A (State) Constitutional Poison Pill

This most recent application of rule by bureaucratic fiat is brought to you, once again, by the State of California and, more specifically, Attorney General Jerry Brown. Go figure.

After the California State Supreme Court ruled gay marriage legal under the state's Constitution, opponents of gay marriage have put forth a petition to put Proposition 8 on the ballot, which would amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriage. So far, so straightforward.

Enter Jerry Brown.

The Attorney General is responsible, in most states, for approving the language used on the ballot to describe various proposals that have been placed up for vote by petition. Jerry Brown, however, may have crossed boundaries (as well as wires) in coming up with his most recent plan.

If at first you don't like the proposal, apparently, change the ballot language.

The language for Proposition 8, as was suggested by petition circulators: "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

As changed by Brown, it takes a bit more (er, a lot more) pointed of a turn: "Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments."

Of course, the "eliminate right" part rankles some, although still is relatively accurate, even if the "right" was only created out of whole cloth recently on the part of the judiciary.

What bugs me, obviously, is the "Fiscal Impact" statement.

Last I checked, Jerry Brown was an absolute failure as a former Governor as well as a former Mayor of Oakland, yet he somehow ended up as the state AG (more than likely because he got the Democratic nomination; few Republicans win statewide office in CA). He is not an economist, or particularly well-versed in fiscal matters (as if the "former California Governor" thing wasn't a dead giveaway enough). Yet why would he sign off on a statement with ultimately no clear impact, just a handful of weasel words?

I have no problems with a state AG modifying ballot proposal language to more clearly illuminate the issues being addressed, but to inject personal opinion to it one way or another is unconscionable.

What I would like to see is, no more and no less, a word-for-word layout of the wording intended to be put in the state Constitution, and let the voters decide. I don't care about the logistics of it, or the amount of reading this may require; an informed voter is an informed voter. Obviously, I also do not have much faith in the state's Department of Finance, who draw up the impact statements. (This "unknown millions in costs" statement also appears in Proposal 2, an animal-rights-led farm reform proposal, Proposal 4, a bill to require parental notification for a minor's abortion, and Proposal 9, a victim's rights proposal requiring victim notification and opportunity for input in sentencing, probation, and/or parole hearings.)

Having one miserable wretch of a career politician substitute his own preferences for the task of accurately presenting a ballot initiative to the voters is not only unconscionable, but a dereliction of his duties as California Attorney General.

The Evangelical case against Mitt Romney

The Washington Times is reporting that various Evangelical leaders are imploring John McCain not to select former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as his running mate on the 2008 Republican Presidential ticket. There are three main reasons for this, neither of which I am particularly fond of.

1. Mitt Romney is not particularly strong on social issues like gay marriage and abortion. Romney admits to developing a pro-life position only within the last decade and was governor when the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, both things that make some in the Evangelical community skittish. Never mind that Romney's position on abortion as governor was to the right of McCain's, or that Romney led an unsuccessful effort to overturn the gay marriage legalization in Massachusetts - it's a "what have you done for me lately?" sort of a proposition. Needless to say, by that metric, Romney is especially weak.

2. Evangelical leaders have other people in mind. Namely, in the case of some leading megachurch pastors, there is a push for former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist minister running on a populist platform, to be McCain's VP candidate. Although eventually picking up a handful more delegates than Romney, Huckabee's appeal was largely limited to the Deep South, and stayed in the race for about two months longer than Romney did, largely relying on a rather impressive grassroots network. As much as I think that Huckabee would be a terrible candidate (he seems less Ronald Reagan and more Jimmy Carter), I can't begrudge people their own personal preferences. I'd just prefer they be more open about it.

3. Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Some religious leaders are suspicious of Romney's Mormon faith, considering him to not be a Christian, and therefore diminished in standing in their eyes. Personally, I find this to be, in some ways, analogous to anti-Catholic sentiment prior to JFK's electoral victory in 1960, and just as baseless. I am less interested in what a politician might do with respect to a particular religion than I am concerned about how that politician will impact America as a whole for better or for worse. I am a Christian of an Evangelical stripe, but I cannot begrudge somebody who is sincere in their religious faith.

The main weight behind these threats is that Evangelical leaders will encourage their followers to stay home on Election Day if a VP candidate not to their liking is selected. And then what? Have Barack Obama elected? As dicey as some may think Romney is on sanctity of life issues, even the most strident pro-lifer would have to agree that most any Republican is better on the issue than Obama, who carries a 100% rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Also, the power on most social issues rests from judicial appointments, which are the domain of the President, not the Vice President. Considering John McCain is a potential mixed bag on judges, it's possible that those lines of thinking should have been considered long before making McCain the presumptive nominee. In fact, adding Huckabee to the ticket could possibly have the disastrous effect of having economic conservatives either stay home or vote Libertarian, with the only options on the Republican ticket being somebody with an inconsistent record and one with almost no record, but a wide streak of populist, protectionist rhetoric.

Of course, this may all be for naught - McCain has made a career out of not making friends with the Evangelical community, and whatever direction they try to prod him into may end up causing the exact opposite to take place.

Sen. Ted Stevens indicted...

...on seven counts related to graft

From seeing the Senate's King of Pork in action all these years, I must say, I must say...

...it couldn't have happened to a better person.