Constitutional Amendments as a Strategy for Your Cause
This is gonna be a little twisty and winding, so just hang with me.
My friend Pat posted the following in the cinna.mn facebook group:
Minnesota is portrayed as a liberal and inclusive state. If that is so why do they have a law that prohibits cities and counties from offering domestic partner benefits. The state can do it, corporations can and do offer domestic partner benefits. Advocacy organizations want to take things slow to obtain these rights Their motto is “Don’t rock the boat Baby” – I will probably be dead before this law is changed and I can obtain health insurance through my partner.
I’ve already stated that I support the legislative approach recommended by Project 515, OutFront Minnesota, and the Family Equality Council. I know that’s a long road, but let’s face it, any progress is gonna be a long road (and damn you, Minnesota, for being just progressive enough to keep giving me false hope).
So the above had me thinking about the whole process of how anything gets done in the legislature and the related topic of the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment to the Minnesota state constitution that is on this year’s ballot. And I had this thought:
I still disagree that a constitutional amendment is an appropriate way to mandate budget decisions. That’s the only reason I’m voting no on [the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment] and voted no on the Transportation Amendment, but I’m not at all opposed to the particulars of either cause.
However, the reason these even exist is because the legislature failed to do it. The people have circumvented the legislature to provide funding for causes they believe in (transportation/transit, environment, arts).
A group of state reps did go so far as to write up a Marriage Protection bill (the irony of that terminology kills me), but it died in committee.
So what would it look like if a constitutional amendment in favor of equal protection for same-sex couples ended up on the ballot (nowadays)? I need to read up more on the process. How did the Transpo and Enviro/Arts amendments come to be?
So I did read up on the process. In Minnesota, a constitutional amendment is proposed and ratified in three steps.
- The legislature passes an act to change the constitution
- Constitutional amendments appear on different ballots from the regular ballot
- Amendments must be approved by a majority voting in an election, not just a majority voting on the amendment
The most important parts here are #1 and #3. This in mind, I may have almost changed my mind. As I noted in the comments of this discussion:
The legislature has to approve putting the amendment on the ballot and as such it lets them pass the buck and absolves them of responsibility for making tough decisions (and potentially unpopular votes).
However, I’ve decided that I don’t mind paying extra for things that I believe need funding when I have the money to pay. And in this case I actually have a say in it, unlike, say, Twins stadium funding.
We end up with amendments like this because the people believe strongly enough in a cause that the legislature has failed to act on. As was also noted in those comments, government by referendum isn’t always a good thing. But the principle here is that the people have spoken.
Someone who knows more about the actual writing and proposal of the amendment can jump in at any time. There is the argument that a well-organized interest group with a well-crafted message (such as those behind the Clean Water/Land/Legacy Amendment which — surprise! — has arts funding in it and is not just about the environment) can essentially slip one past the public, because the actual ballot language is rather vague. (FYI, here’s the full text of the bill.)
So.
Speaking of well-organized interest groups with well-crafted messages, that’s where we come back to the topic of marriage equality.
A group of legislators did, with the help of a particularly engaged citizen, craft a bill. They can reintroduce the bill. The problem with a bill is that it goes through committees and legislators then get to pick it apart, re-write it, and come to a consensus that both the state house and the state senate can agree on, all while keeping their own personal re-election in the back of their heads. So what’s probably a perfectly good bill to start with gets watered down, and then after all that it may or may not pass.
Some will say that a watered down version of a bill may be more palatable and thus have a better chance of passing (especially if it goes down the road of that separate-but-equal civil union bullshit), and that something is better than nothing.
An amendment, on the other hand, is less specific and farther reaching. An amendment can give us full marriage equality in Minnesota in one fell swoop. (Granted, this situation is not quite analogous because there’s no budget mandate involved as with the two amendments I mentioned above.)
Do we hope the people will see the light and be on our side? Or do we roll the dice and see whether our legislators will play the game or do the right thing (because legislators always go back and forth between what their constituents want and what they feel like doing and obviously those are not always the same thing)? Or do you sue?
How strongly do the people believe in this cause?
