Monday, November 13th, 2006...7:59 am
Prop. 107: Still Failing
The “Protect Marriage Arizona” ammendment is still failing by approxamately 40,000 votes, according to the Secretary of State’s website.
So, why did we not pass this in Arizona, when such ammendments have passed easily in other states?
I have a couple of theories. One is that this particular ammendment over-reached. Had the ammendment been strictly drawn to only declare gay marriage illegal, it probably would have passed. However, it included language that opponents claimed would have denied any sort of government recognition of unmarried couples of any stripe. This came off to many voters as mean spirited.
Also, the demographics have changed greatly in this state. Although the ammendment failed in three rural counties (one was the Flagstaff dominated Coconino County), it passed overwhelmingly in most of them. Even ten years ago, similar percentages in the rural counties would have made this ammendment pass by a decent margin. However, there just seemed to not be votes in the rural areas to make up for the margins it failed by in the urban counties. For example, the votes that were cast in favor of the ammendment in relatively populous Yavapai county (34,896) were nearly whiped out by the margin by which the ammendment lost in Pima County (32,854). In fact, the losing margin in Pima County alone was more than the total votes cast on the ammendment in 9 of the state’s 13 counties. We still like to think of Arizona as the “Old West,” but the state has been dominated by the urban areas for years, and is becoming more so every month.
I think there was also a mis-reading of the conservatism of the electorate. We have our share of social conservatives here, but when I talk to voters, their conservatism tends to be of the small-l libertarian brand. Look at who Arizona’s conservative hero is: Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was often silent on social issues, and on the few occasions that he was vocal he would usually be on the opposite side of the so-called “values voters.”
The last hot button social issue that made the ballot was Proposition 110 back in 1992. 110 would have restricted abortion. It only passed in two counties (ironically, one was Apache county, which didn’t pass this one). As before, Arizonans have a live-and-let-live streak that wasn’t appreciated by the backers of this ammendment.
7 Comments
November 13th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Try more than 40,000 votes according to the Pima County Election’s page, which shows it, as of 11/10 618 pm, 110276 yes, 150,663 no. Jan may not be updating this page, which shows it updated as of 11/13 and still shows the 33,000 vote difference in Pima, but shows it narrowly failing in Apache by 72 votes now. Maricopa and Coconino’s figures are right as well.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Tedski
I think two things account for the defeat of Prop. 107.
I agree with you in part on the overreaching of benefits, however, a number of other states have included benefits in their successful marriage amendments.
I agree that we are less of a conservative state than many people suspect, but less than Michigan and Ohio? Both states have passed a Marriage Amendment that also bans civil unions.
What was unique in Arizona was the “No” campaign run by Arizona together. They made it about benefits from day one, and featured heterosexual couples in their advertising. By contrast, the “Yes” campaign never addressed the issue of benefits, and ran a horrible, invisible campaign.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Tedski
I think two things account for the defeat of Prop. 107.
I agree with you in part on the overreaching of benefits, however, a number of other states have included benefits in their successful marriage amendments.
I agree that we are less of a conservative state than many people suspect, but less than Michigan and Ohio? Both states have passed a Marriage Amendment that also bans civil unions.
What was unique in Arizona was the “No” campaign run by Arizona together. They made it about benefits from day one, and featured heterosexual couples in their advertising. By contrast, the “Yes” campaign never addressed the issue of benefits, and ran a horrible, invisible campaign.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
The domestic benefits part of the Proposition killed this. Look also at who ran this campaign? Nathan Sproul….failed in 2004 in Nevada gathering signatures; failure in 2006 in the Governor’s race (Len Munsil) and the Prop 107. The only good thing is , Sproul will be finished as a GOP consultant in Arizona.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
” Had the ammendment been strictly drawn to only declare gay marriage illegal, it probably would have passed.”
probably?
If 107 had only been about gay marriage it would have passed by over 60%. It would have been “bundled” with the anti-immigration measures.
All the points about Arizonans’ unique status are true, but without domestic partner benefits, there would have been very little for opposition to gain traction with.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
I think the “overreach” part is partially spin from the other side. Look at Wisconsin’s. It passed with 57% yes votes and was worded the same way.
No, this has much to do with the libertarian west versus the more evangelical midwest and south.
I am gay and have never been treated differently in Arizona because of it. The transient population seems more live and let live than other places. Plus, Arizona is no stranger to gay politicians.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Arizona Together did not make it about benefits since day one. In fact, there was quite a bit of back-and-forth about strategy. There were divisions and disagreements galore over the past two years. Ultimately, Pima County split off from AT and created its own parallel campaign, No on 107. The win can be attributed to CAP’s overreaching, small-l libertarians, and the coordinated efforts of local campaigns in Pima County (No on 107) and Maricopa County (Arizona Together). Local people running local campaigns put the no vote over the top where it counted, in the urban counties that decisively defeated this hate amendment.
Leave a Reply