Joke of a Poll
February 19th, 2007 by Peter
Last week’s Granny thread led to some serious back-and-forth on the recent Quinnipiac poll and nonbinding referendums. The poll stacked the deck by bundling civil unions and same-sex “marriage” in the same question instead of asking a question just on same-sex “marriage.” And even with this bias the poll shows a majority opposing same-sex “marriage.” (I discussed this in my Saturday debate with Anne Stanback on WATR’s Special Edition. I will also be on Ed Flynn’s show on the same station tomorrow at 11 a.m. and will be taping a segment of the Face of Pro-Life public access tv show tomorrow night–check local listings.)
On nonbinding referendums, here’s my final comment on it from the Granny thread:
The more we research it the more it seems the mechanism for a non-binding state referendum may actually be quite straight-forward. It would be put on the ballot as outlined in the amendment below offered in 1991 that would have required a non-binding referendum on the income tax. Note at the bottom that Governor Rell co-sponsored this non-binding referendum when she was a state rep. More importantly read the fiscal analysis. While the Secretary of the State lays out the cost, there was clearly no mention in the fiscal analysis or anywhere else that there is “no mechanism” to do this. The legislature can do this simply by passing this sort of bill and asking the people’s opinion on the question.
Gabe notes that he’s not arguing it’s illegal. Fair enough. The reason gay-marriage supporters are arguing that there is “no process” to do this has nothing to do with the legality of a non-binding referendum and everything to do with one simple fact: proponents of same-sex “marriage” know that they will lose at the ballot box. They will do everything in their power to stop any sort of direct vote on same-sex “marriage”–even a non-binding one.
Even Quinnipiac University’s ridiculously biased poll (Lumping civil unions and same-sex marriage into one question–come on guys, can’t you do better than that?) found a majority oppose same-sex marriage. Given that the same sort of biased polls showed Michigan voters almost split evenly a day before Michigan voters voted 59%-41% against same-sex marriage, you can pretty safely assume that our margins would be much larger in a statewide vote.
There’s much more to be said on this, and we will at the Rally and after.
AMENDMENT BILL NUMBER:
FISCAL NOTE(Form 2) FILE NUMBER:
(Office of Fiscal Analysis) AMENDMENTS: LCO #4824
Analyst: (To sSB 459, File 444)
tc Cal. 320
Version: 3
TITLE: “AN ACT CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF ESTIMATED PERSONAL
INCOME TAX.”
FAVORABLY REPORTED BY
SUMMARY: The amendment provides that a non-binding referendum
be conducted on January 5, 1992. The question to be used on
the voting machine ballot labels shall be the Connecticut
General Assembly can make changes to the state’s tax
structure this year. Should the General Assembly: 1) Repeal
the income tax and increase the taxes on sales, unearned
income and business to replace lost revenue? 2) change the
income tax to reduce taxes for families earning less than
114,000 dollars, heads of households earning less than 85,000
dollars and individuals earning less than 57,000 dollars and
raising tax rates for families, heads of households and
individuals earning more than such amounts? 3) make no change
in the income tax. 4) sunset the present tax code and adopt a
restructured code by June 30, 1995?
EFFECTIVE DATE:
* * * * *
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT – BILL NUMBER sSB 459
STATE IMPACT Cost, see explanation below
MUNICIPAL IMPACT Cost, see explanation below
STATE AGENCY(S) Office of the Secretary of the
State
EXPLANATION OF ESTIMATES:
The Office of the Secretary of the State will incur a
cost of approximately $10,000 for the printing of
materials (explanatory texts, posters, etc.) associated
with the referendum.
MUNICIPAL IMPACT: It is anticipated that passage of
this amendment will result in additional costs to
municipalities. The extent of the additional costs is
indeterminate.
“THIS DOCUMENT IS PREPARED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF
INFORMATION, SUMMARIZATION AND EXPLANATION. IT DOES NOT
REPRESENT THE INTENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR EITHER
HOUSE THEREOF FOR ANY PURPOSE.”
TITLE:AN ACT CONCERNING A NONBINDING REFERENDUM ON THE STATE INCOME TAX.
STATEMENT:
To require a nonbinding referendum on the income tax.
ACTIONS:
03-11 REF. TO JOINT COMM. ON Government Administration and Elections
03-12 PUBLIC HEARING 03/16 (PH0316)
03-30 FILED WITH LEG. COMMISSIONER
04-01 RPTD. OUT OF L.C.
04-01 FAV. CHG. OF REF., HO. TO COMM.ON Finance, Revenue and Bonding
04-01 FAV. CHG. OF REF., SEN. TO COMM. ON Finance, Revenue and Bonding
CO-SPONSORS:
REP. MUNNS, 9th DIST.; REP. NORTON, 48th DIST.
REP. KRAWIECKI, 78th DIST.; REP. RELL, 107th DIST.
REP. WARD, 86th DIST.; REP. O’NEILL, 69th DIST.
REP. CARUSO, 134th DIST.; REP. TAYLOR, 79th DIST.
REP. VARESE, 112th DIST.; REP. LUNDFELT, 37th DIST.
REP. METSOPOULOS, 132nd DIST.; REP. DANDROW, 30th DIST.
REP. FAHRBACH, 61st DIST.; REP. WINKLER, 41st DIST.
REP. HOLBROOK, 35th DIST.; REP. BURNHAM, 147th DIST.
So you point to an obscure, symbolic amendment that was never approved and went nowhere as proof of… what? As far as your argument – it is not the job of the Office of Fiscal Analysis to evaluate whether a law can be implemented, and the bill’s authors are not going to point out in the legislation that their proposal is silly and bogus. There are thousands of bills and amendments – many as frivolous and stupid as this one — that go nowhere every year. That doesn’t make them advisable or that they can or should be implemented.
Peter – As Yawn aptly points out, the OFA is responsible for the fiscal analysis in bills, not the department that will carry out the legislature (here, the SoS).
Also, since this amendment did not pass, it is not a precedent of anything. Is this what you meant when you wrote, “Gabe, as you probably don’t know because you limit yourself to repeating the same lame mantras ad nauseum, Sen. DeLuca and others have cited a previous nonbinding referendum held in the early 90’s on spending caps as a precedent for what FIC is seeking.”? Because if it was, you owe me an apology for asserting that I was “repeating the same lame mantras ad nauseum,” while you were repeating, as a precedent, something that very clearly is not a precedent of anything (except not having enough votes to pass a call for a nonbinding referendum – something that you may have to get used to). Is it “ad nauseum” to bring it up again?
And if you have the votes in the legislature to successfully call for a nonbinding referendum, why not start the process of a Constitutional Amendment? Or is all this just to create a faux “the left won’t vote on it” talking point?
Yawn indeed, Yawn. Soporific in fact.
Ahem.
Point taken, Gabe.
Peter – You attacked me, you had your facts wrong, and now you have said nothing about it. I am sad.
Gabe
On getting my facts wrong, the worst that could be said is that “precedent” is arguably too strong a word for the 1991 amendment. It is still the case that 1) that it could not be done appears not to have been a factor in the amendment’s defeat 2) as I said in a previous comment, it may simply be that any hypothetical bill would have to create a procedure for holding a non-binding referendum and 3) according to Sen. McDonald the SoS and AG disagree on whether nonbinding referendums are possible.
On attacking you, the “as you probably don’t know” line was in response to your “as you well know” line on how a nonbinding referendum “constitutionally cannot happen.” I don’t mind disagreement but I take exception to being accused of deceit–which was my interpretation of “as you well know.” I’ve laid out arguments for why we think this may be possible and if you think it’s not, well, fine. But please don’t accuse me of being a liar.
By the way, back in the “state’s pro-abortion lobbyists renew attack on religious freedom” thread you claimed that the “proposal on the table simply says” that all hospitals that accept public monies must provide Plan B. When I pointed out that–how shall I put this?–you *got your facts wrong*–because the only proposal then on the table (S.B. 685) made no mention of public monies–you…said nothing about it. And I was not sad.
I guess I am more sensetive than you – must be because I am a bleeding heart liberal…