“The GOP gained young voters, but only because it lost the culture war,” is the call-out quote (print edition) summing up this New York Times op-ed by Mark Bauerlein, senior editor of the conservative religious journal First Things. He writes:
Exit poll data show that young voters backed House Democrats 54 percent to 43 percent, half the advantage of 2006 and two percentage points lower than in 2010. …
It’s not that [young voters] have become less socially liberal; it’s that social conservatism is a paper tiger. Liberalism has won so handily in the culture and courts that it no longer serves as a rallying cry. …
When it comes to young voters, liberal politicians are victims of their culture-war success. They have pressed a laissez-faire posture in moral and private matters, and have won. But millennials have adopted not the posture of their liberal elders that fostered group identity (be it “union member,” “disenfranchised minority” or “F.D.R. Democrat”), but a soft libertarianism that makes individual preference king. …Once social conservatism was defeated, the set allegiance to Democratic campaigns was bound to erode.
I’ve said before that the victory (or, at least, clearly approaching victory) for the freedom to marry would save Republicans from themselves. And that appears to be playing out.
More. From The Atlantic: Republicans Are Driving the Momentum for Gay Marriage.
Furthermore. It’s not inconsequential that the favorability of the Democratic Party is at a 20-year low, having sunk below Republican Party numbers. “The GOP currently has an image advantage over the Democratic Party,” according to Gallup, although “neither party is held in particularly high regard.”
More again. Another reason for the shifting political tides: Democrat Voters Confused: “I Didn’t Realize I Would Be The One Who Was Going to Pay For It Personally”
36 Comments for “Young Voters: Socially Liberal, Less Democratic”
posted by Mike in Houston on
Congatulations!
Not only have you won the argument in a low voter turnout election in which the generation that you tout voted in far fewer numbers than in previous midterms, but you didn’t have to lift a finger in the culture wars!
Now that the GOP has a firm handle on our future because of this so called ‘libertarian’ youth base, let’s all call it a day…
Project much?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The “socially liberal” young voters managed to oust five marriage equality supporters and replace them with social conservatives: Mark Begich (Alaska) replaced by Dan Sullivan, Mark Udall (Colorado) replaced by Cory Gardner, Tom Harkin (Iowa) replaced by Jodi Ernst, John Walsh (Montana) replaced by Steve Daines, Kay Hagan (North Carolina) replaced by Thom Tillis, Tim Johnson (South Dakota) replaced by Mike Rounds, and Jay Rockefeller (West Virgina) replaced by Shelley Capito.
I suppose that’s a good thing, huh, Stephen? It might be, but if and only if you were interested in strengthening the stranglehold of social conservatives over the Republican Party. I am not. I think that the election of hard-core, anti-equality politicians like Tom Cotton, Jodi Ernst and Thom Tillis is a negative, not a positive. You are free to think otherwise.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’ve said before that the victory (or, at least, clearly approaching victory) for the freedom to marry would save Republicans from themselves. And that appears to be playing out.
Looking forward to the new Congress, the House remains strongly anti-equality. No change, although this election cycle seems to have increased the anti-equality margin in the House. The Senate, which I track more closely because of the impact on judicial appointments, has moved in the direction of anti-equality. In the current Senate, pro-equality Senators hold a decisive majority (57-42). After January, pro-equality Senators will be a slight majority (52-48).
I’m not quite sure how that will play out. I expect the House, as usual, to enact a splattering of anti-equality bills of one sort and another during the next session. I’m not sure that we can depend on the Senate in the next session to block the House bills as effectively and routinely as it did in the last session, and that’s a minus.
I don’t expect that the anti-equality shift in the Senate will lead to any major anti-equality legislation, though.
Let’s look at one bill, the “”State Marriage Defense Act of 2014”. The bill was introduced int he House by Congressman Weber [R-TX] and in the Senate by Senator Ted Cruz [R-TX]. The House bill quickly gained 68 Republican co-sponsors and will probably pass if leadership allows it to proceed to the floor. Its prospects in the Senate are less sanquine for anti-equality forces. The bill has only 10 co-sponsors (Cochran [R-MS], Inhofe [R-OK], Johann [R-NE], Lee [R-UT], Risch [R-ID], Roberts [R-KS], Scott [R-SC], Sessions [R-AL], Vitter [R-LA], Wicker [R-MS]) and would seem, given the still-existing pro-equality majority, to fail.
What I do expect is to see a lot of bills introduced (often as amendments to other bills) chipping away at equality in one way or another, and I expect a number of them to pass, and then be vetoed by President Obama. I think that is the legacy we will see from this election.
I’m not entirely certain that Stephen is right in his thinking about the crucial role of “socially liberal” young “libertarian-leaning” voters who felt free to vote for Republicans like Tom Cotton, Jodi Ernst and Thom Tillis, but if he is right, it does not bode well for the future of the Republican Party or for the future of gays and lesbians.
Let’s look at the future of the Republican Party. I know from hard-earned experience that political parties do not move toward equality unless pressure is applied, either from within or without.
In the case of the Democratic Party, the pressure came from both directions — gays and lesbians working hard within the party and outside individuals and groups willing to threaten all hell breaking loose if the party didn’t move toward equality. Stephen’s “lapdog” theory is a bunch of crap, and if he had been anywhere near the fight, he would know better than to hold such a foolish theory.
In the case of the Republican Party, there has been little or no pressure from within. Gay and lesbian Republicans have put up no meaningful fight within the party, and have made no meaningful gains. Despite some movement (e.g. Senators Portman and Kirk), the party remains entrenched in anti-equality positions. The only sword hanging over the heads of Republicans was the threat that the party would lose young voters if they kept it up; if Stephen is right in his analysis, that sword has been removed by left/liberal success in moving the country toward equality.
So, looking forward, I don’t see much incentive for the Republican Party to turn, as I often put it. If the party is now freed from negative consequences of sticking with its social conservative base, what pressure is going to lead to change? I suspect that when Stephen says that “the freedom to marry would save Republicans from themselves” and “that appears to be playing out“, what he means (whether he knows it or not) is that social conservative domination of the party’s primary process is what has been “saved”, and that the party is likely to become a semi-permanent anti-equality millstone. That’s how it played out in France, and that’s how (if Stephen is right) it is likely to play out in this country, at least for the next decade.
What does this mean for gays and lesbians? I’m not entirely certain, but I suspect that it means that we are entering a period akin to the “massive resistance” period of the civil rights movement, a decade or so in which we will face the constant threat from efforts to chip away the practical realization of marriage equality. If Stephen is correct about the future of the Republican Party, the anti-equality forces will have a reliable ally in the chipping process.
More. From The Atlantic: Republicans Are Driving the Momentum for Gay Marriage.
Interesting. The article describes a number of Republican politicians, with their backs to the wall, reluctantly accepting the necessity of complying with court orders, and that morphs into “driving the momentum for gay marriage”. Driving the momentum? What nonsense.
posted by Mark Peterson on
As noted before the election, to the extent that young socially libertarian voters cast ballots in particular for Ernst and Gardner–candidates who supported stripping away the already-existing right to marry in their states among other anti-gay policies–the outcome shows that many “socially libertarian” voters say they support gay rights but in the end just don’t care very much about the issue. Their support might help in a plebiscite, but as long as they vote for extreme anti-gay candidates (and Gardner and Ernst are about as extreme as you can get), it otherwise doesn’t mean much.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“[S]ocially libertarian” voters say they support gay rights but in the end just don’t care very much about the issue. Their support might help in a plebiscite, but as long as they vote for extreme anti-gay candidates, it otherwise doesn’t mean much.
Not for gays and lesbians (at least nothing good), but it does mean a lot for both “libertarian” Republicans and social conservative Republicans. It means that the Republican coalition of “libertarian” Republicans and social conservative Republicans can remain intact (at least for another decade or so) without negative consequences from young voters. Stephen’s sigh of relief in recent posts is almost audible. He’s getting his cake and can eat it, too.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A note updating the situation in Kansas:
Yesterday, the Supreme Court lifted Justice Sotomayer’s temporary stay on Judge Crabtree’s order mandating marriage equality in Kansas. I expected that to lead to statewide marriage equality quickly, but we’ve had a development that will delay things a bit.
Kansas AG Derek Schmidt, acting in concert with Governor Brownback, issued a legal opinion that Judge Crabtree’s order applied only to two counties in the state — Douglas County and Sedgwick County. We now will have to wait for the ACLU to go back to court and ask Judge Crabtree to clarify his order. It shouldn’t take more than a few days, perhaps a week.
posted by Lori Heine on
Young, socially “libertarian” voters are–flash bulletin–other people. They are not us. They do not see the world, or life, through our lens. They are also predominantly heterosexual–which is not the same thing as being LGBT.
Consistently, in these comments, I see an underlying attitude that other people should think as we do. That our priorities and concerns should be theirs. If so, then they are progressive, socially libertarian, or whatever nice term we want to apply to them. If not, then they are mean and hate us.
This is a view of life we should have gotten over by the fifth grade.
A majority of young people are indeed concerned about marriage equality. But because they are scared to death that their future is eroding before their eyes, largely unable to make a living and with little prospect of changing that under the leadership they’ve known for most of their adult lives, they seek a change. They’ll vote for it if they think it will make any difference, and if they think their vote means nothing, they will stay home from the polls.
They think it’s nice that gays can now marry in many states. But they see a future in which they themselves may never be able to afford to get married or have homes of their own. They think it’s a good idea for us to be able to legally adopt children. But they can barely afford to feed themselves, much less even think about trying to raise kids of their own.
Poll after poll also shows that Americans trust Republicans more on economic issues than they do Democrats. They don’t trust either very much, but they don’t really trust Democrats at all.
If you want to put into action all the high-flown rhetoric I hear here about working for change within your party, try working for that. It’s the only way you’re going to get young voters for the polls to vote in large numbers for Democrats. Otherwise you can sit there and repeat “equal means equal” and “work for change” until you drop dead from old age.
posted by JohnInCA on
Gods I love this. If Republicans lose an election, it’s because the Democrats haven’t done enough to change the Republican party. If Republicans win an election, it’s because the Democrats haven’t done enough to change their own party.
I mean damn, being a Republican is easy. Win or lose, it’s the other guy’s fault. I might be able to see the appeal. If, you know, I could get over the personal insults in their national platform.
posted by Mark Peterson on
I’m not sure about other people, but the perspective I have on this issue is that of the Republican “autopsy,” which claimed that gay rights were a “gateway” issue that was preventing younger voters from even considering the Republican Party. I’m sure no one here would describe the Republican Party leadership as approaching this issue from a pro-gay perspective.
Anyhow, the election proved once and for all that gay rights are not a “gateway” issue for young voters, and they’re willing to vote for even fanatically anti-gay candidates.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If you want to put into action all the high-flown rhetoric I hear here about working for change within your party, try working for that. It’s the only way you’re going to get young voters for the polls to vote in large numbers for Democrats.
Notice where concentrating young, pro-equality voters into the Democratic Party will take us — a continuation of Democrat=Equality, Republican=Anti-Equality lockdown. The better course, as all of us have pointed out from time to time, is to move the Republican Party toward a pro-equality position. That should be our focus, it seems to me.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If you want to put into action all the high-flown rhetoric I hear here about working for change within your party, try working for that. It’s the only way you’re going to get young voters for the polls to vote in large numbers for Democrats. Otherwise you can sit there and repeat “equal means equal” and “work for change” until you drop dead from old age.
I see I’ve hit a nerve. Not to worry, I’ll drop dead less soon that you would like, no doubt, but in due time.
You are assuming, without cause, that I agree with the so-called “libertarian” solutions for the economy. I don’t, and that’s one of the reasons I’m a Democrat.
posted by Lori Heine on
“I see I’ve hit a nerve.” You’d need to elaborate on how, but sometimes hitting a nerve is good. I wish I could hit a few here.
The comments I read come overwhelmingly from the pretty little snow-globe in which relatively-well-off, middle-aged gay men live. It could not possibly be more insular. Middle-aged lesbians who’ve lost their livelihood after thirty years of working hard and playing by the rules, who have none of your economic security and whose perspective is still ignored, even within the “gay community,” have a different perspective. Perhaps that’s why we may be quicker to grasp that young people also see things differently from you.
I’m not going to get personal about who does or does not wish someone might drop dead. I knew, when I wrote that, that it was Tom-bait. I wondered if you were going to try to go somewhere with it.
You remind me of my grandparents. “We’ll be dead soon….sigh!…and then you’ll be sorry!”
I don’t sit around wishing other people were dead. I do, however, often wish they’d wake up, take a look around, and give some consideration to the concerns of those in circumstances different from their own.
I thought that, too, had something to do with being progressive. It is yet another sign that “progressives” have become little more than a different flavor of conservative that they seem to have so much difficulty seeing outside the snow-globe.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Middle-aged lesbians who’ve lost their livelihood after thirty years of working hard and playing by the rules, who have none of your economic security and whose perspective is still ignored, even within the “gay community,” have a different perspective. Perhaps that’s why we may be quicker to grasp that young people also see things differently from you.
Well, Lori, what is to say? You are the one who consistently argues that corporations and other business entities should be unfettered from any “statist” constraints protecting workers from “at will” firing. I don’t.
I’m not going to get personal about who does or does not wish someone might drop dead. I knew, when I wrote that, that it was Tom-bait.
Baiting and then blasting and damning is your modus. Why not try reasoning?
posted by Houndentenor on
I wish I were one of those well-off gays that are insulated from the ravages of the last decade and a half of mostly crappy economy (at least for those in the lower 90% of earners). I’m not. In fact I’m in the group that often benefits the most from the Democrats’ agenda. The ACA (originally a Republican plan but not one they would ever have actually passed it seems) has meant I get better insurance for less money and don’t have to fill out 20 pages of paperwork for every visit to an ENT because I once took asthma meds (which didn’t help me that much) so my insurance company could try to get out of paying for the doctor’s appointment. Seriously. This has been great for me and millions of others with far more serious (and actual) pre-existing conditions. There’s a lot more. You are right that the problem with Democrats is that they have for the most part morphed into Republican-Lite making Stephen’s insistence that the party is leftist rather hilarious.
As for the regulations issue: you are right that it’s often stifling for small businesses but that’s mostly because the regulations and laws that adversely affect them were written by large corporations to favor them (or were written by ALEC and passed by the politicians they own in both parties). But in some cases we need more regulation. If you thought the 2008 economic meltdown was bad, brace for the next one because it’s going to be far worse because the creative investments the firms are selling now are even more risky and the banks are bigger and failier than ever before. I give them another two years before their greed and hubris collapse around them. We could have stopped that but we didn’t because of how or politics are financed. (And to be fair, Democrats didn’t do anything when they could have because they get paid off by the same people.) Maybe from that scrap heap we’ll fix things but that’s what I said in 2008 so I’m not that optimistic.
posted by Jorge on
The ACA (originally a Republican plan but not one they would ever have actually passed it seems)
Mitt Romney is not a Republican. Barack Obama is a Democrat.
posted by Lori Heine on
I am also the one who consistently says that if big corporations are no longer able to practice the protectionism that goes hand-in-hand with your “regulations,” many, many more businesses will be able to thrive–thereby providing jobs for those who need them.
I’ve tried reasoning, Tom. It doesn’t work with you.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’ve tried reasoning, Tom. It doesn’t work with you.
If it doesn’t, there are several possible explanations for that fact.
posted by Houndentenor on
Actually there are a lot of new businesses being started by people who are finally freed from the job they hated because thanks to the ACA they can now get insurance on their own. Anyone with a pre-existing condition was stuck with the same employer until now because no one would have sold them insurance (at least not that they could have afforded). I do think that’s going to show up in the economy over the next few years.
posted by Lori Heine on
If that’s true, then cosmic and cool beans. It would still help to make it easier for entrepreneurs, independent contractors and freelancers to start businesses and actually, um, hire people.
Insofar as there are explanations as to why I’m having difficulty reaching Tom, the insularity I previously mentioned may also play a part in it.
I come from the statist left, and was there for umpteen years. I know Tom’s position. I’ve simply come, as a result of life experience, to see it as wanting.
We are not getting the whole story from MSNBC or NPR, any more than we would from Fox or Rush Limbaugh. There’s simply more to it. Many of the millions of people in this country are simply not being heard. Their perspective would add much to the discussion.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Insofar as there are explanations as to why I’m having difficulty reaching Tom, the insularity I previously mentioned may also play a part in it. I come from the statist left, and was there for umpteen years. I know Tom’s position.
No, you assume you know my position. You assume that I’m “insular” and that I live in “the pretty little snow-globe in which relatively-well-off, middle-aged gay men live.” But you know next to nothing.
From what I’ve seen in your comments, you are off the mark at least half the time. Far off the mark.
posted by Lori Heine on
Of course I am. I do not advocate government-backed violence against my fellow citizens. As, time and time again, you have shown that you advocate that, you will certainly regard much of what I say as “far off the mark.”
I think that you are working against much of what you claim to believe in. And that the walloping the statist Dems got in this most recent election demonstrates that. You are more attached to the means you have chosen to use than to the end you supposedly seek. That I have hit a nerve in saying that explains why you are getting so testy.
I am very happy to agree to disagree with you.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
(Shucks) but surely the government should not be involved with health care, except abortion, Medicare, Medicare and social security and….
😉
posted by Lori Heine on
I’d be quite happy if violence were not needed in the implementation of any of them. And of course, anyone truly interested in democracy would agree. 😉
posted by Jorge on
Or maybe they’re just moderates at heart.
I suppose that’s a good thing, huh, Stephen? It might be, but if and only if you were interested in strengthening the stranglehold of social conservatives over the Republican Party. I am not. I think that the election of hard-core, anti-equality politicians like Tom Cotton, Jodi Ernst and Thom Tillis is a negative, not a positive. You are free to think otherwise.
Lesser evils, Tom.
In the case of the Republican Party, there has been little or no pressure from within. Gay and lesbian Republicans have put up no meaningful fight within the party, and have made no meaningful gains.
I think Carl DeMaio’s very existence as a candidate was more than significant, and the House Speaker’s support of his candidacy in spite of some radical opposition more than meaningful. Hostility and conflict are not the same as action.
So, looking forward, I don’t see much incentive for the Republican Party to turn, as I often put it. If the party is now freed from negative consequences of sticking with its social conservative base, what pressure is going to lead to change?
I really think Mr. Miller has the right of it here. I think all the talk about how and when a Supreme Court case on gay marriage might impact Republicans during the 2016 presidential campaign (generally arguing it is not in the Republican party’s best interest for it to be an issue) is reasonable and probably correct. I gauge the chances of Rick Santorum running for president again as a little low, but if he does, I think there will be a strong incentive for him not to make marriage an issue in the debates. I think you will see a shift in the party.
Especially if the Supreme Court were to decide the issue well before, but it looks like that’s unlikely.
posted by Don on
I tend to agree with Mark on what is going on with young generation republicans. Of course they are turned off by nasty anti-gay attitudes. They just don’t get them. But are they going to vote based upon them? It depends. All other things being equal, I think they would vote against anti-gay pols. But things are seldom that way.
Everyone’s pocketbook dominates their political ideology. And each party violates its “core principles” from time to time to woo a particular group of voters. But I don’t know a single lean-Republican hetero libertarian friend of mine who has voted for a single pro-equality candidate because of their extremely principled stand for gay rights. And I know a lot of them. Just the hint of a tax hike (that doesn’t seem to ever target them) is enough to vote R every time. And voting R basically means anti-gay in Florida. (hopefully not much longer)
I think that is what Lori is pointing to. “They don’t think like us” (but frankly, I’m kinda scared to even hint at what I think she means by her writing because it tends to tick her off and lead to a ‘nobody understands what I mean . . . ‘ lecture).
But I do agree with what she wrote. Equality is very important to many republicans. But not enough to get them to vote for a democrat. or to attach a condition to their campaign check.
And has Lori has pointed out here, I’m not so sure the Rs are the best thing for young people’s interests. And neither are the Ds. We definitely have policies directly targeting corporate interests at creating new markets that essentially fleece our fellow americans. pay day loans anyone? why are they even legal? why is this not an issue with either party (and just Elizabeth Warren doesn’t count)
posted by Doug on
I think the younger generation is going to remember that it was the Republicans who jacked up student loan interest rates and made a good education less attainable.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Equality is very important to many republicans. But not enough to get them to vote for a democrat. or to attach a condition to their campaign check.
… or, apparently, to vote in Republican primaries.
Look, the “issue polls” all show, and have for years and years, that LGBT issues are at the bottom of the heap for straight voters, typically deemed “important” by 1-2%. Most “issue polls” don’t even mention LGBT issues any more.
It is (or should be, anyway) no surprise that the pro-equality or anti-equality positions of a candidate are not much of a factor in general elections. Other issues predominate.
LGBT issues are important to two voting blocks — LGBT-allied voters (that is, gays and lesbians and close allies) and social conservatives. In general, LGBT-allied voters have aligned with the Democratic Party (about 70% of LGBT voters vote Democrat) and social conservatives have aligned with the Republican Party (about 80% of self-described religious conservatives vote with the Republican Party).
What seemed to be happening, for a while, was that there seemed to be a base of LGBT-allied voters developing in the Republican Party, voters who would abandon the Republican Party in general elections, either by voting Democratic or by not showing up, having a significant enough negative effect on Republican vote tallies to be of concern to Republican strategists.
That was what the Priebus “autopsy” was concerned about, and what all the yap about “60% of young Republicans support SSM” was all about.
We may yet see that come to pass, but this election suggests that we probably won’t. As everyone who has mentioned it (me, Lori, Mark, Don) has pointed out, the anti-equality positions taken by Republican politicians did not favor into less votes. We’ve drawn different conclusions from that result, each according to our particular political perspective. But the fact remains the fact — the younger generation of Republican voters was not a “change agent” in this election, and probably won’t be in 2016.
I hadn’t anticipated that, based on my own experience in the Democratic Party. In the Democratic Party, younger Democrats (mostly straight) were a critical change agent during the period 2006-2012, pushing and shoving older Democrats toward equality. The young people saw “equal means equal” as a core civil rights issue, and pushed and shoved, working with the LGBT Caucus (often criticizing us for our cautious and measured approach), making equality an important issue within the party. Without them, we would not have been able to turn the Democratic Party as quickly as we did.
I thought (as Stephen and many Republicans seemed to think) that something like this would happen in the Republican Party. It might yet, I suppose, but it hasn’t happened so far. I’m puzzled as to the difference between the two groups of younger voters, one Democrat-aligned and the other Republican-aligned, and I suspect that we are simply going to have to wait and see what happens.
I agree with Stephen that as marriage equality is taken off the table as an issue, the impetus for change in the Republican Party will lessen. The steam will go out of the kettle, so to speak. If Stephen is right about this election cycle, it already has. That does not bode well for the chances that the Republican Party will turn toward equality. It will not have to do so, and if it doesn’t have to, then there is no reason to risk losing the social conservatives.
In terms of equality, I don’t think that it makes much difference whether the Republican Party turns or remains the haven of social conservatives. We’ve won the American people over, and we’ll get to 70% (that’s where Canadian voters settled out over the course of a decade) support for “equal means equal” soon enough, absent a cataclysm.
I think that the days are gone when the Republican Party, working in concert with the FRC, NOM, AFA and others, can do too much damage. We are quickly headed into the mopping up phase of marriage equality, and while we will have to spend millions upon millions of dollars fighting off the worst effects of “religious freedom” exemptions, “don’t say gay” laws, and so on (much as women are doing with respect to reproductive rights issues), the equality core will remain intact.
posted by Lori Heine on
Don, please relax. Far from being “ticked off,” I think you’ve expressed what I was getting at very nicely.
Young voters (or would-be voters) are frightened and angry. They have to make a living, and they would like to have some sort of a future in this country. Just because those concerns weight more heavily on them than LGBT equality does not mean that most of them don’t support our rights.
And for the record, it doesn’t make me angry when people here disagree with me. I get a lot of material from the conversations that take place here. If everybody stopped saying funny things, I’d feel bereft.
posted by Don on
touché
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
Turnout voters in midterm elections tends to be more conservative (compared to say, presidential elections) and the party with a majority is probably going take the brunt of voter anger or frustration (no matter how rational or irrational it may be)
as an example….In state legislative races in Minnesota the marriage equality issue was raised by Republicans hoping to court the ‘rural values’ sentiment….especially when the GOP candidate for governor was from (largely) rural west central Minnesota.
Did it work? It may have in some state house races, but less so at the statewide level.
Then again voter turnout was not great – by MN standards – and it’s possible that many voters simply stayed home or wasted their ballot on a Green or Libertarian or Reform third party candidate.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A quick footnote on the status of court cases around the country – Wikipedia posts and frequently updates a map of marriage status in the various states. As of this morning, 33 states are marriage equality states. Marriage discrimination is under legal attack in the balance, with cases at various stages of development.
A recap of recent developments, sorted by Circuit:
4th Circuit
SOUTH CAROLINA – A federal district court has overturned the marriage equality ban, bringing the state into conformity with the rest of teh 4th Circuit, but stayed the decision until this Thursday. AG Alan Wilson has indicated that the state will appeal the decision, based on South Carolina’s “unique laws”. As the stay deadline approaches this week, expect petitions for an emergency stay to be filed.
6th Circuit
KENTUCKY, MICHIGAN, OHIO, TENNESSEE – The first two appeals (Ohio and Tennessee) from Judge Sutton’s opinion were filed with the Supreme Court yesterday, and the remaining two (Kentucky and Michigan) are expected within a matter of days. The Michigan and Tennesse cases involve recognition of out-of-state marriages, but do not directly involve in-state marriage issues. The Kentucky and Michigan cases involve both in-state and out-of-state marriages. The appeals will set the stage for a cert decision in time for the Court to docket the case for hearing next Spring, ff that is what the Court decides to do.
The upcoming scheduled conferences (the days when the Justices meet to consider whether to take cases) are November 25, December 5 and December 12, with (in each case) orders typically issued the following Monday. Although expected, a cert grant is not inevitable. Cert grants are discretionary with the Court, and the Court could, if it elected to do so, put the decision on “hold” until the 5th, 8th and/or 11th Circuit opinions are rendered. The Court has the discretionary power to keep the 6th Circuit cases on “hold” into the next term while it waits to see what happens in the 5th, 8th and 11th Circuits, although such a move would be unusual.
MICHIGAN – Governor Rick Snyder directed the state’s lawyers to file a motion in federal District Court to invalidate the 300 Michigan marriages that took place between the District Court’s marriage equality decision and the 6th Circuit’s ruling that the decision was in error. The state’s brief argues that “[F]rom a legal standpoint, because the marriages rested solely on the district court’s erroneous decision, which has now been reversed, it is as if the marriages never existed, and Plaintiffs’ requests for benefits attendant to a legal marriage must be denied.” Pending a decision, Snyder has indicated that the state will not recognize the marriages. We may well see this issue perculate up through the counts over the next few months. The marriages present legal questions distinct from the marriage equality cases.
8th Circuit
MISSOURI – Missouri is a complicated mess of a state, legally. At this point, St. Louis enjoys marriage equality, but the rest of the state does not. Out-of-state marriages are recognized in the entire state. An equality decision was issued by a federal district court covering the entire state, but is stayed indefinitely pending appeal.
SOUTH DAKOTA – A federal district court judge denied South Dakota’s motion to dismiss the marriage equality case, setting the stage for trial/hearing/decision in the coming months.
9th Circuit
MONTANA – District Judge Brian Morris cancelled a November 20 hearing on marriage equality, and indicated that he will rule shortly. Because Montana is the last holdout in the 9th Circuit, a favorable decision is expected.
ARIZONA – In an odd and curious development, Justices Scalia and Thomas used an unrelated Arizona case (relating to bail bond for illegal immigrants) to register their displeasure about the Court’s October 6th cert denial in the 4th, 7th and 10th Circuit cases. After citing a number of cases in which state laws had been declared unconstitutional, the statement, written by Justice Thomas with a concurrence from Justice Scalia, went on: “But, for reasons that escape me, we have not done so with any consistency, especially in recent months.” The citations to that statement were the October 6th cert denials and none other. Folks are speculating about the statement, but I haven’t a clue about what it might portend. We can be damn sure that we won’t be getting pro-equality votes from Justices Scalia and Thomas.
10th Circuit
KANSAS – The fight continues in Kansas, after the Supreme Court refused last week to stay a District Court decision nullifying the state’s ban on marriage equality. AG Derek Schmidt issued an opinion that the order nullifying the ban has effect in only two counties, and, at last count, only six of the state’s 105 counties are issuing licenses. I expect that the ACLU will petition Judge Richard Fairchild to clarify that his decision applies statewide, but I don’t think that has happened as of yet. Governor Brownback and AG Schmidt seem determined to make the state’s progress to equality as slow and painful as possible, but they are banging their hard heads against a harder wall, it seems to me.
11th CIRCUIT
FLORIDA – AG Bondi filed an appeal in the federal case yesterday, setting the stage for an 11th Circuit decision by next Spring. The state’s appeal puts heavy reliance on Baker. The federal decision is stayed until January 5. State court decisions are in various stages, and the situation is complicated.
MISSISSIPPI – The federal district court hearing on marriage equality concluded last week. The state’s lawyer pretty much flubbed oral arguments, as was the case with Wisconsin’s lawyers at the 7th Circuit. We will almost certainly see a pro-equality District Court decision handed down in the next week or two, and Mississippi clerks are reported to be preparing to issue licenses if a stay is not issued with the decision. If appealed to the 11th Circuit (as it almost certainly will be), that will add a second case to the 11th Circuit’s docket.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Thanks again Tom for your legal analysis. Combine your expertise with Wikipedia’s amazingly current and continuously updated map, and this whole soap opera is easier to follow. The situation in Kansas is pitting fiscal conservatives against the soc cons. Read the comments on any article on this issue from a Kansas newspaper-a big theme is stop wasting taxpayer money on this (especially given Kansas’ financial problems). But Brownback and Schmidt are showing their allegiance to the soc cons. Money is no object with the soc cons on this issue. If thousands of taxpayer dollars are wasted fighting Marriage Equality, so be it. MI Gov. Snyder is just being a cruel bastard. Can’t people see that he’s more than willing to turn peoples’ lives upside down, all in the name of pleasing the fundie base? At this point, the remaining states are trying to get bragging rights to see which one will be the last to get equality. It will be a badge of honor for them.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
MI Gov. Snyder is just being a cruel bastard. Can’t people see that he’s more than willing to turn peoples’ lives upside down, all in the name of pleasing the fundie base? At this point, the remaining states are trying to get bragging rights to see which one will be the last to get equality. It will be a badge of honor for them.
Yeah, but Governor Snyder is likely to get his name on the case (Deboer v. Snyder), immortalized as the man who stood in the courthouse door shouting “one-man, one-woman now, one-man, one-woman tomorrow, one-man, one-woman forever”.
That trumps last anytime. The rest of the Republican pack will just be asterisks the in Jesusland Hall of Fame.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Update:
The Michigan and Kentucky appeals were filed today.
To my mind, the Michigan case is the most logical case (of the several being appealed from the 6th Circuit) for a cert grant, because has a near-perfect combination of legal elements to support a national decision:
(1) Marriage Equality. Unlike the Ohio and Tennessee cases (which involve recognition of out-of-state marriages), the Michigan case is focused on the right to marry in Michigan, an element that is essential for a ruling that anti-marriage laws and amendments are unconstitutional. Deciding out-of-state recognition may be important, but follows from an in-state decision, and a decision on out-of-state recognition does not resolve the in-state issue.
(2) Trial of Fact/Record. Alone among the cases decided by the 6th Circuit, the Michigan decision followed a trial that establishes an evidentary record. In the other cases, District Court judges issued decisions after considering written arguments, with no cross examination of any witnesses or experts.
(3) Full Court Press Defense. Governor Synder and AG Schuette are making a full-court press to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Michigan (down to and including legal action to invalidate the state’s 300 “window” marriages). The Michigan case does not involve standing distractions (e.g. the Prop 8 case) and assures that the Supreme Court will be fully briefed on the anti-marriage issues by parties determined to keep marriage equality at bay.
(4) Children. The couples involved in the Michigan case have children that they are raising together, and Michigan law denies the couple parenthood rights. The effect on children has been a key consideration for Justice Kennedy in other cases considered by the Supreme Court.
In a nutshell, the Michigan case is a clean vehicle for decision, hitting the right buttons, without distractions over other issues. The states involved will have an opportunity to respond, but if the states move with reasonable dispatch (and it does not appear that any of the states involved oppose Supreme Court review, the Court should be able to docket the cases during the 2014-2015 term if that is what the Court elects to do. Most observers think that they will.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
It is a bit premature to read too much into one election cycle (although anytime that Democrats or Republicans go from a minority – to – majority, that tends to be what the ‘experts’ love to do).
Neither major party is deeply loved by a significant number of voters, mainly because a large block of voters are not really tied to a party by a strict ideaology. These are (generally) referred to as being Independent/swing voters.
Idealogical based voters are not (necessarily) a bad thing, but when elected officials are increasingly feeling the idealogical pressure, it becomes harder and harder for the sort of compromises (necessary to get stuff done) to occur.
posted by Doug on
“It is a bit premature to read too much into one election cycle. . . ”
Especially true given that only 36% of eligible voters voted.