 2009.  In June, the Maine Senate voted to keep the program in place, but the House voted to try and repeal it.  Further related legislation includes another vote in June to delay penalties for noncompliance with consolidation by one year.

Proposition 4 in Texas is an attempt to establish a $500 million fund for Tier 1 universities, designated as emerging research universities in the legislation.  The proposition provides that the Texas State Legislature will provide the rules and procedures by which such funding can be available, and it specifically excludes University Of Texas (Austin) and Texas A&M from further funding as both are already Tier 1 schools.  Similar legislation was seen this year in Missouri, where the House passed a joint resolution to authorize the issuance of $700 million in 25 year bonds for a variety of purposes related to institutions of higher education.

-Darren McDivitt, Research Associate

Review Of 2009 Ballot Measures: Veterans

October 30th, 2009

There are two states that have ballot measures dealing with veterans in 2009. Texas and Ohio both have constitutional amendments that relate to those that have served in the military.

Proposition 6 in Texas would amend the constitution to authorize the Texas Veterans’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds for the purpose of selling land and providing home or land mortgage loans to veterans of the state.  These loans help veterans build or buy homes at a low cost.  Proposition 6 would ensure that the Texas Veterans’ Land Board would permanently do what it currently does instead of needing to receive authorization from the Legislature every 2 years for bonding authority.

Proposition 8 in Texas would allow the state the option of partnering with the federal government and local governments in the operation of veterans hospitals, including providing funding, property, and maintenance.  Texas does not currently have the option of providing any resources to a veterans’ hospital run by the federal government, and Proposition 6 would allow the state to do so.

Issue 1 in Ohio would authorize up to $200 million in bonds for Ohio veterans of conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the Persian Gulf.   Specific provisions of the bill include providing $100 for each month the veteran served- not to exceed $1,000.  Veterans who were station in the Persian Gulf but did not see active combat could qualify for $50 for each month served- not to exceed $500.  Family members of Ohio veterans killed in combat could qualify for a $5,000 death benefit.  The bonds would be issued by the Ohio Department of Veterans Services and could only be issued upon passage through the end of 2013.  A similar measure was passed by the House and Senate in the Ohio State Legislature in December of 2008, but was vetoed by Governor Strickland in January.

-Darren McDivitt, Research Associate

Same-Sex Unions in 2009

October 29th, 2009

This year, two states will determine the legal status of same-sex unions by popular vote.

  • Earlier this year, Maine’s State House and State Senate approved legislation that would permit same-sex couples to marry, recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, and “allow individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages.”  In response, Maine citizens petitioned for a people’s veto to appear on the November 3rd ballot.  If this measure is approved, same-sex couples would be prohibited from marrying.

The state of Vermont enacted legislation permitting same-sex marriage in April of this year (see: Senate vote, House vote, Governor Jim Douglas’ vetoHouse Override of Veto, Senate Override of Veto).  State Senator Kevin Mullin introduced an amendment to this bill that would have forced a legislative referendum on the measure, but it failed in the Senate.  Not long after, the Connecticut legislature (see: Senate Vote, House Vote) and the New Hampshire legislature (see: House Vote, Senate Vote with Amendment) each passed similar bills.  The State Assembly of New York passed such a bill as well, but it has yet to reach a vote in the State Senate.  Also in 2009, The Supreme Court of Iowa ruled that a 1998 law defining marriage as strictly between one man and one woman was unconstitutional.

Last year, the citizens of Arizona, Florida, and California approved constitutional amendments to define marriage only as the legal union of one man and one women.  Members of the Wyoming State House attempted to pass such an amendment this year, but it failed.

  • Washington’s Referendum 71 does not permit same-sex marriage, but would affect the status of those in domestic partnerships.  According to the Official Explanatory Statement- as supplied by the Attorney General- approval of this referendum “would amend references in numerous state statutes so that rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families would apply equally to state-registered domestic partners” (see: Senate Vote, House Vote).

In Nevada, domestic partnerships were first established this year (see: Senate Vote, House Vote, Governor Jim Gibbons’ Veto, House Override of Veto, Senate Override of Veto).   New Mexico and Hawaii legislatures tried to do the same, but were unsuccessful.


-Kristen Vicedomini, Research Director

Review of 2009 Ballot Measures: Elections and Officials

October 28th, 2009

There are twenty-six statewide Ballot Measures up for election on November 3rd, which are spread among six states: Maine, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Washington.  Six of these are initiatives, two are citizen referenda, and eighteen are legislative referenda.   If enacted, seventeen would amend state constitutions, seven would change state law, and two would allow the state to issue bonds for certain projects.

There are three constitutional amendments proposed that would directly affect elections and officials themselves:

  • Question 7 on Maine’s ballots would extend the amount of time local officials have to certify direct initiative petitions by five days.   To accomplish this, the final deadline for submitting petitions to the Secretary of State would be pushed back by 10 days, and other deadlines would be redefined.  Depending on which day of the week the deadline falls and if there are any legal holidays, petitioners could have up to 2-4 additional days to submit signatures.  This amendment would also change the  deadline of submitting signatures for a people’s veto from 5 days before the final deadline to 3 business days before the final deadline.
  • Proposition 7 in Texas would “allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.”
  • Texas’s Proposition 10 would extend the terms of elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts from two years to four years.  There were also efforts in South Dakota this year to extend term lengths for elected officials.   SJR3 in South Dakota proposed to change state senate terms from two years to four years for those whose term of office begins in a year that ended in a 3 or 7.  While this passed in the state senate, the state house rejected it.  Had it received a majority in both houses of the legislature, this would have appeared as a ballot measure as well. 

-Kristen Vicedomini, Research Director

Political Courage Test Results

October 23rd, 2009

The Political Courage Test was due last week for state legislative and gubernatorial candidates from New Jersey and Virginia.  The processed Tests are now available on the Project Vote Smart website.  The Test asks one central questions, “Are you willing to tell citizens your positions on the issues you will most likely face on their behalf?”  Following recent trends, the candidates in New Jersey and Virginia answered with a resounding “No.”  Neither Virginia gubernatorial candidate Democrat Creigh Deeds nor Republican Robert McDonnell, after five contacts by Project Vote Smart staff, were willing to tell Virginians where they stand on the issues.  New Jersey gubernatorial candidates faired slightly better with 25% of their crowded field responding.  Only 17% of candidates running for the Virgina state legislature turned in a Political Courage Test.  New Jersey state legislative candidates had a return rate of 14%.  As usual, the failure to tell citizens where they stand on the issues was a bi-partisan affair.

The View from Across the Water

October 5th, 2009

So, how was it that an otherwise normal student from the United Kingdom decided to spend his first three months after graduation on a remote ranch in the Montana mountains, tracking the doings of legislators in states he’s never visited and helping citizens from across the length and breadth of America, who call in with questions ranging from Governor Schwarzenegger’s position on swamp-dredging to the ethnic demographics of Colorado counties and the political histories of Maine’s Congressional delegation?

Well, like most important decisions, it was first set in motion by pure chance. It was chance, for example, that I was dispatched to the University of Arizona back in 2007 for a year’s study in America, rather than any of the other universities I’d applied to. It was chance that I happened to share a class there with a then-current Vote Smart intern, and chance that she happened to give a presentation on PVS’s grand democratic mission at a time when I was becoming interested in (some might say ‘obsessed with’) the intricacies and idiosyncrasies of American politics. And, while the decision to apply for a spring internship at PVS’s Arizona office was my own (motivated in roughly equal parts by the wish to learn more about America’s political system, a desire to contribute in some small way to the betterment of this system, and the nagging feeling that my resume could use some bulking-up), it was chance that my supervisor in Arizona went on to become PVS’s internship director in Montana, and chance that she contacted me in April asking if I’d be interested in being part of PVS’s summer internship program.

Ultimately, though, the fact that I jumped at the opportunity to once again enter into Vote Smart’s strange parallel universe–simultaneously immersed in the day-to-day back-and-forth of American politics and apart from it, attempting to separate the facts from the spin, the vital information from the innumerable distractions, and frequently the best of politics from the worst–testifies to the existence of something unique in PVS, something that can drag a former intern back across the Atlantic to throw himself willingly into a world of seven-o’clock wake-ups, vast acres of Excel spreadsheets and occasional bear incursions. It’s not just the prospect of ten weeks in the center of one of the world’s most spectacular wildernesses, although that did play a role. Nor is it the company, although if being in the presence of so many bright and capable staff and interns willing to brave the aforementioned early mornings and intrusive wildlife–as well as, at the time of writing, biting cold and the first winter snow–doesn’t give you hope that someone still cares about the future of the Founding Fathers’ great experiment, nothing will.

In the end, it’s the idea that the work you do today might help someone tomorrow, somewhere in the great wide nation beyond the Great Divide Ranch, to keep informed on an issue that’s vital to them, or spur them on to learn more about an issue they’d never thought about before. That a minor sentence in an obscure speech might contain just the information someone needs when deciding how to cast his ballot. That a single line buried deep within a thousand-page bill might tip the balance for someone uncertain whether to give it her support or her opposition. Above all, it’s the idea that everyone involved in Vote Smart, from the ten-year veterans to the newest interns, leaves the Project having made American democracy just that slightest bit more accessible, more attainable, and more efficient–in short, more democratic–than it was when they found it.

Tomorrow is my last day as a Vote Smart intern, and on Saturday, I fly to Washington D.C. for a week’s sightseeing before I return to England. I’ll probably see the Senators and Congressmen and their armies of aides coming and going up and down the steps of the Capitol, or maybe the President waving to spectators from the lawn of the White House, and the monuments and obelisks and statues dedicated to past heroes of democracy. But, at the end of the day, all the business of government is just so much paperwork and hot air, unless, outside of the narrow halls of Washington, democracy remains alive–in the woman who writes to her Congressman protesting a new tax or a fresh cut, in the man who gives his spare hours over to the service of a cause he believes in, in the millions who fight every day to make America’s government and America’s politics work for them, the people. And, of course, in a little ranch nestled within the Montana mountains, where a small band of citizens go to bat for democracy every morning, fuelled by copious amounts of coffee and the knowledge that they’re doing something truly and honestly American.

And even a Brit can believe in that.

-Jonathan Bray (University of East Anglia, 2009, American Studies Major, from Polesworth, United Kingdom), Key Votes Intern