Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Maine Question 1 Results

Timothy Kincaid and Jim Burroway

November 3rd, 2009

10:56 AM
575 precincts reporting (95%)
Yes: 293,228 – 52.90%
No:  261,071 – 47.10%

With a final tally like this, I think this should probably put talk of a recount to rest. We lost this one, and it really hurts badly.

2:05 AM
523 precincts reporting (86%)
Yes: 266,324 – 52.75%
No:  238,595 – 47.25%

The Associated Press declares Question 1 passed, and Protect Maine Equality has conceded:

Yesterday, hundreds of thousands of Maine voters stood for equality, but in the end, it wasn’t enough.

I am proud of the thousands of Mainers who knocked on doors, made phone calls and talked to their family, friends and neighbors about the basic premise of treating all Maine families equally.

And I’m proud of this campaign because the stories we told and the images we shared were of real Mainers — parents who stood up for their children, and couples who simply wanted to marry the person they love.

We’re in this for the long haul. For next week, and next month, and next year– until all Maine families are treated equally.  Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.

Thank you. Thank you for everything you did. Thank you for digging deep and giving one more dollar to run our TV ads, for making those phone calls for one more hour. This campaign was, from the beginning, powered by people like you who rolled up their sleeves and did the hard work of change.

12:53
523 precincts reporting (86%)
Yes: 265,189 – 52.74%
No:  237,638 – 47.26%

It’s still close, and a lot of precincts have not yet reported — with the Portland are, being the most significant, and the most pro-NO.

12:42
509 precincts reporting (84%)
Yes: 256,671 – 52.60%
No:  231,314 – 47.40%

Adam Blink (Update 47) says:

The No On 1 campaign manager, Jesse Connolly, just went down with us to the ballroom and announced that the race is too close to call and they are still counting. The counting could continue well into the morning. There will be no concession or declaration of victory, it appears, tonight. Things are extremely tight and no news media so far has called the race either.

12:34
502 precincts reporting (83%)
Yes: 251,213 – 52.41%
No:  228,079 – 47.59%

Rex Wockner says the No on 1 campaign is not conceding:

[12:26 a.m.] Campaign Director Jesse Connolly says absentee ballots have not been counted, and neither have towns and villages.

12:29
497 precincts reporting (82%)
Yes: 248,965 – 52.39%
No:  226,239 – 47.61%

12:20
483 precincts reporting (80%)
Yes: 242,158 – 52.47%
No:  219,389 – 47.53%

12:14
475 precincts reporting (79%)
Yes: 237,749 – 52.32%
No:  216,667 – 47.68%

12:10
463 precincts reporting (77%)
Yes: 231,273 – 52.22%
No:  211,634 – 47.78%

Adam Blink says that No on 1 is preparing for a recount and has the run-down on the process (at update 46):

  • The campaign has to wait for certification from the Sec of State, which will happen after all absentee ballots come in. In Maine, there is a no-excuse absentee ballot law and she expects there to be a “significant” number of absentees.
  • The certification takes a maximum of 20 days but is almost always done before then. The campaign has to pay a nominal fee (ranging from a few hundred bucks to $10K but more likely to be a few hundred) depending on how close the vote is.
  • The recount is statewide, all or nothing. Not challenging individual precincts.
  • Based on past experience, the recount will take at least a few weeks and likely longer than that.

12:04
459 precincts reporting (76%)
Yes: 228,140 – 52.13%
No:  209,520 – 47.87%

12:00
451 precincts reporting (75%)
Yes: 223,841 – 51.99%
No:  206,741 – 48.01%

11:56
439 precincts reporting (73%)
Yes: 219,747 – 51.86%
No:  203,956 – 48.14%

11:50
424 precincts reporting (70%)
Yes: 214,182 – 51.83%
No:  199,036 – 48.17%

11:33
395 precincts reporting (65%)
Yes: 197,471 – 51.59%
No:  185321 – 48.41%

Adam Blink is reporting from the No on 1 campaign: “After talking with some people here, based on projections from the campaign and looking at the rural numbers starting to trickle in, there is a very, very good chance of a recount, and we’re making preparations for that.”

11:14
350 precincts reporting (58%)
Yes: 175,990 – 51.29%
No:  167,158 – 48.71%

10:47
There appears to be a lull in reporting (Timothy)

10:21
172 precincts reporting (28%)
Yes: 74,802 – 50.51%
No:  73,293 – 49.49%

9:54
132 precincts reporting (22%)
Yes: 55,267 – 49.38%
No:  56,659 – 50.62%

9:38
100 precincts reporting (17%)
Yes: 35,892 – 47.70%
No:  37,891 – 51.30%

9:21
82 precincts reporting (14%)
Yes: 29,575 – 47.51%
No:  32,670 – 52.51%

The larger cities are now beginning to report in. (Jim Burroway)

8:59
32 precincts reporting (5%)
Yes: 12,524 – 45.42%
No:  14,988 – 54.48%

The larger cities are now beginning to report in. (Jim Burroway)

8:38
15 precincts reporting (2%)
Yes – 3,837 – 50.67%
No – 3,736 – 49.33%

And there’s the first sign of bad news. As the night goes on we should expect shifts in both directions. We can only hope and pray that in the end that Mainers decided to be good citizens and neighbors.

8:23
6 precincts reporting:
No – 2,064 – 61.70%
Yes – 1,281 – 38.30%

Still WAY too early to mean anything at all. But at least it is nice to start the night in the right position.

8:01 EST
Two precincts reporting:
No – 45 – 88%
Yes – 6 – 12%

Can’t we just quit counting now?

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Richard W. Fitch
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Any idea regarding the demographics of these two precincts? Let’s not get our hopes too high too soon.

thetroubleis
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Which precincts? I have hope, but not too much at this point.

Leonard Drake
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

I am not going to be optimistic — yet. I would like to get reports from the polls in the rural districts before I get my hopes up.

Matt
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Yes side just took the lead, 50-49%. Still only 2 percent of precincts reporting in.

Matt
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

A big swing the other way- NO now leads by about 2500 votes with 5% reporting.

Matt
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

14% reporting, NO leading by about 3000 votes (52.5/47.5)

Dan
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

I read someplace that about 100,000 votes were cast by mail. We might not know the results tonight.

Richard W. Fitch
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

On another front, the Equality vote has won in Kalamazoo MI!!!!

Burr
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

You can get more in depth coverage from the No on 1 campaign here.. They seem pretty upbeat but grounded so far.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15830/maine-election-results-thread-2

Bryan Blumberg
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Why does 2/3 of Maine support medical marijuana, but the same sex marriage vote is so close?

http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html

Burr
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

NYT has some more results don’t know if they’re accurate. Still in a dead heat with 41% reporting.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2009/results/other.html

Leonard Drake
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Unrelated, but please SOMEONE tell me, how do you paste links on this site? I cannot find the information anywhere on Box Turtle Bulletin, but, apparently, everyone else has.

Related to this, I have bitten my nails to the quick, nervous in anticipation of the results. :-|

Matt
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

60% in and Yes leading by 11,000 votes- I’m getting very nervous here.

Alex
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Leonard,

Simply highlight the link in the url bar, right-click, copy, and paste:

http://www.protectmaineequality.org/ (live updates)

:-)

Rossi
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

I find it pretty disappointing that so many Mainers support marijuana dispensaries can’t bring themselves to vote for equality.

I hate to say this but it’s either confusing (no means yes), or Maine has a bunch of asshole potheads. Lame.

Dan
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

We cannot expect to win as long as churches are allowed to prep their members for this tax free!

Christianity is the enemy!

Leonard Drake
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Alex, thank you. I too, am nervous, and Matt raises a great point. From the very beginning — and as been mentioned in previous years concerning Maine Citizen Referendums — I feared the “reverse voting” would confuse some people.

Keeping fingers and toes crossed…

Matt
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

It’s looking pretty grim at this point as we approach Prop 8 ratios.

Elliot
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Please tell me this isn’t going to be another Prop 8…

AJD
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

It’s starting to look that way. 73% votes counted and the bigots are still leading by 3%.

Leonard Drake
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

There are still mail-in ballots, and one can hope they will be No-on-1 votes.

I sure as shit hope this will not be another Prop 8 issue. I also do not want to hear stories of church buses driving their faithful flock to the polls — indoctrinating them how Jesus would have voted as they are travelling to vote.

Timothy Kincaid
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Dan,

I know that you are peppering every comment you make with an anti-Christian message to make a point. But it is becoming tiresome so stop it.

Burr
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

When it’s this close you can’t just point your finger at the Christian thing. There’s so many other places where if we just made a little more ground it would clinch it. It’ll be interesting to see the demographic breakdown to see where the work remains. Could it be minority outreach holding us back again?

Matt
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

At this point, all I can do is point out the irony of how the DNC bet the house on two governor’s races that they got blown out it and said nothing about this one, which was actually close.

What the hell do we have to do to actually WIN one of these things???

Leonard Drake
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Matt,

Perhaps we have to actually wait for the Supreme Court to tell the voters that our rights aren’t something that to be decided at the ballot box. I am not saying that we should give up; rather, we should continue to fight like hell, but perhaps it may just take a Court decision to get it through the skin of the anti-gay side (no matter who “the anti-gay side is”), that it is unconstitutional, cruel, inhumane, and contrary to the American spirit to put human rights to a vote.

Dan L
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Damn. I’ve run some basic back-of-the-excel-page calculations, and it is not looking good. The only major NO stronghold is Cumberland county, and while there’s a lot of votes there, we have a 20,000+ deficit to make up, and I’m seeing only about a net change of 10,000 votes from the outstanding precincts in Cumberland. And this in all likelihood won’t be enough even to fully counteract the outstanding precincts in the anti-gay counties, let alone overtake the deficit. Unless we see some big swings in the county-level figures, or unless there are a massive number of absentee votes not included in the precinct tally and unless those absentee votes break massively for NO, which seems to me not especially likely, we’ve likely been defeated. Again. Damn.

tristram
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Leonard – the sort of thing that’s happening in Maine makes a pro-equality decision by the SC less likely. Even if we were to win in Maine, look at the ages of the justices and their respective ‘judicial philosophies;’ someone will have to be struck by lightning if there is to be a pro-equality SC decision in the next dozen years – best case.

And between Maine and NJ, marriage equality is a no-go in NY and NJ for at least the next 4 years.

Rossi
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Tristram,

While I think the age of the Supremes is significant as is their political leanings, I don’t think this weighs on any SC bench. Should some challenge to any law anywhere wind it’s way to the highest court, you can bet that while there will be some consideration made for the leanings of the court, the court doesn’t just look at what voters are saying. They look at how it’s interpreted in the Constitution.

Without wading into strict constructionist or activist arguments (and the stupidity surrounding those memes), I think you can look at Lawrence v. Texas or Loving v. Virginia as examples where popular opinion in those states did not weigh *at all* in their decisions.

It’s quite possible that Leonard is right. And I tend to agree that there’s something very ugly about putting rights up to vote by a public body.

tristram
November 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Rossi How many states had anti-sodomy laws when Lawrence was decided? How many states had anti-miscegenation laws when Loving came down? How many states have marriage equality now? In Lawrence and Loving, the SC followed the lead of the majority of states and brought the last few into line. No matter how you (or David Boies or Martha Coakley) frames the argument, the SC – especially this SC – is not going to overturn existing law in 40 states to follow the lead of 5 or 6 states. And, btw, Congress now is not going to touch DOMA, whether Obama pushes the issue or not. He can save his breathe on that one.

Dan
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

Timothy,

This is your blog and you can lead people in any direction you choose. You wont have to worry about me.

Rossi
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

You’re conflating political issues with legal issues.

I don’t disagree with you really on the political side but I don’t care WHO is on the court, they simply don’t just weigh issues on politics du jour. In fact, I think it’s the opposite, and that cuts both ways for equality, as you can’t deny the strides made in equality in recent years.

Neither of us have any idea how the SC would come down. But saying that because of this 5 point win that somehow it wipes out the great gains made to date by marriage equality advocates is questionable.

Really? You’re going to put an SC decision on 24,000 person vote gap in a hugely Catholic state like Maine as some referendum on the entire rights issue? What kind of numbers would you need to assure yourself that the SC sees electoral math giving them enough cover to be in favor of a marriage question?

I don’t know, honestly, what kind of legal question might reach them, or from where. But neither do you. So the argument is a bit pointless (esp. since we’re likely on the same side), and it could be quite some time before any sort of question comes up.

To be clear, though, I think you’re right about the political side of this issue for the short term for NY and other states (incl. OR). But I think beyond that you’re being way too pessimistic.

Leonard Drake
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

I know there are some who are making anti-religious comments, and it is becoming tiresome. At the same time, it is becoming tiresome to see, time and time again, religion being used to berate the LGBT community. As an example, please take time to read this article from the Bangor Daily News:
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/128048.html

Note especially the last comment, which reads: “God has given us this victory,” Emrich continued, “and it is very important for us to recognize that he is the one who put the energy into this campaign. So let’s not be so arrogant to forget this. It’s very appropriate to pause for a moment of prayer.”

Then, look at this picture.
http://bdnimages.sprintout.com/uploads/large/1257316395_855b.jpg

I certainly don’t notice the presence of any minorities here, as has been infered by another poster. Just an observation.

Minority voters most likely would not tip Question 1 in either direction in Maine, as some may have suggested they did/did not in California, as the demographics of Maine are not the same as that of California.

Time to question the influence of religious institutions — of all denominations and faiths — in politics, and the tax issues therewithin.

Leonard Drake
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

Rossi and Tristam,

In regard to the issue of same sex marriage and the SC, Antonin Scalia, in his dissent of Lawrence v. Texas, intimated that the majority decision would allow for the acceptance of same sex marriage inter alia. While it is possible the SC would allow politics to get in the way of law — some could argue such political issues entered into the decision of Bush v. Gore — other decisions including Bowers v. Hardwick were clearly based more on bias when the SC had clear case law, including Griswold v. Connecticut on which to base another decision.

Therefore, as I stated earlier, the SC *should* decide same sex right because (1) it is a violation of the 14th amendment for a majority group (or any group) to have the power to decide how a minority group (or any group) should control their lives in fundamental and intimate matters, including the right of marriage, and (2) that human rights to a vote. Where the issue of race, gender, religion, and other suspect classes arise, issues of rights cannot be voted on. Even if a person can argue that sexual ORIENTATION is not protected under the current Civil Rights act — even under the version signed by President Obama — it is fundamentally unconstitutional to control the gender to which a person may marry based on that person’s gender. That, in of itself, is gender discrimination. (I.e.: Because of your male gender, you can only marry someone of the female gender. Because of your female gender, you can only marry of the male gender. “I am going to limit the bounds of the pursuit of your happiness based on your suspect class: YOUR GENDER.”)

Mark F.
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

It’s over. The “no” side lost.

Emproph
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

Remember, they won fraudulently. The yes on 1 organizers have nothing legitimate to celebrate than their own ability to lie, cheat and steal.

From the article Leonard Drake linked to:

“This doesn’t mean it’s the end of our work,” he [Rev. Bob Emrich] said. “We must begin building bridges and we may have to mend fences. People on the other side were doing what they believed in, too.

Reverend Emrich, I don’t consort with those who are morally bankrupt.

Brennin
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

“Remember, they won fraudulently. The yes on 1 organizers have nothing legitimate to celebrate than their own ability to lie, cheat and steal.”

My dear sore loser,

They won fair and square. We know from experience that gay rights activists push for indoctrination of children and the punishment of dissenters wherever they have convinced an activist judiciary to conjure “fundamental rights” for them out of thin air.

Brennin
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

Leonard Drake’s above argument is moronic. It most certainly is not a violation of the 14th amendment to deny gays “marriage” because the Constitution must be read in the socio-historical context in which it was written and amended and there were anti-sodomy laws on the books long before, during, and long after the 14th amendment was ratified. Moreover, the 14th amendment does not address gender discrimination. If it did, then the 19th amendment would be superfluous. So sorry, but your pettifoggery does not withstand rational scrutiny. It is not based on the Constitution but rather the midrash that exists only in the minds of liberal judges. Incidentally, using an activist judiciary to subvert democracy is antithetical to the American spirit.

Brennin
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

“They won fair and square. We know from experience that gay rights activists push for indoctrination of children and the punishment of dissenters wherever they have convinced an activist judiciary to conjure ‘fundamental rights’ for them out of thin air.”

I should note that is also the case where they have achieved it via legislation, such as in the U.K., the point being that gay rights activists are never satisfied with just obtaining gay “marriage.”

----
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

Going by Brennin’s logic, slavery would still be considered constitutional since it was legal before and after the Constitution was created. And where did you get the news about gay marriage in the U.K.?

Leonard Drake
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

Brennin,

So sorry to have offended you with my “moronic” opinion rife with “liberal activism” and “pettifoggery” which, in your opinion, wouldn’t withstand rational scrutiny. Jesus Christ — please don’t hold off on kindness there.

Anyway [wipes away a tear], I was actually placing my NON-LAWYERLY thoughts on Loving v. Virginia (1967). Remember — there were miscegenation statutes on the books in 15 states when Loving v. Virginia was decided. One *could* argue — in the moronic voice of liberal pettifoggery, of course — that a purpose of the Supreme Court is to (1) quash laws which are in force at the time which are violative of the Constitution and (1) interpret the Constitution as an evolving document, as opposed to a document frozen in the latter-half of the 18th century, to be understood in the socio-historical context of its time.

Signing off,

A pettifoggerical pettifaggot :-)

Ben in Oakland
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

I have said repeatedly that the fialure of these campaigns rest squarely on the failure to address three issues: children, religion, and prejudice.

Children were addressed in this campaign– finally. But unfortunately, not fully. And that allowed the bigots to exploit it.

As far as I can tell, there really wasn’t much talk about religion, prejudice, and especially, religious prejudice.

Until we start doing this, we can ocntinue to lose.

And yes, I donated, even tohugh I thought it was a waste of money I don’t have right now.

Emproph
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

Brennin:

gay rights activists push for indoctrination of children

They [anti-gays] won fair and square.

Brennin, if you feel you have to lie about us to win, then you’ve already lost.

Joe Ross
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

Though I’m not an attorney, my personal guess is that the whole thing is going to begin to come tumbling down for marriage opponents not on any basis of fairness or civil rights or what-have-you, but ultimately by the SC on the full faith and credit clause of Article 8(?). Marriage is a contract like any other, and states are constitutionally bound to honor one another’s duly executed agreements. State laws blocking recognition of other state’s SSMs should go out the window on that basis eventually, perhaps with DOMA along with it, in fact a Texas state judge has already issued a very similar ruling.

This should come as no surprise to anyone; the beginning of the end of Jim Crow was not the Brown decision, which was roundly ignored for years anyway. It was Truman’s integration of the Armed Forces, the fruit of considerable horse trading and accomplished with the stroke of a pen, combined with the Jackson SCs use of antitrust legislation, of all things, to strike down restrictive covenants in residential deeds.

Brennin
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

“Going by Brennin’s logic, slavery would still be considered constitutional since it was legal before and after the Constitution was created.”

Please read for comprehension. I wrote ‘he Constitution must be read in the socio-historical context in which it was written and _amended_…’

Slavery was repealed via the amendment process.

“And where did you get the news about gay marriage in the U.K.?”

I was referring to their civil unions and had in mind the punishment of the Bishop of Hereford.

“…interpret the Constitution as an evolving document, as opposed to a document frozen in the latter-half of the 18th century, to be understood in the socio-historical context of its time.”

If you don’t like what the Constitution actually says, then amend it. You can’t just pretend it says something you want, the codswallop of liberal judges notwithstanding.

“Brennin, if you feel you have to lie about us to win, then you’ve already lost.”

1. Harvey Milk day.
2. Books about gay penguins and gay princes in elementary schools.

Timothy Kincaid
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

Brennin,

I like what the Constitution says. My Constitution does not include an asterisk that says “other than gay people”. And I don’t find a compelling need to redefine what it says into what it “meant to say” based on “the socio-historical context in which it was written.”

Perhaps it is you that doesn’t like what the Constitution says and should amend it.

Oh, wait. You tried with the FMA. And you lost.

But the fascinating thing, Brennin, in the process of unsuccessfully seeking to exclude gay Americans from Constitutional protections, by implication you admitted that the Constitution does in its language and its principles protect gay citizens.

Oooops, I bet y’all didn’t intend that, now did you?

Burr
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

So Mr. Constitutional Scholar, can you point to me where marriage is in the Constitution? Kindly help me out here..

Marriage as a government institution is itself unconstitutional. It violates the freedom of consenting adults to enter personal contracts as they see fit without the arbitrary blessing of others.

Marriage licenses didn’t even exist until after the Civil War, for the expressed purpose of discriminating against interracial coupling. When the Supreme Court stuck down such discrimination, they should have determined that such licenses really serve no purpose at all.

Instead we’re forced to work within the phony boundaries of state-sponsored marriage to obtain rights that out to be available to anyone, married or unmarried.

Emproph
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

Emproph: “Brennin, if you feel you have to lie about us to win, then you’ve already lost.”

Brennin:
1. Harvey Milk day.
2. Books about gay penguins and gay princes in elementary schools.

1. Harvey Milk day.

Being true, perfectly legitimate.

2. Books about gay penguins and gay princes in elementary schools.

TFB, it applies to gay kids—and their non-bigoted classmates—to ensure that people like you don’t lead them down a path to suicide.

Emily K
November 4th, 2009 | LINK

i never understood the big deal about the gay penguin book. so a couple of male penguins coupled up and adopted a chick; so what. It doesn’t have any baring on kids ending up gay. It just means two male penguins made a couple and adopted a chick, forming a little bird family. And then someone thought that was interesting so they made a book about it. Birds form families all the time.

Emproph
November 5th, 2009 | LINK

Apparently, to them, a book about birds of a feather is just plain fowl.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.