Another No on an Amendment website, and questions on how this issue will play in November.

Actually, this time it's No on Amendment C. The effort to vote no on Amendment C has a website up and on-line, http://www.againstdiscrimination.org/ as run by the organization's director, Jon Hoadley. As stated on the website:
One of the items on the ballot is Amendment C, an anti-marriage amendment that changes South Dakota’s constitution not only to define marriage as between a man and a woman, but also to prohibit the state from recognizing domestic partnerships, civil unions, and "quasi-marital" relationships. SouthDakotansAgainstDiscrimination.org will be the online campaign headquarters keeping you up to date on events, achievements, volunteer activities, and other ways to help the campaign.
Amendment C was placed on the ballot by 2005's HJR 1001. Interestingly enough, the votes on this bill haven't come up yet as a campaign issue. It passed 55-14 in the House with the following No votes:

Bradford Nay
Elliott Nay
Gassman Nay
Glover Nay
Haley Nay
Hargens Nay
Kroger Nay
Lange Nay
Murschel Nay
Roberts Nay
Street Nay
Thompson Nay
Valandra Nay
Van Norman Nay

In the House, Republican Casey Murschel was the only Republican No vote. In the Senate it faced much stiffer competition and passed on a 20-14 vote:

Adelstein Nay
Broderick Nay
Dempster Nay
Duniphan Nay
Hundstad Nay
Knudson Nay
Koetzle Nay
McCracken Nay
Moore Nay
Nesselhuf Nay
Olson (Ed) Nay
Sutton (Dan) Nay
Sutton (Duane) Nay
Two Bulls Nay

Here, the measure also faced more resistance by Republicans. Duane Sutton, Ed Olson, Mac McCracken, Dave Knudson, J.P. Duniphan, Tom Dempster, Mike Broderick, and Stan Adelstein all cast their votes no, comprising a majority of the opposition to the measure.

Interestingly enough, back in 2005 before the Mainstream Coalition, with the addition of Broderick, this set this group off as a voting block on what would be considered a morally divisive issue. Especially in light of the fact that as many Democrats voted for it as Republicans that voted against it.

Also noteworthy, Senate sponsors Ed Olson, Mike Broderick, and Dan Sutton all ended up casting a vote against it. They were joined by House sponsors Bradford, Gassman, Hargens, Kroger, and Lange who also cast a vote against the measure they sponsored.

For all the bluster on morality issues as we move into the election cycle, Amendment C has floated under the radar, and may continue to do so for some time. But just like on the abortion, issue that came up in 2006, several Democratic legislators joined their Republican colleagues and provided a strong show of support.

In fact, it might be arguable that as much "morality legislation" came out of the 2005 legislature as it did 2006. But being a non-election year, you really didn't hear much of it. But unlike abortion, there's not a lot of dispute over where South Dakotans stand on the definition of marriage act.

Although, Jon Hoadley will be working to counter that.

As Democrats and others press the morality issue in the campaigns, this sleeper of a bill may end up becoming one of the more divisive measures in this year's legislative campaigns.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Why are you up at 2:57 AM? By looking at who voted "no",it's easy to decide to vote "yes". Once again, leave it to the liberals to be inconsistent, and vote against something they sponsored.
PP said…
My sinuses are killing me. We've left the cold and flu season and entered into the hayfever season.
PP said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Will said…
There's going to be so many interesting things to vote on this year.

PP, you've said that when the ballot is so thick with initiatives and referrendums, that the people will just vote No across the board. Do you really think that's true?

I certainly hope not. I've got no problem with an educated No vote, but to thoughtlessly vote No on everything just because the ballot is packed full seems weak to me.

What an amazing opportunity we have here in SD to directly enact our laws. I hope people take the time to learn about what they are voting on, and make thoughtful choices in the ballot box, instead of just voting No for everything.
Haggs said…
I think most are well aware of Amendment C, but there's not a whole lot we can do right now. When it gets closer to election season, we can campaign against it, but right now most of us are concentrating on the current threat of the abortion ban.
eddie said…
Vote YES for medical marijuana.

That's an educated vote.
PP said…
Will -

I do say it could happen. People want to go vote for people. Then they get to that mess on ballots and initiatives.

If there are too many with the reams of ballot explanations on what a yes vote and a no vote mean, the tendency is to vote to keep things the same.
K said…
There are a few things I'll probably vote 'yes' on, but if most people decide to vote 'no' on everything, I could live with that.
Anonymous said…
Iam voting yes on most every thing, JAIL will be YES too.
Anonymous said…
Yeah that's what I'm talkin about!!
nonnie said…
All the elected officials from District 8 voted against it. I am voting against them come November too, not only for this but this is just another reason to do so.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th