Support group for people from states where there are idiotic amendments/referendums on the ballot this election

I assume MN isnt alone in this. Gay marriage amendment and a voter ID amendment. Fairly confident the marriage amendment will not pass, but the voter ID one seems to have legs. arrrhhgggh wtf happened to my liberal lefty state while i wasnt looking?

sorry for an additional politics thread, but i didnt wanna jam up the national election one with my griping abt hometown assholes.

if the voter id amendment passes we will join the august company of the only other state with id laws this strict, which is mississippi

the voter ID one seems to have legs

I did not know that. :\

wtf happened to my liberal lefty state while i wasnt looking

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Tim_Pawlenty_official_photo.jpg/220px-Tim_Pawlenty_official_photo.jpg

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/members/photos/228/B001256.jpg

see also: Anoka Cty as a whole

no disrespect to the Anoka County ilx massive, if any

the big problem is that i dont think the voter id supporters realize how radical it is to amend the state constitution to do this, i think they are treating it like a referendum. i partially believe that because the alternative creeps me out

yah no one I know has been talking about the voter ID amendment that much; there is def more awareness about the marriage amendment

i mentioned this on another thread, but the only reason i have any optimism is that by state law over 50% of the cast ballots have to have a clearly indicated yes vote for this to pass, meaning that if people leave it blank, it counts as a no vote. cmon laziness!

no disrespect to the Anoka County ilx massive, if any

No worries. Anoka deserves all the national scorn it has coming to it.

cmon laziness!

I'm a little worried that laziness won't end up factoring into the equation much.

Be it because they think too many voters are shady illegals or because they think too many voters are uninformed, knee-jerk racists, there's undoubtedly a significant portion of the population that wouldn't think twice about disenfranchising significant voting blocs.

We've got amendments calling for the "repeal" of Obamacare and and one requiring that any public funds for abortion not be interpreted to include "broader rights to abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution."

Anoka deserves all the national scorn it has coming to it.

truth bombed

xpost where?

agh

Florida, of course.

this poll concerned me:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/176007971.html?refer=y

BUT (and this is a big but) if you dig lower down into the demographics, 18-34 year olds are woefully unrepresented in the sample group, and although i am outside of that range, it seems clear what the lean in that demo is. havent found a similar poll abt the voter id question yet because apparently no one in the local media gives a shit about that one.

It's infinitely more difficult to bullet point that one than gay marriage.

Does the MN voter id amendment include funds for hundreds of government workers going door-to-door through the entire state, issuing quick and easy id and voter assistance to elderly shut-ins, the disabled, and poor people holding down three jobs? Cuz if it doesn't, it's a piece of shit.

and actually the 35-49 year olds (who are the only ones that in this poll show a preference for the yes side) are dramatically overrepresented

REGION	YES	NO	UNDECIDED
Hennepin/Ramsey	39%	56%	5%
Rest of Metro Suburbs	54%	39%	7%
Rest of State	53%	44%	3%

G-d it the suburbs make me puke! Live close enough to exploit the city, then outdo the outstaters for backwoods bigotry. Worthless culture leeches.

the MN voter id amendment is actually one of the hackiest written things most of us are ever likely to see on a ballot form, so no. why bother with specifics when all the specifics are against you?

xpost

Meanwhile, "old people don't suck it's actually the middle agers that screw it all up" part 3,560,289

AGE	YES	NO	UNDECIDED
18-34	44%	54%	2%
35-49	55%	40%	5%
50-64	49%	46%	5%
65+	43%	51%	6%

not be interpreted to include "broader rights to abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution."

Roe v. Wade, as modified by subsequent SCOTUS rulings, establishes that the United States Constitution contains the right to an abortion. So what is this amendment supposed to accomplish other than an imaginary victory? It's like the supporters are Ghost Dancers or something.

as intelligent and effective as an amendment to the state constitution keeping the Affordable Care Act out of Florida months after SCOTUS ruled on its constitutionality.

heres the super specific amendment ballot wording:

“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?”

no questions about implementation there no sir

Legislation is (poorly) designed to outlaw abortion as soon as Roe v. Wade is overturned.

"eligible voters" = Anoka County, right?

also it leaves out the fact that in the full statute, "valid photo identification" needs to me state issued, so suck it private college kids.

gr8

heres the full amendment text (wrt things that are being added or changed)

(b) All voters voting in person must present valid government-issued photographic identification before receiving a ballot. The state must issue photographic identification at no charge to an eligible voter who does not have a form of identification meeting the requirements of this section. A voter unable to present government-issued photographic identification must be permitted to submit a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot must only be counted if the voter certifies the provisional ballot in the manner provided by law.

(c) All voters, including those not voting in person must be subject to substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification prior to a ballot being cast or counted.

It seems like the "must issue photographic identification at no charge" thing is pretty strong. I had the same thought as Aimless, about armies of ID-issuing agents going door-to-door with cameras and card printers and stuff. I mean, what's the alternative? The state isn't allowed to implement one part of the amendment (ID requirement) without implementing the other part (Free ID for all), right?

The free ID part doesn't even seem to be attached to the voting part at all, really. Like, it doesn't say "Free ID must be issued when a person wants to vote", it basically says "Free ID must be issued." Period. It seems like it instantly put the government of Minnesota in the business of making sure that every voting-eligible person in Minnesota gets a free ID, whether they actually want to vote or not. Hell, it seems to mandate an ID for everyone whether they even apply for the ID or not.

I think if the DFL regains control of the state legislature, they could turn this into a good thing, if they were willing to exercise strong political will.

here's the problem - the id has to be free, but obtaining the required documents to establish it is not. iirc the current charge for a notarized copy of your birth certificate is $35 in MN, which the applicant would need to provide.

npr is/was hosting a debate on the marriage amendment tonight and big shock the dude from national organization for marriage or whatever was a complete bluster-filled idiot. interesting set of panelists - baptist preacher, NOM dude, woman from minnesotans united for all families, and the first gay bishop in america

baptist preacher seemed like an ok dude until "if you are a christian i don't care what you do, but i have the right to express my opinion" which apparently means freedom of speech and passing a constitutional amendment are two peas in a pod

WA has a "keep same sex marriage legal" referendum (R74) as well as a legalize weed initiative (I502). I've seen tons of ads in favor of both of them, only a few against the marriage one and nothing at all opposing the weed one. It's still surreal to me to see ads on TV all the time with serious people in suits and suburban moms talking about how marijuana NEEDS to be legalized.

Yesterday we got two pro R74 flyers in the mail yesterday and the arguments were kind of funny - one had a happy christian couple saying how churches will be allowed to refuse to perform same sex ceremonies, that religious freedoms are protected, and that discrimination like this is already illegal so tough shit. The other had no mention of religion at all, and had an actual photo of a old white dude in a lab coat talking science and facts and such about how gay families won't wreck kids or America. Actual gay people in any of the ads I've seen have been sort of hidden in the background and only spoken about by happy married white couples.

I live in a university town in the conservative part of the state so I wonder if by zip code the figure it's a good chance that we might be super religious and conservative or just impartial to gay people but trust in science.

Thanks to anyone who ever used anything by Microsoft or bought anything from Amazon for paying for these though, I appreciate it.

Last minute miracle? or cruel sliver of hope before inevitable crushing defeat?

http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2012/11/super-crosstabs-obama-soars-photo-id-plunges-marriage-amendment-slips

ok man i really hope thats an accurate article

that would be pretty Minnesotan for both of those amendments to get a bunch of support and then, when it comes time to vote, everyone goes "oh wait a second, I just thought about what this actually means" *votes no*

Really? My hunch was that both would end up swinging harder toward YES than people are letting on. Minnesotans are fine doing things so long as they don't have to talk about having done them.

it will def improve my mood towards my fellow residents if both these stupid things get shut down.

My incredibly unscientific poll on my station's homepage poll shows the following results atm:

How do you plan on voting on the two proposed constitutional amendments?

No on both 46.8%
Yes on both 27.69%
No on gay marriage ban, yes on voter ID requirement 14.63%
Yes on gay marriage ban, no on voter ID requirement 9.07%
I don't plan on voting on the amendments / I don't live in Minnesota 1.81%

i think the mark dayton/arne carlson ad has been a huge success, dudes in the shop have been talking about it a lot (these being dudes that otherwise would prob be "well i have a drivers liscense, who doesn't? *says mexicans under his breath*"

It must suck to have to kick so many people out of your shop.

My sister's voting NO twice, thankfully. Have been trying to avoid conversations with any other family members, because my mom thinks Romney's leading in MN.

Jesus, at this point the no vote on Voter ID amendment is actually a shade stronger than on the marriage poll. How did that shift happen?!

And marriage keeps tightening up as rural reports come in. Ugh.

Prop 2 bit it in MI: goodbye collective bargaining. Choice quote from Fbook friend: 'I can't wait to tell my grandkids how people working for GM and Chrysler and Ford used to make way more than people at McDonald's just to see how hard they laugh in disbelief!"

Oh, I see that they still need to include roughly half of Hennepin County's votes in the tally. Suddenly feeling pretty optimistic and probably need to go to bed now.

+ nearly one-quarter of Ramsey Co.

Looks like possibly none of Minneapolis's votes are included in the current tally? If so, this amendment's toast.

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/177585781.html

Indeed, SOS website lists zeros in MN legislative districts 59 through 63. That's Minneapolis.

Fuck man, somebody count that shit, because I will not sleep until these both lose.

Call me nutty optimistic, but with 72.0% reporting and none of Minneapolis's votes (which I'm guesstimating constitute something like 40% of the remainder) in the mix, I'm not sure how the yes side on either can creep up over the 50.01% barrier.

Looks like some of Minneapolis is actually trickling in now: http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/ENR/Results/AmendmentResultsLegislative/1?questionid=140

59A (North Mpls) and 63B (Nokomis)

No I know - I also need to white knuckle the possibility that Bachmann is going to eat shit tonight, so
I am in for the long haul either way.

I have to go to bed in order to take the baton from the rest of my fellow media wags. I'm going to let this positive vibe send me off.

Handcounting ballots in 3 minneapolis districts because of a ballot printing error, starting tomorrow. Arrrrttthggggghjhhjhh

Yeah but No+Blank is already ahead on both amendments, and it's not like Minneapolis results are going to change that for the worse.

Oh btw, we now have a democrat majority in the mn house and senate. Suck it republicans.

AP reports BOTH constitutional amendment questions are defeated.

Can I just:

http://www.iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/fuck-yeah-big-dog-little-1296842203V.jpg

Mpls. city council member Gary Schiff's FB is getting me all delirious with hope:
Minnesota you did it! The marriage amendment will not pass. Today we affirm that gay and lesbian Minnesotans are part of the Minnesota family and that freedom to marry is a right for all. Join me in congratulating the new DFL majorities at the Capital, and encourage them to introduce a Marriage Equality bill as the first act of business in 2013 and pass it so Governor Mark Dayton may sign it into law. Equality for all!

Will they dare? Does that work?

I hope so, and that was my first (ok second, first thought was "eat shit you assholes") thought after hearing that tonight.

Man, I don't think my fellow MD voters realize what kind of douchebags play legal "table games".

why should i give a fuck what kind of people want to throw their money away on one kind of gambling over others that are already legal here? let them throw away their money here and hopefully let some of that money help the state/local economy.

Sorry some dude. Gambling for outlaws only, imo.

Every one of the amendments on the Florida ballot rejected. Decisively.

if we outlaw being a douchebag than only douchebags will be outlaws! or something.

California did gud except for the death penalty which is something that pretty rarely gets eliminated via direct democracy

Friend of mine who is a sex educator tweeted distress over the victories of Prop. 35 and the condom requirement. Although I think I understand the arguments against the condom requirement, what would the arguments against Prop. 35 be?