Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[chipbennett]

Here are excerpts of what the Kansas referendum actually stated:

"...the constitution of the state of Kansas does not ...create or secure a right to abortion*...the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion... A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion...A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas and could prevent the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion in many circumstances. It would leave in place the newly discovered right to abortion first recognized in 2019.” (emphasis mine)

They spelled it out pretty plainly for people.

There are two reasonable ways to interpret the failure of this referendum:

1) The people assert there is a right to an abortion, and/or
2) There "may" or "may not" be a right to an abortion, but the people voted to maintain obstacles preventing their elected legislators from banning it.

*cf. Houghmade's statement, above

Or,

3) People think a constitutional amendment is a nuclear warhead response to correcting a bad judicial decision, and would rather see bad judicial decision corrected through the judiciary.

 

[jamil]

Or,

3) People think a constitutional amendment is a nuclear warhead response to correcting a bad judicial decision, and would rather see bad judicial decision corrected through the judiciary.

That may have represented the perspective of some people who voted that way. Presumably you're thinking that such a viewpoint is held primarily by pro-life people (it's pointless to add #3 if they're pro-life anyway)

So if it is for reason #3, I seriously doubt that it was more than a handful people who thought at that depth, AND could deny the pragmatic choice of voting their conscience if they believe that abortion is murder. I think the depth at which people think of abortion is what they think about abortion itself. In this case, whether to allow the state to ban it or not. And then they voted accordingly.

That said, I do think that attaching it to a primary vote would possibly be a reason to think the result did not reflect the wider view of Kansas residents on abortion. Primaries typically don't have a high turnout compared to general elections. So if the turnout favored people with a more moderate view on abortion, it may not have represented the wider population. But then you'd have to see Kansas pro-lifers staying home if they were really a majority.

 

[chipbennett]

That may have represented the perspective of some people who voted that way. Presumably you're thinking that such a viewpoint is held primarily by pro-life people (it's pointless to add #3 if they're pro-life anyway)

So if it is for reason #3, I seriously doubt that it was more than a handful people who thought at that depth, AND could deny the pragmatic choice of voting their conscience if they believe that abortion is murder. I think the depth at which people think of abortion is what they think about abortion itself. In this case, whether to allow the state to ban it or not. And then they voted accordingly.

That said, I do think that attaching it to a primary vote would possibly be a reason to think the result did not reflect the wider view of Kansas residents on abortion. Primaries typically don't have a high turnout compared to general elections. So if the turnout favored people with a more moderate view on abortion, it may not have represented the wider population. But then you'd have to see Kansas pro-lifers staying home if they were really a majority.

It was a calculated play by whomever pushed the referendum - and clearly they calculated incorrectly.

As for the demographics/ideology of those who participated in the primary correlating to the demographics/ideology of the state overall: I agree. Turnout didn't appear to be that great. And, I don't know what, if any, competitive primary races were on the ballot.

It is just as likely that most people don't have a strong opinion on the politics of abortion, one way or another, and therefore would not have been driven to the polls over an abortion amendment referendum, absent a competitive primary race that would take them there otherwise.

Has anyone compared the referendum results/numbers against R vs D turnout/numbers? Or is all of this analysis based solely on the referendum result, absent any other context?

 

[jamil]

It was a calculated play by whomever pushed the referendum - and clearly they calculated incorrectly.

As for the demographics/ideology of those who participated in the primary correlating to the demographics/ideology of the state overall: I agree. Turnout didn't appear to be that great. And, I don't know what, if any, competitive primary races were on the ballot.

It is just as likely that most people don't have a strong opinion on the politics of abortion, one way or another, and therefore would not have been driven to the polls over an abortion amendment referendum, absent a competitive primary race that would take them there otherwise.

Has anyone compared the referendum results/numbers against R vs D turnout/numbers? Or is all of this analysis based solely on the referendum result, absent any other context?

I think the highlighted statement is very true. Especially when we're in a deep culture war, in a world that's on the brink of a fighting war. There are so many other things going on in the world than to spend one's own thinking on abortion.

On the subject of referendums, generally, is it really all that useful to have those if a majority of the population didn't even vote? A popular referendum is not popular if most people didn't even bother to opine on the topic. I don't have a problem with states that have referendums on the ballot, although to me, it signals a failure of government at some level.

But if they're going to have referendums, for it to truly represent the will of the people, there should be a minimum representation to validate the outcome. So something along the idea of a quorum. So if that minimum threshold of voters does not vote on the referendum, it just fails.

 

[chipbennett]

I think the highlighted statement is very true. Especially when we're in a deep culture war, in a world that's on the brink of a fighting war. There are so many other things going on in the world than to spend one's own thinking on abortion.

On the subject of referendums, generally, is it really all that useful to have those if a majority of the population didn't even vote? A popular referendum is not popular if most people didn't even bother to opine on the topic. I don't have a problem with states that have referendums on the ballot, although to me, it signals a failure of government at some level.

But if they're going to have referendums, for it to truly represent the will of the people, there should be a minimum representation to validate the outcome. So something along the idea of a quorum. So if that minimum threshold of voters does not vote on the referendum, it just fails.

Especially for constitutional amendments.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think the highlighted statement is very true. Especially when we're in a deep culture war, in a world that's on the brink of a fighting war. There are so many other things going on in the world than to spend one's own thinking on abortion.

On the subject of referendums, generally, is it really all that useful to have those if a majority of the population didn't even vote? A popular referendum is not popular if most people didn't even bother to opine on the topic. I don't have a problem with states that have referendums on the ballot, although to me, it signals a failure of government at some level.

But if they're going to have referendums, for it to truly represent the will of the people, there should be a minimum representation to validate the outcome. So something along the idea of a quorum. So if that minimum threshold of voters does not vote on the referendum, it just fails.

I’d agree most people don’t a strong opinion either. For basically 2 generations we’ve lived in an environment where abortion was “law of the land”. I’ve heard it said that is legal is often viewed by a lot of people as being what is moral. I believe in the case of abortion this is a sliding scale for a lot of folks. While the baby is early in its gestation it doesn’t look human so many believe killing it is ok. That scale slides the other direction later on, as the baby begins to look like what people believe what a baby ought to look like.

Hope Resources here in Bedford claims they can often get a woman to change her mind about abortion once they see the ultrasound and realize that clump of cells is actually a baby.

Hopefully, as the laws are allowed to shift to prohibiting elective abortions, attitudes will also shift to include all the others.

 

[Flash-hider]

Especially for constitutional amendments.

I've have thought for some time now that referendums that change a State's Constitution (I'm referring to Michigan for now) should require a super majority of 75% to pass.

 

[ljk]

Indiana 1st in nation to approve legislation to further ban abortion post Roe

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana on Friday became the first state in the nation to approve abortion restrictions since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, as the Republican governor quickly signed a near-total ban on the procedure shortly after lawmakers approved it. The ban, which takes...

www.wishtv.com

AFAIK, the house's version removed the criminal component from the Senate's version, does it make the whole bill unenforceable?

 

[Twangbanger]

...Has anyone compared the referendum results/numbers against R vs D turnout/numbers? Or is all of this analysis based solely on the referendum result, absent any other context?

At least one news outlet did exactly that:

https://www.koamnewsnow.com/kansas-primary-voter-turnout-higher-than-past/

KS U.S. Senate Primary: 463,592 Republican votes cast / 254,953 Dem.

KS Gov./Lt. Gov. Primary: 450,977 Republican votes cast / 276,383 Dem.

Value Them Both Amendment: 534,134 No votes cast / 374,611 Yes

Republicans were just more enthusiastic than Democrats in this particular election.

Nevertheless, the "No" or Pro-Abortion votes were roughly two times the number of votes cast in the Democratic Primary. Put another way, Democratic turnout doesn't begin to account for the quantity of Pro-Abortion votes cast.

Many people don't care much about abortion, but in terms of raw numbers, the Pro-Life position got about 82,000 less votes than the number of Republicans who _did_ think the election was important enough to show up for. The Pro-Life movement is a reliable core of enthusiasm for the GOP. If more of the "apathetic" Republicans had showed up, it's hard to imagine this going substantially better for the Pro-Life side.

When you analyze the numbers, the only way you can suggest more turnout would have substantially helped the Pro-Life side, is to posit the existence of a substantial, apathetic contingent of Pro-Life Democrats. That's so preposterous, I'm only 85% sure Bug would propose it.

 

[tbhausen]

WOW…

Indiana becomes first state in nation to approve near-total abortion ban post Roe

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/in...tion-approve-near-total-abortion-ban-post-roe

 

[jamil]

At least one news outlet did exactly that:

https://www.koamnewsnow.com/kansas-primary-voter-turnout-higher-than-past/

KS U.S. Senate Primary: 463,592 Republican votes cast / 254,953 Dem.

KS Gov./Lt. Gov. Primary: 450,977 Republican votes cast / 276,383 Dem.

Value Them Both Amendment: 534,134 No votes cast / 374,611 Yes

Republicans were just more enthusiastic than Democrats in this particular election.

Nevertheless, the "No" or Pro-Abortion votes were roughly two times the number of votes cast in the Democratic Primary. Put another way, Democratic turnout doesn't begin to account for the quantity of Pro-Abortion votes cast.

Many people don't care much about abortion, but in terms of raw numbers, the Pro-Life position got about 82,000 less votes than the number of Republicans who _did_ think the election was important enough to show up for. The Pro-Life movement is a reliable core of enthusiasm for the GOP. If more of the "apathetic" Republicans had showed up, it's hard to imagine this going substantially better for the Pro-Life side.

When you analyze the numbers, the only way you can suggest more turnout would have substantially helped the Pro-Life side, is to posit the existence of a substantial, apathetic contingent of Pro-Life Democrats. That's so preposterous, I'm only 85% sure Bug would propose it.

I wonder if there were a referendum on abortion in Indiana. Would Indiana's vote have the same result?

 

[Twangbanger]

I wonder if there were a referendum on abortion in Indiana. Would Indiana's vote have the same result?

Not going to find out. Thank Jesus for GOP Supermajorities!

 

[tbhausen]

Fear not… Democrat efforts to create a one-party system will succeed everywhere eventually, even here in Indiana. Then the SCOTUS ruling won’t matter because Democrats will legislate unnumbered by such trivialities as dissent. I’m just grateful I wasn’t born 50 years later so I don’t have to live through it happening here.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Indiana 1st in nation to approve legislation to further ban abortion post Roe

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana on Friday became the first state in the nation to approve abortion restrictions since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, as the Republican governor quickly signed a near-total ban on the procedure shortly after lawmakers approved it. The ban, which takes...

www.wishtv.com

AFAIK, the house's version removed the criminal component from the Senate's version, does it make the whole bill unenforceable?

I don't think they removed the criminal component entirely, I think they just got rid of the ability to prosecute at the State level, which will leave it up to county prosecutors to enforce the bill. Which is going to be a whole set of problems on its own, but best I can tell both the House and Senate version kept the same language with is that a mother cannot be charged with a crime for having an abortion, but the abortionist will be charged with a class A misdemeanor and lose his license, unless the abortion falls under one of the exceptions. I haven't had time to read the bill in its entirety yet, though, and keeping up with all the amendments was a bit hard, so I could've missed something.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I wonder if there were a referendum on abortion in Indiana. Would Indiana's vote have the same result?

Not going to find out. Thank Jesus for GOP Supermajorities!

Even without the referendum actually happening, I honestly think it's a pretty safe bet that Indiana's results would not have been far off from what happened in Kansas. I don't think there's many, if any, states in this country where an abortion question on the ballot would result in a strong pro-life victory.

It's simply a matter of how the math works out. When you call a state like Indiana a strong pro-life state, it's natural to think that means significantly more than 50% of the voting population are pro-life. But that's not actually how it works. Most of the time, it looks more like this: Say that 20% of the State's voting population is pro-life, and 40% of the State's voting population votes conservative on most issues, except they want abortion to be legal for the most part, with certain regulations. However, this 40% are generally much more apathetic about abortion, and the fact that a politician holds more stringent views on abortion than they do will not stop them from voting for that politician, if their views align on other issues. The remaining 40% are liberals.

(A couple caveats here; I'm just throwing out hypothetical numbers for illustration. However, it wouldn't surprise me if they are a somewhat accurate representation of numbers in our own State. Secondly, on pro-life issues, positions are more of a spectrum than cleanly divided into percentage groups, I just do it this way to make it easier to illustrate. Many of the 40% that I refer to as "moderates" on abortion would probably describe themselves as pro-life, but again, just bear with my terminology for illustration purposes. Also, there's probably some voters out there who are liberal on most issues, except for being pro-life, but I don't know that they're enough to change the overall picture.)

So with this full picture, most politicians in the State (depending, of course, on their exact constituency) will have a simple formula they need to follow in order to get more than 50% of the vote. They have to be (or at least act) strongly pro-life in order to get the pro-life 20% to vote for them, then they have to be (or at least act) conservative on other issues (such as economics, 2A issues, etc) to get the conservative-but-"moderate"-on-abortion 40% to vote for them. This conservative 40% actually would, generally speaking, like to see something more along the lines of elective abortion legal up to viability (or until the fetus can feel pain, has brainwaves, or some other arbitrary point) with rape/health exceptions afterwards, but they don't feel strongly enough to change their vote, because other conservative issues are more important to them. The pro-life 20%, however, will swing their votes based solely on pro-life issues.

So, with these numbers, a politician can try to be conservative and "moderate" on abortion, but then their race will be a toss-up, since they will not get the votes of the pro-life 20%, and their election will hinge on the exact turnout of the 40% conservative-"moderate"-on-abortion vs the 40% liberal voting blocs. And if they have a constituency where 30% of the voters are pro-life, 40% conservative-"moderate"-on-abortion, and 30% liberal, then NOT being (or at least acting) pro-life would be political suicide.

So you see how the paradox is formed here? Actual percentages are probably very different from the ones I'm putting in my examples, but since the different voting groups do generally behave this way, it is 100% possible in state where 70-80% of the population opposes abortion bans in the first trimester, for it to still be political suicide for a politician to oppose a ban on abortion in the first trimester, with only certain exceptions. If you put such a ban on the ballot, it will fail miserably, because the 40% liberals will vote against it, being pro-abortion, the 40% conservatives will vote against it, seeing it as too harsh, and since it's a separate issue on the ballot they can still vote for the conservative politicians, and only the 20% pro-life will support it.

However, put a politician's name on the ballot, and he has nothing to gain from supporting a "moderate" position, like abortion only in the first trimester, even though that would come closer to representing the views of 80% of the population than a full abortion ban would. The 40% liberals will never vote for a conservative, so bringing his view on abortion closer to theirs gains the politician nothing. The 40% conservatives won't stop voting for him just because he takes a harder line on abortion than they like, so the only logical thing is to cater to the 20% pro-lifers on abortion issues.

This is irony of being a "pro-life state." I don't like it that things are this way, but the more we see how votes play out in different conservative states, the more I believe this overall picture represents the way things are in most of them.

So as a fervently pro-life voter, it is for now my firm position that I oppose putting any abortion question directly on the ballot. I don't give a darn about what "the people" think; I care about the innocent lives who are being brutally murdered, and if we want any chance of protecting them, it has to be done by the legislature.

 

[chipbennett]

At least one news outlet did exactly that:

https://www.koamnewsnow.com/kansas-primary-voter-turnout-higher-than-past/

KS U.S. Senate Primary: 463,592 Republican votes cast / 254,953 Dem.

KS Gov./Lt. Gov. Primary: 450,977 Republican votes cast / 276,383 Dem.

Value Them Both Amendment: 534,134 No votes cast / 374,611 Yes

Republicans were just more enthusiastic than Democrats in this particular election.

Nevertheless, the "No" or Pro-Abortion votes were roughly two times the number of votes cast in the Democratic Primary. Put another way, Democratic turnout doesn't begin to account for the quantity of Pro-Abortion votes cast.

Many people don't care much about abortion, but in terms of raw numbers, the Pro-Life position got about 82,000 less votes than the number of Republicans who _did_ think the election was important enough to show up for. The Pro-Life movement is a reliable core of enthusiasm for the GOP. If more of the "apathetic" Republicans had showed up, it's hard to imagine this going substantially better for the Pro-Life side.

When you analyze the numbers, the only way you can suggest more turnout would have substantially helped the Pro-Life side, is to posit the existence of a substantial, apathetic contingent of Pro-Life Democrats. That's so preposterous, I'm only 85% sure Bug would propose it.

Primaries are... funny things. I could look this up, but I'm too lazy at the moment and haven't even finished my first cup of coffee yet. Does Kansas have an open or closed primary?

I'll caveat by saying that it is entirely possible that a majority of Republicans in Kansas believe that the "found" constitutional right to abortion should remain. It could be. I don't know.

Having said that: if Kansas primary elections work the way that most that I'm used to work, it is entirely possible that a bunch (in the context of the primary turnout) of people (particularly Democrats) were highly motivated by the referendum only. If the Democrat primaries were either a) not competitive, or b) considered a fait accompli in a state like Kansas (i.e. that no Democrat will win the general anyway, so why bother?), then it might make sense that there were a lot of "ballot issue-only" voters.

I actually saw that happen, regularly, when I ran polling places. In the primary election, voters would have to declare a party ballot. In primary elections with one or more ballot referendums, voters could declare "no party"/i.e. an "issue-only" ballot. Many voters did so.

Looking at the numbers from your link, comparing total state-wide office votes vs the referendum vote:

KS Senate: 463,592 (R) + 254,953 (D) = 718,545
KS Governor: 450,977 (R) + 276,383 (D) = 727,360
KS Att. Gen: 462,656 (R) + DNP = 462,656

Ballot Referendum: 534,134 (N) + 374,611 (Y) = 908,745

It is obvious that 25% more people cast a ballot for the referendum than for the statewide race with the largest participation.

Based on the KS SOS site, here are most recent voter registration totals:

Republican: 851,882
Democrat: 495,574
Unaffiliated: 560,309
Libertarian: 22,207
Total: 1,929,972

Based on these registration numbers, and based on statewide-race participation, relative (minimum) turnout was:

Republican: 54.4%
Democrat: 55.8%
Total: 47.1%

Since we don't have information regarding the actual total number of ballots cast, and don't know how many ballots were partials (voted for some races/issues, but not others), these turnout numbers are minimum values. They could be higher.

Minimum democrat turnout was actually higher than republican turnout. It seems to me that it is entirely plausible that issue-only democrats were motivated to vote against the referendum - and clearly, many Unaffiliated voters had to do so, as well. Obviously, some Republicans had to vote against it, also - assuming full referendum participation by both R and D voters.

Assuming all referendum "Yes" votes came from R voters, that means that the referendum results for R voters was 374,611 Y (80.8%), 88,981 N (19.2%).

Assuming all D party-race voters voted "No" on the referendum, that means that the referendum "No" results were: R (88,981, 16.7%), D (276,383, 51.2%).

That leaves 168,770 votes that came from either a) R/D ballots that voted only on the referendum or b) Unaffiliated/issue-only ballots. Those easily could have come 100% from D voters who voted only on the referendum. And even if so, given the historical differences between primary and general election turnout, and the party-registration advantage for Republicans in Kansas, this vote really tells us pretty much nothing about what the state, as a whole, thinks about the issue. Nor does it mean that Democrats will have any real advantage in voters "energized" by the issue.

So, having examined the numbers: I think much hay is being made, without basis, on the outcome of this referendum.

 

[chipbennett]

Not going to find out. Thank Jesus for GOP Supermajorities!

And if the voters disagree with it, they can voice that disagreement at the ballot in November.

 

[Hawkeye]

Primaries are... funny things. I could look this up, but I'm too lazy at the moment and haven't even finished my first cup of coffee yet. Does Kansas have an open or closed primary?

I'll caveat by saying that it is entirely possible that a majority of Republicans in Kansas believe that the "found" constitutional right to abortion should remain. It could be. I don't know.

Having said that: if Kansas primary elections work the way that most that I'm used to work, it is entirely possible that a bunch (in the context of the primary turnout) of people (particularly Democrats) were highly motivated by the referendum only. If the Democrat primaries were either a) not competitive, or b) considered a fait accompli in a state like Kansas (i.e. that no Democrat will win the general anyway, so why bother?), then it might make sense that there were a lot of "ballot issue-only" voters.

I actually saw that happen, regularly, when I ran polling places. In the primary election, voters would have to declare a party ballot. In primary elections with one or more ballot referendums, voters could declare "no party"/i.e. an "issue-only" ballot. Many voters did so.

Looking at the numbers from your link, comparing total state-wide office votes vs the referendum vote:

KS Senate: 463,592 (R) + 254,953 (D) = 718,545
KS Governor: 450,977 (R) + 276,383 (D) = 727,360
KS Att. Gen: 462,656 (R) + DNP = 462,656

Ballot Referendum: 534,134 (N) + 374,611 (Y) = 908,745

It is obvious that 25% more people cast a ballot for the referendum than for the statewide race with the largest participation.

Based on the KS SOS site, here are most recent voter registration totals:

Republican: 851,882
Democrat: 495,574
Unaffiliated: 560,309
Libertarian: 22,207
Total: 1,929,972

Based on these registration numbers, and based on statewide-race participation, relative (minimum) turnout was:

Republican: 54.4%
Democrat: 55.8%
Total: 47.1%

Since we don't have information regarding the actual total number of ballots cast, and don't know how many ballots were partials (voted for some races/issues, but not others), these turnout numbers are minimum values. They could be higher.

Minimum democrat turnout was actually higher than republican turnout. It seems to me that it is entirely plausible that issue-only democrats were motivated to vote against the referendum - and clearly, many Unaffiliated voters had to do so, as well. Obviously, some Republicans had to vote against it, also - assuming full referendum participation by both R and D voters.

Assuming all referendum "Yes" votes came from R voters, that means that the referendum results for R voters was 374,611 Y (80.8%), 88,981 N (19.2%).

Assuming all D party-race voters voted "No" on the referendum, that means that the referendum "No" results were: R (88,981, 16.7%), D (276,383, 51.2%).

That leaves 168,770 votes that came from either a) R/D ballots that voted only on the referendum or b) Unaffiliated/issue-only ballots. Those easily could have come 100% from D voters who voted only on the referendum. And even if so, given the historical differences between primary and general election turnout, and the party-registration advantage for Republicans in Kansas, this vote really tells us pretty much nothing about what the state, as a whole, thinks about the issue. Nor does it mean that Democrats will have any real advantage in voters "energized" by the issue.

So, having examined the numbers: I think much hay is being made, without basis, on the outcome of this referendum.

Here you go.

State Primary Election Types

The manner in which party primary elections are conducted varies widely from state to state. Primaries can be categorized as either closed, partially closed, partially open, open to unaffiliated voters, open or top-two.

www.ncsl.org

This site classifies Kansas as "open to unaffiliated voters". Just to muddy the waters up a bit...

n.b.: Indiana is "partially open" according to this site.

 

[KLB]

And if the voters disagree with it, they can voice that disagreement at the ballot in November.

we know that won't happen, because the team is more important to most than any single issue.

 

[jamil]

we know that won't happen, because the team is more important to most than any single issue.

I asked the question about how Indiana would vote if it were the same situation. I suspect the vote would turn out similar to Kansas. I think most people have a more moderate view of abortion, for whatever reasons, but I think it's not a strongly held view. So if they're going to the polls to vote and there's a referendum on it, they'll vote their minds. If the legislature has a Republican super-majority, they'll vote to restrict abortions even though the constituents aren't as far right on the issue.

Indiana legislature has done what everyone has expected for it to do. Ban elective abortions. If it were to fall into the hands of voters to ask a simple question about what people want, and then that would be the law of the land, I doubt the laws would have changed post Dobbs.

No doubt, if Kansas hadn't had that awful court ruling--I say awful in that it was constructed from ideological beliefs rather than an honest interpretation of Kansas state constitution--it would be more like Indiana. Kansas would have had to rely on the legislature to decide the abortion issue, where representatives have to react in a way to stay in office. The squeakiest wheels get the grease, so the conservative legislators fear the strongly opinionated pro-lifers more than the casual pro-choicers. That's my take.