The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has petitioned the Maine Ethics Commission to stay their investigation into NOM's campaign finances during last years Question 1 contest. At issue is whether NOM violated Maine election law; I wrote about it here and here.
The National Organization for Marriage has objected to the Commission's investigative requests for documents and information. The organization requests a stay of the investigation until the federal courts have reached a final decision on its constitutional challenge to the ballot question reporting statute.
Maine's laws don't apply any such spending restrictions to these groups, and so was not directly affected. Except, says Jonathan Wayne of the Maine Ethics Commission, for one possible area of state election law.
"What the court decided is that if corporations or labor unions want to spend money independently of candidates to influence their elections, they can, but they have to file disclosure statements with the federal government, stating that they spent "x" numbers of dollars on "x" date in support or against the candidates," he says.
And, says Wayne, that might actually provide some legal support for Maine's law, which requires that certain campaign spending reports be filed in the weeks before an election. "The Maine election law requires independent groups that are spending money in the 35 days before the general election to file reports if they mention candidates, and there's a Maine Clean Elections Candidate in the race. So that's one of the statutes that NOM is challenging."
NOM is the National Organization for Marriage, a Washington D.C.-based group that was a major funder behind the campaign to overturn Maine's same sex-marriage law this past November. NOM has so far refused to file spending reports with the Ethics Commission, but according to the PAC, Stand for Marriage Maine, it received nearly two-thirds of its funding -- more than $1.9 million -- from NOM.
We'll continue to follow this story.
Update: By a 4 to 1 ruling (Francis Marsano opposed), the Ethics Commission voted to deny the request to stay the investigation. The vote was not without interest, as when the Commission voted to investigate NOM three votes to two, Marsano was one of those that voted to investigate, and Edward Youngblood, who initially voted against investigating, now voting against the stay.
Great news.
Update: Audio of the hearing is now available here. There is no time marks on it, but the NOM case begins about 1/3 of the way in.
Julia Rosen of the Courage Campaign has put together this chronological summary of Rick Jacob's live blogging from Day 2 of the Prop 8 trial in San Francisco. At stake is whether California's amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional, which has obvious bearing on the nation Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) law.
The American evangelicals who held a conference in Uganda this summer that led directly to the drafting of that bill are now backtracking, saying that it goes too far. But, given the history of American evangelical involvement in Uganda, not to mention Indonesia and Somalia, their concerns could be seen as more PR move than actual dismay.
A federal judge today ordered compensation for a Los Angeles couple denied spousal benefits by the federal government because they are gay men.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt deemed the denial of healthcare and other benefits to the spouse of federal public defender Brad Levenson to be a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of due process and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is prohibited by California state law.
Levenson married his longtime partner, Tony Sears, on July 12, 2008, during the five-month period when same-sex marriage was legal in California. A ballot measure, Proposition 8, was passed a year ago defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
Reinhardt, who is the federal judge responsible for resolving employee disputes in the Federal Public Defenders office within the 9th Circuit, had earlier ordered the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to process Levenson's application for spousal benefits for Sears. The federal government's Office of Personnel Management stepped in to derail the enrollment, however, citing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage for the purpose of federal benefits or programs.
This is a significant ruling against DOMA, which adds the following to the U.S. Code:
Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'
`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.
Moreover, even if Congress could be said to have an independent interest in remaining neutral with regard to a contentious social issue, that is not what Congress did here. By enacting DOMA, Congress affirmatively stepped into the fray, and took the position that seam-sex partners should not have access to federal benefits no matter what legal status a state decides to accord their relationship. Congress thus sided with those states that would limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, and against those states that would recognize the marriages of same-sex couples. Taking that position did not further any governmental interest in neutrality, if indeed such an interest exists.
I can identify no other governmental interests that might be served by denying Levenson's request that his spouse, Sears, receive the same federal benefits as other spouses of FPD employees. Excluding from health care coverage spouses of employees who have entered into legally binding relationships does not serve the government's interest in promoting long-term relationship. Likewise, it does not serve any governmental interest in promoting a child-rearing environment, because children of same-sex couples are eligible for federal benefits and the denial of benefits to same-sex spouses will not affect the decisions made by same-sex couples regarding marriage or parenting. Aside from all else, the relationship of the denial of benefits to such potential objectives is "so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational." City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 446. Accordingly, a decision denying Levenson's request that federal benefits to his same-sex spouse would have no rational basis. In sum, to the extent that the application of DOMA serves to preclude the provision of health insurance coverage to a same-sex spouse of a legally married federal employee because of the employee's and his or her spouse's sex or sexual orientation, DOMA, as applied, contravenes the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.
I'll also note that there is an effort to repeal DOMA outright, the Respect for Marriage Act ([H.R. 3567]), of which Rep. Chellie Pingree is a cosponsor. It reads in its entirety:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the 'Respect for Marriage Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.
Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed, and the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to that section.
SEC. 3. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.
Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
'Sec. 7. Marriage
'(a) For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.
'(b) In this section, the term 'State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.'.
There had been a fair amount of grumbling amongst gay rights advocates since last year's election, with many feeling that despite the hard work they gave to the Obama campaign, that the administration now sees them as a nuisance. This was compounded by the President not speaking forthrightly in favor of the NO on 1 campaign. Then add this latest revelation in the leaked email of the Treasurer of the DNC, and well...
The talk is heating up that instead of supporting that instead of supporting the Democratic Party with their time and money, gay rights advocates will instead support progressive candidates. Some may view this as an immature reaction to yet another loss, but I disagree - progressives and populists of all kinds still do not have a voice within the Democratic Party that equals their supporters.
And then look at the lack of public leadership amongst elected officials. Many members of our Legislature took a courageous stand on LD 1020, as did Gov. Baldacci. But on the Federal level, only Rep. Chellie Pingree had the courage to voice her convictions regarding equal marriage.
Hello Rep. Mike Michaud!
And while they are not Democrats, our two senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, were not only mum on the issue, they refused to even provide any kind of statement about it when asked.
And we wonder why 53% of Mainers voted Yes on 1? Three-quarters of our delegation didn't think it important enough to try to influence their constituents.
I'm curious as to how Snowe, Collins, and Michaud actually voted on Question 1.
Yesterday's loss on Question 1 was devastating - especially for those that were the only ones affected by it - lesbian and gay Mainers. Despite that, the struggle continues, with the legislature in New Jersey likely to take a vote on an equal marriage bill before January.
For those of you that support civil unions for gay couples but not "marriage," I urge you to watch these two ads that will run in the Garden State:
To say I'm disappointed would be an understatement.
I'm disappointed that LD 1020, An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom, has been repealed. I'm disappointed that so many Mainers thought it necessary to deny some of the fellow citizens the right to form legal unions like the ones that they enjoy. Some chose to overturn our law out of fear and bigotry.
But many simply got hung up on a word: marriage.
It is these people, the ones that claim that they support civil unions for lesbian and gay couples that are legally exactly like marriages for straight couples, but called something else, that I am most disappointed with.
It has been heartening to hear and read about all those that worked so hard to defeat the people's veto, of the many Mainers that volunteered and of those from away that helped as well. I have met people whose breadth of knowledge about campaigning and of LGBT issues is amazing. ANd I've met others who simply believed as I do, that same-sex couples have every right to get married as straight couples do.
I know that many of you are as disappointed as I am. For now, take solace in the work you did, and the people that you met, during the campaign. There will be time to think of what to do next.
I was asked to write an opinion piece for the Guardian, the liberal newspaper in London, about Question 1. They gave it the headline Putting gay marriage to the test.
Reposted with permission of the Huffington Post - the original can be found here. I thank them, and also Rep. Pingree for being the only member of the Maine delegation to have the courage for actually taking a stand.
Tomorrow, Maine voters decide whether to repeal Maine's 4-month-old same-sex marriage law. Don't be mistaken: this is an historic election. Tomorrow Maine can become the first state in the country to support marriage equality in a statewide vote.
Two summers ago I proudly watched as my daughter, Hannah Pingree, was married in a simple ceremony in our community. Good friends of ours -- two men in a long time committed relationship who had known Hannah since she was a small child -- performed the ceremony. I'll never forget what one of them said to Hannah the day before the wedding.
"I'm so proud of you, Hannah," David said. "But I want to remind you that tomorrow you will be doing something we can't do by getting married."
The next year Hannah became Speaker of the Maine House and she, along with other legislative leaders and our governor, made Maine one of the first states in the country to make same-sex marriage legal through the legislative process. I was so proud of my daughter and her colleagues in the state capitol that day.
Maine people have a live-and-let-live philosophy, and tend to be fair and open-minded. Left to themselves, I have no doubt that they would support true marriage equality for all Maine families.
The problem is, they haven't been left to themselves.
The same forces that were behind Prop 8 in California have moved their entire operation to Maine. The anti-marriage equality effort in Maine is a carbon copy of the California effort -- including false and misleading ads intended to frighten parents and distract attention from the real issue of marriage equality. Funded primarily by the right-wing National Organization for Marriage, they have tried to convince parents that legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine will lead to "explicit" discussions of gay sex as part of a "gay friendly curriculum." For kindergartners.
The anti-marriage side has not exactly set the standard for openness and transparency. Last month they went to court to try and avoid state law that requires the names of donors to be reported. And it's been two weeks since the last campaign finance report, so we have no way of knowing how much they've raised in these final days -- but I am told that they have increased their ad buy significantly. A massive infusion from an outside group (think the Mormon Church in California's Prop 8 campaign) at the last minute wouldn't be a surprise.
The vote in Maine can go one of two ways tomorrow. It can be a victory for those who prefer fear and misinformation over honest discussion. Or it can be a victory for fairness and equality that will resonate across the country and, I guarantee, through the halls of Congress. Please help make the difference for my state by clicking here.
In a written statement Friday, Dana Davis Rehm, executive vice president of marketing, communications and external relations for NPR, said the radio organization believes the PAC's use of content didn't meet fair use standards, because of the content used and the "effect of the use on the value of the content."
"NPR's audio content comprises virtually the entire length of the political ads, which clearly constitutes substantial use," said Davis Rehm. "The manner of use and presentation of this news spot undermines the journalistic value of the work and the reputation of NPR as a credible and unbiased news source."
But, Davis Rehm said, press coverage of the issue has let the public know of NPR's position. It also has let the public know that NPR didn't license the use, has no position on the issue, and would have taken similar steps with any advocacy or political group that used its news content in a similar way.
"With the election only days away, we've decided not to pursue further legal steps against Stand for Marriage Maine and the Schubert Flint agency at this time," said Davis Rehm. "Litigation is expensive and such actions move slowly through the court system, and we've determined this isn't the best use of our limited resources under these circumstances, despite high confidence that our position would prevail."
Pamella Starbird Beliveau of Lewiston, Maine, was removed as a lector and Eucharistic Minister after her pastor read an opinion piece she wrote for the local newspaper approving of same-sex marriage.
The Yes campaign has been highlighting vandalism of its signs, but one reporter has an interesting take on it:
Here's my point... To those who vandalized these signs, let me be plain. You're an idiot. In fact, you're a group of idiots, because given the fact that this happened in a number of places around the area at roughly the same time, it had to be a small group effort.
To everyone else, take a step back and think for a moment and ask yourself a question... Do you really think this was an orchestrated campaign tactic from someone high up in the No on 1 campaign?
My opinion? It's absurd.
I'll put it to you this way... And please read this through to the end before you react. If you were to say to me that you had concrete evidence that one of the campaigns had done this on purpose as a campaign tactic, and you put a gun to my head (please don't) and forced me to guess which side did it-- it's more logical to guess it was the Yes on 1 campaign vandalizing their own signs from a pure political strategy standpoint. Now, I'm not saying I really think that happened!!! As I said, I blame a group of likely young, likely male idiots having a go at messing with people in a vile way. And this is important-- it's even likely this could prove to be low-level volunteers for the No on 1 campaign (clearly they're passionate and committed to the cause-- in a twisted, hateful way), but it stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe these people have actual decision-making power in the No on 1 campaign. They're political vigilantes who should be prosecuted.
Seems that the misuse of Twitter or facebook isn't just for professional athletes:
Ray Richardson FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA: apparently not in Maine. A social worker appeared in an ad promoting TRADITIONAL marriage. His name is Don Mendell. [NAME REDACTED] filed a complaint against his professional license saying he is un-fit to be a social worker because he is un-supportive of GLTBQ (what the hell is "Q") read this non-sense at [REDACTED].com .. click on don mendell, jr ... May God help us all
I have a feeling that there are some confidentiality issues here.
Last night Rachel Maddow interviewed Gov. John Baldacci about Question 1, the so-called people's veto of Maine's law that would allow same-sex couples to marry:
Update: It is of interest to contrast the position taken by Gov Baldacci when signing LD 1020, that his own view of same-sex marriage had changed when he really reflected on it, and the sudden claim by Marc Mutty and everyone else at S4MM that domestic partnerships are an acceptable alternative to equal marriage, so sudden in fact that they forgot to explain their conversion:
The pivotal exchange in one of the lawsuits now challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage shows that the opponents of gay people's freedom to marry still can't give a real answer to the key question posed in yet another court by yet another judge: "What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?"
The anti-gay forces' lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, replied, "Your Honor, my answer is: I don't know ... I don't know." Mr. Cooper eventually told the judge that the government should be able to exclude gay couples from marriage in order "to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions."
But even Justice Antonin Scalia, no friend of equality for gay people, wrote in Lawrence v. Texas: "What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution'? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
The reason smart lawyers like Mr. Cooper don't give a better answer to why marriage discrimination should be allowed to continue is that there isn't one.
Evan Wolfson
Executive Director
Freedom to Marry
New York, Oct. 27, 2009
With the election just days away (unless you are one of the thousands that have voted either early or using an absentee ballot), it is expected that the campaigns for the first four ballot questions will be rolling out new ads.
On Question 1, both the Yes and NO campaigns have done so.
The NO on 1 campaign continues along the theme that is the essence of their campaign - that ALL families in Maine ought to be treated equally and with dignity:
On the Yes side, it seems that their departure from the fear mongering based on lies and omissions was short lived, as with their new ad is is more of the same: teh gays are going to push our kids to.....exactly what is never really explained. Better not to do so, I suppose - the unknown is always more scary - just ask Stephen King.
Of course, if "gay marriage" is already being "taught in schools," one really has to wonder what all the fuss about it is:
The WMTW/Portland Press Herald debate on question 1 today had some really revealing moments. None so much as the reaction of each side to the question of what happens should they lose on Nov. 3rd. Brian Souchet's is a cold statement of fact about policy. Mary Bonauto's is about real people's lives. I think we see which side is fighting for something that actually impacts the lives of committed couples and their children.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the Mormon front group form New Jersey that is bankrolling the Yes on 1 campaign, filed suit in the Federal District Court of Maine. NOM was joined by American Principles in Action (APIA), as was noted yesterday.
NOM and APIA were seeking a temporary injunction of a decision by the Maine Ethics Commission to investigate NOM to determine whether that group qualified, under Maine law, as a PAC or BQC; APIA joined the complaint since it might affect their intentions to run advertisements in support of Yes on 1 (see the link above for the actual ads).
Today Justice D. Brock Hornby submitted his ruling (pdf warning) on the complaint:
Under Maine law, any person or entity that solicits and receives contributions or makes expenditures over $5,000 "for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question" must register and file reports with the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. Maine's November ballot asks Maine voters to decide whether to veto a recent Maine statute that permits gay marriage. The plaintiffs here [NOM and APIA] are two nonprofit corporations that operate nationwide. One describes itself as "dedicated to preserving the traditional definition of marriage," and says that it has been receiving contributions connected in part to the Maine November election. The other says that it is "dedicated to promoting equality of opportunity and ordered liberty," and that it proposes to make expenditures in connection with television commercials about the Maine ballot question. State election officials recently have begun an investigation of one of the two plaintiff nonprofits to determine whether it has illegally failed to register and report. As a result, the plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit against a variety of state officials, asking me to declare that the First Amendment makes the Maine registration and reporting statute unconstitutional. They have asked for the emergency relief of a temporary restraining order against enforcement because the election is imminent, and they wish to make solicitations and expenditures that exceed the $5,000 threshold without registering or reporting. I conducted an expedited hearing on Monday, October 26, 2009.
The critical question on a request for a temporary restraining order is the likelihood of success on the merits. Notably for First Amendment purposes, the challenged Maine statute does not limit contributions or expenditures in connection with ballot initiatives. Instead, it requires that they be reported when they exceed a certain threshold. Although these requirements impose some burden on the plaintiffs in pursuing their First Amendment rights of association and speech, Maine has a very strong interest in providing its voters with information about the source of the money that funds the campaign on either side of a ballot issue. To achieve that goal, it imposes only a minimal burden on persons or entities that contribute money or make expenditures. I conclude that the plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of success on their claim that the Maine statute violates the First Amendment. I therefore DENY the motion for a temporary restraining order.1 The case will proceed in the ordinary course.
It should be noted that the State is not restricting how much money NOM or APIA wish to spend on trying to influence how Mainers will vote on Question 1 - the State is simply asserting that if they spend over a certain limit, then they must file as a PAC or BQC, and so report to the State - that is you and me - their source of funding.
As should be clear, Maine law needs to be looked at in the next coming months to make sure that reporting requirements are made more strict, and that such requirements comply with the Constitution. But Maine must no longer be seen as a state where monied interests can buy ballot initiatives.
Bolstered by the ruling, Maine's attorney general challenged the advocacy group Wednesday night to make its records public before next week's vote on Question 1.
"We are not going to give them legal advice. We trust that their legal counsel will advise them to comply fully," said Attorney General Janet Mills. "The court has ruled that it is in the public interest to do so, and the law couldn't be clearer.
"I would hope that they would file before the election," Mills said. "Why not? What is there to hide?"
The National Organization for Marriage, a Virginia-based nonprofit corporation, has contributed about $1.6 million to the political action committee Stand for Marriage Maine, which is leading the fight to repeal the same-sex marriage law. That's more than half the total raised for the campaign so far.
Who we are: Approve Referendum 71 is the campaign to preserve domestic partnerships in Washington State. By voting to approve, voters retain the domestic partnership laws that were passed during this year's legislative session, including using sick leave to care for a partner, adoption rights, insurance rights, and more.
What we need: We need phone bankers to get our supporters out to vote. Washington is an all mail-in ballot state, and we need to ensure our supporters put their ballots in the mail. Also, youth turnout is a critical component of our campaign, and youth turnout historically drops in off-year elections. So we need a lot of help to turn them out.
How you do it:Sign up here to make remote calls for Approve 71. We'll then contact you for a training, and you can make GOTV calls.
Maine:
Who we are: The No On 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign is working to protect Maine's recently-passed law legalizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. Our opponents have put the issue on the ballot for Nov 3, 2009. Because of Maine's early voting election laws, people are already voting at the polls, so we need help immediately to turn out our side at the polls.
What we need: We need you to devote a few hours to Call for Equality. Call for Equality is a virtual phonebank set up so that you can call Maine voters wherever you are. Much of Maine is rural, where canvassing isn't effective, so we need to reach these voters- along with other supporters- by phone. All you need is a phone and internet connection. No experience required! We'll provide the training, and all you need is a a few hours to help get a win in Maine.
How you do it:Click here to sign up for a training and your shift. There are lots of times available for your convenience.
Kalamazoo, MI:
Who We Are: The Yes on Ordinance 1856 / One Kalamazoo campaign is working in Michigan to support the City Commission of Kalamazoo's twice approved ordinance for housing, employment, and public accommodation protections for gay and transgender residents. Opponents forced a public referendum on the ordinance so dedicated local volunteers, led by former Stonewall Democrats Executive Director Jon Hoadley, are working to ensure voters say YES to fairness and equality and keep Ordinance 1856.
Why The Urgency: In the final weeks, the opposition has gone all out with aggressive disinformation and misleading red herrings to try to defeat the ordinance. This includes signs that say "No to Discrimination" (even though voting No actually supports continued discrimination of GLBT residents), transphobic door hangers and fliers, and now radio ads that falsely suggest that criminal behavior will become legal when this simply isn't true. The Yes on Ordinance 1856 supporters are better organized but many voters who want to vote for gay and transgender people are getting confused by the opposition.
How To Help:
1) Help the One Kalamazoo campaign raise a final $10,000 specifically dedicated to fight back against the lies on the local TV and radio airwaves and fully fund the campaign's final field and GOTV efforts.
2) If you live nearby and can physically volunteer in Kalamazoo sign up here. If you know anyone that lives in Kalamazoo, use the One Kalamazoo campaign's online canvass tool to remind those voters that they need to vote on November 3rd and vote YES on Ordinance 1856 to support equality for gay and transgender people.
Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM), the group behind the Yes on 1 campaign that would veto Maine's law allowing same-sex couples to marry, has a new TV ad out today:
The most obvious thing to note is that S4MM seems to have abandoned the theme of its other ads, that is that somehow allowing LD 1020 to become law will turn schools into incubators of homosexuality or something. Evidently it wasn't just the public polls that were showing the Yes campaign sinking like a anchor, but their internal polls as well.
So, the new line is, "We want to be tolerant of gays." Gone is the fear mongering, replaced with the more reasonable sounding support for civil unions or domestic partnerships for lesbians and gays. The ad even shows a screenshot from the Maine Department of Human Services website that describes the Domestic Partner Registry, which you can see in the embed.
The page cited can be found here. By clicking through the "Instructions and Information for the Domestic Partner Registry" button you'll find, as you would expect, all the info you'll want to know, including this interesting statement:
Yes, it seems that despite what the Yes on 1 campaign claims, the State of Maine makes it clear that a "registered domestic partnership is NOT the same as a marriage." Civil unions or domestic partnerships are NOT the same as marriage, and do not provide all the rights and protections (and obligations) that marriage does.
And it is best to re-emphasize that allowing same-sex couples to marry will not "dismantle traditional marriage," or "obliterate" it as Marc Mutty stated in a recent email.
My wife and I have been married for nine years now, and after this "people's" veto is defeated, we look forward to celebrating our tenth.
If you are married, what anniversary will you be celebrating after 3 November?
The last tracking poll from Pan Atlantic SMS Group regarding the questions on next week's ballot has some interesting numbers, and some unexpected movement.
The most curious is the dramatic collapse of support for Question 2, which would partially repeal the vehicle excise tax. Just two weeks ago 48.3% responded that they would vote for the repeal, but this week only 28.5% said they would do so. The break down:
Question 2 - "Do you want to cut the rate of the municipal excise tax by an average of 55% on motor vehicles less than six years old and exempt hybrid and other alternative-energy and highly fuel-efficient motor vehicles from sales tax and three years of excise tax?" If today was Election Day, how would you vote on this issue?
The number of those undecided nearly doubled in size, with only 5.5% undecided two weeks ago.
A similar loss of support was shown with TABOR, with the Yes side watching its 14 point lead from two weeks ago turn into a deficit of more than 6 points to the No side. The current breakdown:
Question 4 - "Do you want to change the existing formulas that limit state and local government spending and require voter approval by referendum for spending over those limits and for increases in state taxes?" This question is also known as TABOR II. If today was Election Day, how would you vote on this issue?
This is good news indeed, because as bad as it would be for either of these two measures to pass, the combination of the two would surely crush our state. While more Dem respondents will vote No and more GOP will vote Yes, Independents are exactly evenly split on the question.
The NO on Question 1 side has further lengthened its lead by almost two points from two weeks ago. The breakdown:
Question 1 - "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?" If today was Election Day, how would you vote on this issue?
Total vote Yes: 41.5%
Total vote NO: 52.6%
While the NO side enjoys a substantial lead in Maine's 1st Congressional District, what is surprising is that people in northern Maine's 2nd District are evenly split, with those voting Yes having 48% of respondents, and NO 47%, with 5% undecided.
Support for repeal of the school consolidation also lost support, seeing a flop much like that for TABOR. What was a 46.1% Yes to 39.1% No lead,
is now a 41.1% Yes to 44.5% No deficit.
And the last question, that to liberalize Maine's medicinal marijuana laws, enjoys a large lead, with 59% of Mainers in support, and only 32% opposed. One wonders how much influence the Obama administration's decision to not enforce Federal law regarding prescription marijuana played into this.
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an 