reply to post by Flatfish
I'm happy to answer your questions.
For starters, when you say that "every state" put constitutional amendments on their ballots, this is hardly true. Did you mean every state
with "Republican" controlled legislatures?
You're quite right, I don't know if 50 states have it on their ballots this election. Some
that have are Republican, some are Democrat. It's not worth looking up, but I suspect every state has had an amendment on it's ballot at some time
in recent history.
When you said that the State Supreme Court ruled that people may have been misled by summary explanations of the proposed amendments, exactly
who authored those summary explanations? I suspect it was the same "Republicans" that control the state's legislature and the same one that
proposed the amendment in the first place.
I expect you're quite correct about this, although I don't know what happens if it's a citizen
proposed amendment, but we'll assume you're completely correct. But here, a difficulty pops up. Assume that it's a Republican amendment which the
Republicans want to pass. You seem to be accusing them of writing bad summaries of their own amenments, which then get the amendments thrown out.
That's beyond even the Republicans' level of dumbness.
When you say that they decided to put every unprintable word on the new ballots in response to the courts ruling, who decided to do this? I
suspect it was the same "Republican" controlled state legislature who made that decision too.
I agree with you, but I'm not sure. It
could have been a unanimous vote, I don't know.
Now you're proposing that it's the court's fault that this "Republican" controlled state legislature decided . . .
what the article indicated, and I have no reason to doubt it.
it would be easier and more productive to put "every unprintable word" on the ballot as opposed to writing a realistic summary explanation of
I don't know about "easier and more productive," but I do think they wanted to give the courts one less reason to get
involved after the amendment had been passed. Can't say I blame them. As far as the summary goes, they thought they had written a good summary.
They wouldn't have written a bad summary knowing that that would kill the amendment they wanted.
the "Republican" party viewed the court's ruling as yet another opportunity to throw another impediment in the way of free & open
I wonder if the issue isn't getting changed a little here. This doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with "free and open"
voting. Informed voting, maybe, but this doesn't stop anyone from registering and voting.
You see Charles, I never said that "Romney was trying to prevent voting."
You are absolutely correct. You never used the name. I
was simply using that as shorthand for the Republican party and it's campaign committees, and it's supporters. It's an election year, and the
candidates represent their parties, but again, you are quite right.
I just offered a different explanation for this situation. It seems more believable to me than the OP's, if you don't like it, that's Ok.