Tuesday was probably the most momentous day of primary season, which may seem odd for a day that had no presidential implications, but nonetheless has implications for the rest of the country, and specifically for Minnesota.
There was the recalls primary in Wisconsin, the marriage amendment in North Carolina, and a stunning primary result in Indiana. I'm guessing most of us had our eyes on the neighboring state, but that's not really the election that has useful lessons for us. The primary had to happen to pick the Democratic candidates of course, but I doubt the specific candidates really matter. We already knew the Scott Walker-led Republican assault on the right to organize had big blowback, and we're waiting to see how that ultimately plays out, but the result won't be clear. Walker has gone after women's rights too, and he has a corruption investigation hanging over his head, so a successful recall might be spun as a collection of factors and not a statement of support for workers rights. A loss of just a few points might only mean he survived because roughly 10% of voters will always oppose a recall. It's part of what makes recalls very difficult.
Actually, one possible future lesson: Walker has already spent eight of the $13 million he has raised, plus there have been independent expenditures on his behalf, and the polls have moved maybe a point or two Walker's way. Maybe that's enough, but it doesn't seem like much for such a preponderance of spending so far, and the pro-recall spending to come won't nearly match it. Maybe we'll learn there's a limit to the effectiveness of big money and TV ads. Maybe I just hope that's the case. Maybe the limit is only because of the unusual circumstances. Should would be nice though if the main thing we learn from Citizens United is that only so much money has an effect.
PPP has come out with a poll showing the marriage ban constitutional amendment in North Carolina is still likely to pass, but the lead is shrinking.
Momentum is turning against North Carolina's proposed marriage amendment. PPP's newest poll finds only 54% of voters in the state planning to support it, while 40% are opposed. This is the lowest level of support PPP has found in monthly polling of the amendment since last October. When PPP first polled on it six months ago 61% supported it with only 34% opposed, so its current 14 point lead has been cut almost in half from the 27 point advantage it started out with.
This part sounds like Minnesota:
When voters are informed that the proposed amendment would preclude both marriage and civil unions for gay couples only 38% continue to support it with 46% in opposition. Voters obviously will be more tuned into the amendment debate over the final two weeks of the campaign than they have been to date, particularly as the against side's tv ads hit the air, and it seems quite possible that as voters become more and more informed about the amendment they will continue to move more and more against it.
PPP found this last year in Minnesota, that some respondents were held up by the word "marriage". When those who support full marriage equality are added to those who would be OK with something like civil unions, there's a strong majority ready for some sort of legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Presumably Minnesotans are unclear on what the amendments bans, since North Carolinians are pretty confused about their similar amendment:
Like us, North Carolina is about to vote on putting discrimination into its constitution. It's a different state and the anti-marriage side has a substantial lead, and a big difference is they vote next month, not November, but the amendment is substantially the same. From Milk Men and Women, which has been following the issue at Daily Kos, there are indications momentum has turned against the amendment. Opponents received an endorsement from one prominent Republican, former Charlotte Mayor Richard Vinroot, who made a video with another former mayor, Harvey Gantt:
The speaker of the state house, despite pushing the amendment onto the ballot, thinks it will be repealed in 20 years. Other conservatives are concerned passage will discourage businesses from locating in North Carolina.
Opponents caught a break when Romney clinched the GOP nomination, which is expected to reduce Republican turnout.
What gives opponents the most hope is polling showing that despite likely passage by a strong margin, the voters are very confused about what the amendment does, something I assume is the case here too. The author linked to this PPP poll:
This is from Andy Birkey at the American Independent.
Several groups that are raising money to support a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota are facing scrutiny and a possible campaign finance complaint over reports released last month that showed $1.2 million was raised to promote the amendment yet only seven individual donors were disclosed.
At least one government watchdog group says it intends to file a campaign finance complaint against the Minnesota Family Council and Minnesota for Marriage because the groups allegedly failed to report donors to the ballot campaign. And other groups have vowed to urge Minnesota officials to launch an investigation...
"Anti-gay groups are either breaking Minnesota law or they have run one of the least successful general fundraising campaigns in history," Kevin Nix of the Human Rights Campaign wrote in special report the group put out on the campaign finance issues in Minnesota. "For eight months, Minnesota for Marriage has regularly solicited contributions for the ballot measure through its website as well as multiple e-mails that have been obtained by the Human Rights Campaign, with barely $4,000 in total contributions to show for it."
I suspect that the haters will claim that they have many, many small donors, and are "preserving their privacy" so that they're not subject to threats and intimidation by the "Vote No" forces of ungodliness. Or something like that. But this is certainly a good indication that, though many may be inclined to vote for the amendment for whatever ignorant, atavistic reasons, few are on fire for it enough to open their pocketbooks.
To counter the millions upon millions of dollars that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) will be spending on their constitutional amendment to keep gay people from marrying, Minnesotans United for All Families is doing a money bomb. They want to raise $500,000 by March 25, 2012. They are well on their way.
So far Minnesotans for Marriage, the front group for NOM, has raised $830,000.
MN United has over 7,000 donors in Minnesota. The anti-marriage side as 7. There are 7 really dedicated rich people who are willing to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure their anti-gay beliefs are enshrined in our constitution.
Overwhelmingly, Democrats in Minnesota oppose the GreedOverPrinciples Party's bigoted and hateful proposal to amend Minnesota's Constitution by restricting the rights of our LGBT Brothers and Sisters. Specifically, they want to deny the right of our LGBT Sisters and Brothers to marry, thereby insuring Minnesota stays a state where marriage is an institution of "One Man And One Woman (at a time)."
And according to that tweet from the Independence Party, they reject Republican bigotry and hate, too.
Add into that Ron Paul's strong showing in Minnesota last night, and it looks like Minnesota may be the very first state to reject an anti-LGBT amendment to a State Constitution!
To ensure defeat, there's a lot of work to be done. Fortunately, Minnesotans United For ALL Families is out there working hard - I saw 'em at my Caucus Precinct last night, and was told they were all over this great state.
The common theme in the constitutional amendments the legislative Republicans seem ready to put on the 2012 is the restriction of rights of people who tend not to vote Republican. Whether it's marriage equality, reproductive rights, the right to organize, the right to vote, and whatever ever other noxious amendments they come up with, these self-proclaimed "constitutional conservatives" seem not the get that the American republic is built not just on majority rule, but on minority rights. These amendments are exactly the sort of attacks on our rights the US Constitution was meant to prevent.
We're not the only state of course where this is happening. One state where the Republicans think rights depend on the momentary whim of the majority is New Jersey. The legislature is likely to overturn the gay marriage ban, and Gov. Chris Christie says he'll veto it. Instead, he wants the question put to a referendum. In defense of subjecting minority rights to majority rule, he mentioned the civil rights movement, and said, "The fact of the matter is, I think people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South." Right, let white people vote on whether black people should be allowed to vote, because the states that banned blacks from voting were so anxious to change those laws.
This gets to a video that's a must-see for attacking this idea that minority rights should be subject to majority rule. Newark mayor (and possible gubernatorial candidate next year) Cory Booker was asked about Christie's statement at a press conference. Though he was reacting to Christie's remark specifically and addressing the bill in New Jersey, it applies to all the GOP efforts to take away rights from those who aren't them.
There is anecdotal evidence running around, like this, and this, and this, and especially this, that the Christian conservative base of the GOP dislikes Mormons.
Born-again or evangelical Christians accounted for nearly two-thirds of the electorate and Gingrich easily beat Romney in that group: 44 percent to 21 percent.
Three out of five voters interviewed in the exit poll said that it mattered somewhat or greatly whether a candidate shared their religious views and Gingrich beat Romney by better than two to one among such voters.
...
Among those who said having shared religious beliefs with a presidential contender did not much matter or didn't matter at all, Romney prevailed, 39 percent to Gingrich's 32 percent.
So conservatives dislike Mormons, apparently for theological reasons, and Mormons tend to be --- conservative? They do. Among Mormons, Republican identification leads Democratic identification 59-14. OK, I get that Mormons are conservative, but why? Since Mormons are a minority disliked, even despised, by the religious majority, wouldn't that tend to make them, dare I say it, Democrats? Like other religious minorities? Those who hold the beliefs of Christian liberals, or other abrahamic religions, or polytheistic religions, or who hold no religious beliefs, tend to be liberals/progressives/Democrats ... but not Mormons. Yes, Mormons hold the same opinions as conservatives, except for one that would seem rather important, that Mormons are some sort of heretics who cannot be trusted, at least not to the extent of putting them in elected office. So, Mormons, are you sure you're in the right party?
Gov. Mark Dayton appeared on Minnesota Public Radio to discuss the Viking's stadium and reflect upon the last year. But when asked about the Republicans effort to pass their Sanctity of Marriage constitutional amendment in light of former Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch's sex scandal, he called them out for their hypocrisy. Sen. Koch is married and had an affair with an as-yet-unnamed senior Senate staffer that has to be Michael Brodkorb.
"I think it underscores that sanctity of marriage is important to most Minnesotans and people who are in same-sex relationships believe in that sanctity also and want a chance to participate in the sanctity in the same way as heterosexual couples," Dayton told MPR's All Things Considered, before suggesting that Republicans would be hypocritical in pursuing the measure:
DAYTON: I will say, before you take out the speck in your neighbor's eye, take the log out of your own eye. Somebody whose conduct doesn't measure up to what they're professing to believe in or prescribing for others, then they should be called on that.
There have been some recent posts on which races next year deserve our attention. Here's a good one from Big E, and another from taxpayinglineral. It's not too soon at all to have this discussion when we're only four months away from precinct caucuses, but I wonder if we're getting ahead of ourselves by going straight to a discussion of which districts should be priorities. Some assumptions are probably safe, but I'd like to step back and look at all the priorities competing for our attention.
This list is not in priority-order since we haven't thought that through yet. I need some order though, so I'm of doing my best to remember what goes on a presidential year ballot, and ranking these from national to local:
President
Klobuchar Senate seat
Constitutional amendments
State Supreme Court
US House
State legislature
local races
Wisconsin governor recall
I lumped together all the congressional and legislative seats which isn't where we need to end up, but that's in order to step back and look at the whole picture before digging into which specific districts deserve the most attention.
One of the key players in the Republicans' campaign to put marriage discrimination into the Minnesota Constitution is the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). NOM has funneled millions upon millions into the marriage discrimination campaigns in other states. They were dealt a setback last Thursday. Apparently due the combination of the Republican government shutdown and the holiday weekend, nobody noticed.
The MN Campaign Finance Board ruled that they had to disclose their donors over $1,000.
The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board ruled last Thursday that major corporate donors related to the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage must be disclosed. But Minnesota's strong disclosure laws already reveal many prominent movers and shakers behind the seven-year battle the Minnesota Family Council has waged to get the amendment on the ballot next year. High-dollar contributors include the owner of a DVD-replicating business who has given large sums to Republican causes and the chairman of a sports apparel company that's received $2 million in defense contracts. And even staffers of the Minnesota Family Council have kicked in big money.
The Minnesota Independent took a look at lobbying reports, campaign finance filings and foundation tax records and found a large amount of money coming from a handful of people. Lobbying reports don't include the amount of money given to a particular lobbyist, only whether the donation was more than $500 per year. And campaign finance reports are limited to funds that went toward advertising, print or other electioneering communication and activity.
(Minnesota Independent)
Follow the link to MN Indy to read the list of some of the largest donors.
As soon as the Republicans passed their Marriage Discrimination Act, a bunch of people and organizations began planning how to stop discrimination from getting enshrined in Minnesota's constitution. Now I have some details about where to get the latest news, what you can do and who to contact.
Last night, the Marriage Discrimination Amendment (aka the the Bradlee Dean Amendment) passed the house floor. There were a total of 3 democrats who voted for this hate filled bill (2 representatives and 1 senator). This proposed amendment to the state constitution will now go to the voters in the 2012 general election. We now have time to contemplate our support for democrats who don't support our ideals. Who are these politicians who voted to put hate into our constitution?
Representative Dittrich (47A - Champlin): This year Rep Dittrich has voted against a woman's right to choose, voted to the 'voting reform' (voter id), and voted to put discrimination into our state constitution. Looking back at her voting record, it appears that she usually votes for every GOP amendment. Here are a few:
Voted for voter ID amendment
Voted against min wage increase
Voted against providing resident tuition for undocumented immigrants who provide evidence they plan to become a perminent resident.
Voted against clean water legacy act
Voted against stem cell research
Representative Koenen (20B - Clara City) This year has voted against a woman's right to choose and the marriage amendment. In previous years, voted with the GOP on numerous amendments. Here are a few:
Voted against sex education in schools
Voted for voter ID amendment
Voted against providing resident tuition for undocumented immigrants who provide evidence they plan to become a perminent resident.
Voted against domestic partner death rights
Voted against stem cell research
Senator Stumpf (01 - Plummer) This year, Senator Stumpf has voted to block a woman's right to choose and for the marriage amendment. Senator Stumpf has an extensive 'not voted' record over the years - almost every bill/amendment listed in Rep Dittmer and Koenen's votes with the GOP list are listed as 'not voted' for Senator Stumpf. Here are some votes he was present for:
Voted to end the prohibition on new nuclear power plants
Voted against domestic partner death rights
Again, I remind the state DFL, there is NO room for discrimination or hate in our party. This is a party of inclusion. Voting to restrict the rights of others is NOT acceptable - whether for access to medical care or spending the life with someone you love. Politicians that vote to block these rights should not be supported by the Democratic Party.
As if we weren't all fired up already, this is the kind of discrimination we will be fighting for the 2012 elections.
Senator Limmer (R) in 2009 put forth an amendment to the anti-bullying in schools bill:
Vote to adopt an amendment to SF 971 that specifies that nothing in the parent bill shall be construed to mean that the state of Minnesota condones homosexuality or bisexuality and that nothing shall be construed to mean that education institutions are permitted to promote homosexuality or bisexuality or require them to be taught as "acceptable lifestyles."
Last night, the Marriage Discrimination Amendment (aka the the Bradlee Dean Amendment) passed the house floor. There were a total of 3 democrats who voted for this hate filled bill (2 representatives and 1 senator). This proposed amendment to the state constitution will now go to the voters in the 2012 general election. We now have time to contemplate our support for democrats who don't support our ideals. Who are these politicians who voted to put hate into our constitution?
Representative Dittrich (47A - Champlin): This year Rep Dittrich has voted against a woman's right to choose, voted to the 'voting reform' (voter id), and voted to put discrimination into our state constitution. Looking back at her voting record, it appears that she usually votes for every GOP amendment. Here are a few:
Voted for voter ID amendment
Voted against min wage increase
Voted against providing resident tuition for undocumented immigrants who provide evidence they plan to become a perminent resident.
Voted against clean water legacy act
Voted against stem cell research
Representative Koenen (20B - Clara City) This year has voted against a woman's right to choose and the marriage amendment. In previous years, voted with the GOP on numerous amendments. Here are a few:
Voted against sex education in schools
Voted for voter ID amendment
Voted against providing resident tuition for undocumented immigrants who provide evidence they plan to become a perminent resident.
Voted against domestic partner death rights
Voted against stem cell research
Senator Stumpf (01 - Plummer) This year, Senator Stumpf has voted to block a woman's right to choose and for the marriage amendment. Senator Stumpf has an extensive 'not voted' record over the years - almost every bill/amendment listed in Rep Dittmer and Koenen's votes with the GOP list are listed as 'not voted' for Senator Stumpf. Here are some votes he was present for:
Voted to end the prohibition on new nuclear power plants
Voted against domestic partner death rights
Again, I remind the state DFL, there is NO room for discrimination or hate in our party. This is a party of inclusion. Voting to restrict the rights of others is NOT acceptable - whether for access to medical care or spending the life with someone you love. Politicians that vote to block these rights should not be supported by the Democratic Party.
As if we weren't all fired up already, this is the kind of discrimination we will be fighting for the 2012 elections.
Senator Limmer (R) in 2009 put forth an amendment to the anti-bullying in schools bill:
Vote to adopt an amendment to SF 971 that specifies that nothing in the parent bill shall be construed to mean that the state of Minnesota condones homosexuality or bisexuality and that nothing shall be construed to mean that education institutions are permitted to promote homosexuality or bisexuality or require them to be taught as "acceptable lifestyles."
In a surprising move, considering the GOP insists that the anti-gay marriage amendment is not about hate and discrimination, 'Reverend' Bradlee Dean was invited to give opening prayer in the Minnesota House of Representatives today. Dean is known for his hate-filled fiery rhetoric, calling the 'execution of gays moral' and "on average, gays molest 117 people before they're found out".
While the opening prayer in the Minnesota legislature is supposed to be nondenominational, a fact that Dean acknowledges, he goes on to list only Christian denominations of faith. Going on to infer that President Obama is not Christian. "This isn't about the denominations but rather the head of the denomination and his name is Jesus, as every president and up until 2008 has acknowledged."
There was the recalls primary in Wisconsin, the marriage amendment in North Carolina, and a stunning primary result in Indiana. I'm guessing most of us had our eyes on the neighboring state, but that's not really the election that has useful lessons for us. The primary had to happen to pick the Democratic candidates of course, but I doubt the specific candidates really matter. We already knew the Scott Walker-led Republican assault on the right to organize had big blowback, and we're waiting to see how that ultimately plays out, but the result won't be clear. Walker has gone after women's rights too, and he has a corruption investigation hanging over his head, so a successful recall might be spun as a collection of factors and not a statement of support for workers rights. A loss of just a few points might only mean he survived because roughly 10% of voters will always oppose a recall. It's part of what makes recalls very difficult.
PPP has come out with a poll showing the marriage ban constitutional amendment in North Carolina is still likely to pass, 
Gov. Mark Dayton appeared on Minnesota Public Radio to discuss the Viking's stadium and reflect upon the last year. But when asked about the Republicans effort to pass their Sanctity of Marriage constitutional amendment in light of former Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch's sex scandal, he 
One of the key players in the Republicans' campaign to put marriage discrimination into the Minnesota Constitution is the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). NOM has funneled millions upon millions into the marriage discrimination campaigns in other states. They were dealt a setback last Thursday. Apparently due the combination of the Republican government shutdown and the holiday weekend, nobody noticed.
As soon as the Republicans passed their Marriage Discrimination Act, a bunch of people and organizations began planning how to stop discrimination from getting enshrined in Minnesota's constitution. Now I have some details about where to get the latest news, what you can do and who to contact.
This year has voted against a woman's right to choose and the marriage amendment. In previous years, voted with the GOP on numerous amendments. Here are a few:
This year, Senator Stumpf has voted to block a woman's right to choose and for the marriage amendment. Senator Stumpf has an extensive 'not voted' record over the years - almost every bill/amendment listed in Rep Dittmer and Koenen's votes with the GOP list are listed as 'not voted' for Senator Stumpf. Here are some votes he was present for:
