hunter of justice

2009 election run-offs UPDATED: Bell makes history in Georgia, Parker in Houston

Simone Bell will become the first African-American lesbian member of a state legislature when she takes office as representative of the 58th Assembly district in Georgia, representing parts of Atlanta. She placed second among five candidates on election day, and then won the Dec. 1 run-off with 56% of the vote.

On December 12, Annise Parker became the first openly gay mayor of a major city, winning a run-off election in Houston.

[This post wraps up the 2009 election night results.]

Gay marriage after Maine

As heartbreaking as it was for the people on the ground and as callous as this may sound, Maine 09 was just another move in the two steps forward, one step back dance that social change movements are. The overall strategy on marriage has been to win in enough states to create a tipping point before seeking a nationwide resolution. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the big gamble of a case now in federal court in California, might change that strategy, but a loss in any one state won't. Instead, what comes out of Maine are little lessons that are new and big questions that are old.

The little lessons are tactical points: Heavy turn-out is not necessarily a good sign for a minority rights issue. Religiosity isn't everything (Maine is one of the four least religious states in the country). A huge fundraising advantage may be necessary but definitely is not sufficient. And we should trust only automated polling - when people respond to other people instead of to computers, a chunk of them say they will vote to legalize gay marriage, then actually cast their ballots against it.

More importantly, here are three major issues reinforced by the Maine experience as ones that people need to wrap their minds around:

+ Marriage is different. For lots of progressives and lgbt people, marriage is simply the next frontier in an expanding civil rights movement. (Personally I dissent from the view that legalizing marriage is the apex of our goals, but I digress - that's another post.) We visualize it as linear because that is how we conceptualize it. But for a huge number of other Americans (at least if they are over 35), marriage really is different. Really different. Really. Maybe our team should consider ways to acknowledge that feeling without endorsing it.

+ Time may be on our side in the long run, but in the very short run of an election campaign, time feeds doubts about jettisoning the status quo. Both in Maine and California, early polls showed the good guys winning, but that lead evaporated in the run-up to the election. Draining a swamp of fear and prejudice can't be done with a three-month campaign, even a smart one.

+ Lastly, if the post-election surveys that are about to be done (if they haven't begun already) indicate that the homosexuals-indoctrinating-children-in-schools attack was as effective in Maine as it was in California, the gay marriage forces may want to consider an inoculation against that, even if the inoculation is painful. Let parents of young children register with the school if they want to opt their children out of teacher-initiated discussions of gay marriage. Not out of discussions of gay people and their families, but solely and specifically discussions of marriage. Most parents won't do it; most teachers won't be affected. It could make a difference.

Election night results - Kalamazoo equal rights ordinance wins; gay candidates win in St Pete, Detroit, Akron, & Chapel Hill; Republicans take NJ & VA

Midnight sign-off - Things look grim for the No on 1 campaign in Maine, although no one has called the race. There might be a recount. In Washington state, however, the Approve R71 side is winning. It's been a really bad night for the Dems: the only good news for them is that the Republican civil war in NY 23 seems to have handed the district to the Dem candidate, Bill Owens. Right now it's looking like the bad guys won the big ones tonight.

[See Races to Watch for background on each]

VA - A Republican sweep, installing an openly anti-gay Governor and Attorney General.

St. Petersburg, FL - Steve Kornell wins City Council seat.

The Kalamazoo civil rights ordinance has won. Sex/o and gender identity protections will go into effect, despite a vicious anti-trans campaign.

Mark Kleinschmidt has been declared the winner in the race for Mayor of Chapel Hill, NC.

Charles Pugh not only won a Detroit City Council seat, he placed first in the entire field running for at-large seats, thus becoming City Council President.

Christie has won NJ - bad news for Obama, the Dems in Congress, and health reform.

Sandra Kurt beat back anti-gay attacks, won Akron OH City Council seat.

With 92% of the votes in, Annise Parker leads the race for Mayor of Houston, but will face a run-off election December 12.

CORRECTED - Simone Bell came in second out of five candidates in the race for a Georgia state assembly seat, and will be in a run-off election December 1.

Progressive Dem Gordon Smith won a City Council seat in Asheville, NC.

 

Washington state returns may take several days

Because Washington state is now totally a vote by mail jurisdiction (with one very small exception in one county), the only results that can be announced tonight for Referendum 71, on whether to validate a civil union-style partner registration law, will be those ballots that are received by today.  However, ballots will be counted if they are postmarked by today, so there could be thousands of outstanding ballots. 

From the yes on 71 campaign:

Election night trends may not be meaningful unless they show Referendum 71 being approved, in which case, the outcome will be almost certain.  This is because King County will be slow to report its ballots. ... [E]lection night returns may not show Referendum 71 being approved, or showing as wide a margin of support as will be reflected in the final results. Washington is a vote-by-mail state. King County, which includes Seattle, is Washington’s most populous county and is expected to strongly favor approving Referendum 71.   King County will not have many of its ballots counted until several days after the election.  During the 2007 election, a similar dynamic occurred with an education measure supported by the progressive community known as “Simple Majority.” On election night, this measure appeared to be failing by 38,000 votes, but ultimately passed by over 10,000 votes.  And in this election, voters seem to be holding onto their ballots longer because they are undecided about the Seattle mayoral race.

Races to watch on election night

>> LGBT rights: Danger in Maine

Maine - Winning the ballot referendum on Maine's new marriage law would provide a huge psychological boost to gay marriage advocates because it would mark the first time that a pro-gay marriage position has won a popular vote. But -- the final poll (conducted yesterday and Saturday) shows a disheartening slippage for No on 1 / retaining gay marriage. The Public Policy Institute results two weeks ago were a 48-48 tie; the final weekend results were 51-47 in favor of repealing the law. However, statistically the race remains too close to call, and which side runs the best get-out-the-vote operation on Tuesday will likely determine the outcome. Nate Silver remains quite optimistic.

Washington Referendum 71- In May, Washington state Governor Gregoire signed into law SB 5688, which essentially amended the domestic partnership law to add all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage which had not been part of the original DP package (e.g., certain adoption rights and pension and health benefits for public employees). R71 asks voters whether they want to allow the new law to go into effect or repeal it. Polls show that the full DP law is likely to be retained.

Kalamazoo, MI - Kalamazoo voters will decide whether an anti-discrimination ordinance enacted by the City Council that adds sexual orientation and gender identity protections will take effect or be repealed. The no campaign has centered on scare tactics about "the bathroom issue," ie whether MTFs will invade the privacy of other women using restrooms. The pro-ordinance forces have poured in more money than Kalamazoo has ever seen spent on a local election, reporting more than 10 times what the other side has spent, including $75,000 from NGLTF.

>> How much or how little you can expect from the Dems in Congress next year

New Jersey Governor and Virginia Governor - If Corzine can survive in NJ, Dems on Capitol Hill may feel a tiny bit safer voting with the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Whatever happens Tuesday, there will be a lame duck session of the NJ legislature shortly after the election, during which New Jersey may well become the next state to allow gay marriage.  In Virginia, even though the state went narrowly for Obama in 2008 and has had Democratic governors since 2001, polls show the openly anti-gay Republican candidate, Robert McDonnell, far ahead. McDonnell has vowed to rescind the current executive order protecting gay state government employees from discrimination.

>> How far to the right you can expect Republicans in Congress to go next year

NY 23 - This is the race for a vacant seat in the House of Representatives in which right-wing purists drove the Republican Party nominee (Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava) out of the race, complaining that she was soft on abortion and gay rights. They endorsed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, and Hoffman became a cause celebre for the right. Scozzafava dropped out and endorsed Democrat Bill Owens. If Hoffman goes to Congress, the GOP purists will be ecstatic.

Individual candidates

Annise Parker hopes to make Houston the biggest American city with an openly gay mayor. Now Houston's controller, she's won citywide offices six times.To win the top job in Houston, she's going to have surmount an anti-gay smear campaign, exemplified by the flyer to the right. Multiple candidates are running, so it is quite likely that no one will get a majority of votes. Hopefully Parker will finish first or second, and go into the Dec. 12 run-off election.

Steve Shannon is running for Attorney General of Virginia.  In this race the concern is not so much for electing Mr. Shannon as for not electing his opponent, Kenneth Cuccinelli, who told a  reporter that he believed that homosexual acts are "intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law-based country it's appropriate to have policies that reflect that."

Simone Bell (left), a community educator in Lambda Legal's Southern Regional Office in Atlanta, is running for a seat in the Georgia state House. If she wins, she will become the first out African-American lesbian ever elected to any state legislature.

Mark Kleinschmidt, an openly gay public interest lawyer who specializes in representing defendants on death row, is running for Mayor of Chapel Hill, NC. A weekend poll shows him trailing Matt Czajkowski by only 1 per cent.

Steve Kornell - A longtime advocate of anti-bullying legislation, Kornell is a school social worker who would be the first openly gay person on the St. Petersburg, Fla., City Council.

Sandra Kurt, an lgbt community leader, is running for City Council in Akron OH, and also facing hateful attacks.  One flyer implores voters not "to place the 8th Ward City Council seat in the hands of a political activist with a clear agenda to create ... social disorganization." 

Charles Pugh (right), a former television and radio  journalist, is running for a City Council seat that would make him Detroit's first openly gay elected official.

Progressive therapist/blogger Gordon Smith is running for City Council in Asheville, NC, and has reached out for lgbt support by promising to press for domestic partner benefits for city employees.

Maine in home stretch with polls showing tie; Bonauto-Mutty debates begin

Polls show the Maine referendum on marriage equality as a cliffhanger: the most recent (and according to Nate Silver, probably the best) poll shows a dead heat: 48 to 48, although earlier polls have shown the pro-equality (No on 1) side winning by 5 to 9 points. Silver argues that the fundamentals look good for No on 1 to win for two primary reasons:

(1) Maine is one of the least religious states in the nation (see map below); and
(2) Pro-gay marriage groups have outstripped their opponents in the fundraising contest by almost two to one.

Polls also show that virtually no one is undecided; Silver predicts that the outcome will turn on the GOTV, election day ground game. For more details, see Lisa Keen's latest article.

Non-Mainers who want a flavor of how the arguments are being framed can listen to a series of TV and radio debates between GLAD's Mary Bonauto and Yes on 1 leader Marc Mutty.  The first is tomorrow at 1 pm east coast time -

Thursday, October 22nd, 1  to 2 p.m.
Listen at http://www.mpbn.org/

Remainder of schedule after the jump -->

Election Day 2009 preview: Maine and Washington

An analysis by Lisa Keen, from Bay Windows:

In what is being described as perhaps the "narrowest margin ever for qualifying for the ballot," the Washington State Secretary of State’s office announced Monday evening that opponents of gay relationships in that state collected enough valid signatures to secure a ballot measure this November. The measure, which will be known as Referendum 71 or R-71, seeks to overturn Washington’s domestic partnership law, which provides same-sex couples with "everything but marriage."... And meanwhile, the Maine Secretary of State [has announce] that a ballot measure seeking to overturn that state’s newly minted equal marriage law has been certified for the ballot there this November.

Washington: Referendum 71

...Washington Families Standing Together, a group seeking to preserve the domestic partnership law, filed a lawsuit August 27 challenging the Secretary of State’s signature validation process. The lawsuit asked a state court to stop the Secretary from certifying the petitions, contending that the Secretary accepted some petitions that do not meet state requirements. A King County judge refused Wednesday, September 2 to interfere with certification of the ballot measure, and the Secretary of State then certified Referendum 71.

The group seeking to overturn the domestic partnership law, Protect Marriage Washington, also filed a lawsuit -- in federal court -- seeking to seal the petitions from public scrutiny. The group claims that pro-gay activists will harass voters who signed the petitions. The state Public Disclosure Commission has already rejected the group’s request to conceal the signatures and a federal judge issued a temporary order stopping release of the signatures, pending a final decision.

The Washington Secretary of State’s website has been making daily reports about the count process and the lawsuits during the past month as election officials examined each of 137,689 signatures turned in by Protect Marriage Washington. The group needed 120,577 to qualify for the ballot. Early indications suggested the rejection rate of signatures might be high enough to prevent the group from reaching the requisite number. According to the website, the rejection rate on petitions has been about 18.5 percent historically, but Protect Marriage handed in a much smaller number of signatures, meaning it had to reach a rejection rate that was under 12.4 percent to qualify. In the end, its signature rejection rate was 11.8 percent.

And then there’s Maine

Having enough signatures has not been in question in Maine. There, a coalition of groups called "Stand for Marriage Maine" turned in more than twice the 55,000 signatures they needed.... [A] measure to repeal the state’s newly passed marriage equality law has been certified for November’s ballot. That puts the law, which was set to go into effect this month, on hold.

The battle against same-sex marriage licensing in Maine is being led by anti-gay newcomer Bob Emrich, pastor of an independent Baptist Church in Plymouth, Maine -- population 1,257, according to the 2000 census. Emrich is also director of a group he calls the Maine Jeremiah Project, a 501(c)(3) named after a passage from the Book of Jeremiah that urges exiles to pray for "peace and prosperity" in their own city because if the city prospers, "you too will prosper." According to his website, these words call on him to focus on "public policy and contemporary culture."

He’s part of a coalition called Stand for Marriage that includes his group and 10 others. Marc Mutty, director of public affairs for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Maine, is chairman of the coalition group, that includes the diocese, several Catholic fellowship groups, and several national conservative organizations. Among the latter is the National Organization for Marriage, the Eagle Forum, Concerned Women of America, and Family Watch International.

Since forming its campaign committee in June, the Stand for Marriage Maine coalition has taken in $343,690 in contributions -- 99.7 percent of which has come from only three entities: the National Organization for Marriage ($160,000), the Portland diocese and affiliated groups ($152,000), and the state chapter of Focus on the Family ($31,000).

This unusual concentration of funding -- only a few hundred dollars coming from individual donors -- set off the bells and whistles for one pro-gay California activist. Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, contacted the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elections Practices. He suggested it could be a sign that the organizations are "trying to hide the true identities of those contributing to the campaign," which could run afoul of state election funding laws.

Jonathan Wayne, head of the commission, said a ballot question committee, like a political action committee, must accurately report the source of its contributions. He said his commission has asked Karger to "reformulate his request" to provide more specific information before it proceeds. The commission has also given Stand for Marriage an opportunity to respond to Karger’s concerns.

Meanwhile, the key group working against the referendum, "No on 1: Protect Maine Equality," has raised $143,290 -- only $35,000 of which has come from national groups ($25,000 from the Human Rights Campaign and $10,000 from the ACLU). Equality Maine, another group working to defend the equal marriage law, has raised $63,561 -- of which $20,000 came from a national group, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force....

More California voices weigh in: Stay away from 2010 ballot

Equality California asked six political consultants to advise on whether to push for a repeal of Prop 8 in 2010, and their unanimous response: No way. Following is a summary from the SF Chronicle; the full text of each expert's opinion is posted here.

Sue Burnside, co-chair of the National Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund Campaign Board, is "convinced that we should refrain from rushing in 2010, and instead to build on grassroots passion and strategically prepare for a 'Yes on Marriage Equality' referendum in 2012." Ditto for Mark Armour and Rick Claussen suggests "a multi-year campaign that culminates in an election when the time is right."

"If you do UNSUCCESSFULLY undertake this issue at the ballot in 2010, this will further erode public support on the issue and make it harder for future efforts to succeed," Claussen said.

Even though Democratic consultant Richie Ross -- who has won a bazillion races in California going back a few decades -- doesn't offer a definitive suggestion, he presents a raw numbers breakdown that suggests that by 2012 there will be more young voters on the rolls (likely to vote for gay marriage) and more older voters (likely to oppose) dying off.

Dave Fleischer, who has worked on many gay-related ballot measures over the years, worries about money. Each side on the Prop 8 battle raised at least $40 million. "The most conventional path to victory employed by a wide variety of campaign strategists -- bury your opposition by dramatically outspending them, effectively drowning out their message -- isn't an option when the opposition is as well-funded as ours is in California." He worries that the 66 weeks until Nov 2010 "is a very brief time to raise $40-50 million."

Plus, he worries if "our strategy, in a lower turnout year, (can) insure that those who voted withus in 2008 return to the polls in greater numbers than those who voted against us? We can certainly try. But we have to acknowledge that this would be very difficult. Key blocs of our supporters, such as younger voters, often turn out to vote in reduced numbers in off-years."

Former Los Angeles Times pollster Jill Darling said "Did the 2008 campaign move voters? Are the post-elections efforts having any effect? Nothing measurable, as of May."

Consultant Gale Kaufman notes that an initiative for November 2010 needs to be submitted to the Attorney General by the end of September. "We should ask ourselves, are we ready for that? Has the perfect initiative been drafted? Is everyone who should be consulted on the legal language, not to mention whatever nuances we want to add, signed off? Is the campaign structure in place to sustain the process that goes along with the beginning stages of an initiative campaign?

"I pose these questions because I think I know the answer. And I think the answer is No," Kaufman said. 

California update: No Prop 8 repeal vote likely in 2010 + One litigation challenge bites the dust

Organizations are starting to fall into place calling for a delay in taking Prop 8 back to the ballot until the likelihood of success is stronger. A coalition of groups, including the ACLU, issued a "Prepare to Prevail" statement, now joined by NGLTF. No surprise: according to polls, the numbers aren't there to win, and I think it is everybody's sense that the dollars aren't there either. Equality California is hosting a community summit on July 25. Although no final decision has been made, it looks to me like the outcome is now clear.

Meanwhile, the federal district court hearing the Smelt case dismissed the part of it that was a challenge to Prop 8. In a short order, the court ruled that because plaintiffs' marriage was preserved under the portion of the California Supreme Court decision that upheld the validity of same-sex marriages performed before the election, plaintiffs lacked standing. The claim challenging the constitutionality of DoMA survives, which means that the Justice Department's infamous motion to dismiss is now the only remaining matter on which the court has to rule before the case either goes forward or goes on appeal.

From the other side: "How we passed Prop 8"

After reading a fascinating article written by the two lead strategists behind Prop 8's victory, I felt like I had stepped through the looking glass. The narrative is about how the underdog won, except, in this flip of "Milk," they were the underdog. And that is what the early polls showed.

This analysis of how they won was a lot more illuminating to me than anything I've read from our side reflecting on how we lost. Their basic message in this article is simple: master the fundamentals, define the issues, ignore the noise and make the other side play your game.

Take the issue of "teaching" gay marriage to young schoolchildren. This distortion mapped perfectly onto what they identified as the soft side of support for same-sex marriage: that straight voters will tolerate it as long as they are not affected by it. And as I noted last summer, the curriculum issue finally gave marriage opponents an argument that allowing gay couples to marry could actually harm someone else.

In my view, what is going on here is NOT fear of gays and kids in just any context, but specifically in schools – where parents can’t be to police what’s going on, where parents lack the kind of control that they have at home. Swing voter parents are worried that some politically correct young (probably heterosexual) teacher will do something that they can't stop to undercut whatever message (probably mixed) that they are trying to send their kids about gay people. This isn't just the old child molester trope, even if the argument alludes to that subliminally.

In this framing, news of a schoolteacher taking kids to a lesbian wedding created a perfect nightmare metaphor for the Yes on 8 team to use. And they describe that event, coming out of the blue, as the big break of the campaign for them. That, together with their superb organizing effort and ground game for getting out the vote, plus their Obama smart use of web-based techniques, just flat outsmarted us.

Read their article after the jump --

Researchers find that race was less of a factor in Prop 8 vote

A study by two political scientists released today found that African-American voters in CA did not support Prop 8 to nearly the degree indicated by a much publicized (and here and here and many others) exit poll. According to a survey conducted last month of a random sample of voters, 58% of African-Americans voted for Prop 8, a higher rate that the 52% support it received overall, but far below the 70% figure found by the CNN exit poll. That exit poll result, the authors say, was an outlier - not consistent with their follow-up poll, pre-election polls, or precinct-level analysis, which found 57 to 59% support for Prop 8 in heavily African-American precincts.

The study, by Ken Sherrill (CUNY-Hunter College) and Patrick Egan (NYU), provides the clearest documentation yet of how various segments of the electorate contributed to the outcome, with important ramifications for future campaigns.

What characteristics were most predictive of how an individual voted on Prop 8?

--> Party identification, political views, religiosity and age, in that order.

Religiosity explained much of the difference between African-American or Latino and white voters. Weekly attendance at religious services is far more likely for African-Americans (57%) and a bit more likely for Latinos (47%) than for whites (43%). Among persons who reported attending services at least once a week, support for Prop 8 was close to the same across all racial and ethnic groups.

However, among persons attending services less than weekly, there was a racial difference: in that group, the yes on 8 vote was 48% among African-Americans, 46% among Latinos, 36% among whites, and 33% among Asian-Americans. Therefore it would be wrong to use this new survey as the basis for leaping to the conclusion that there is no serious problem with racial disparity in support for same-sex marriage -- there is. The lgbt movement needs to rethink its race analysis and politics - that lesson from Prop 8 is still quite valid. The level of support for Prop 8 among less religious black and Latino voters is sobering.

Far more significant than race and even more significant than religion was political ideology: 81% of Republicans voted yes, compared to 30% of Democrats; and 82% of self-characterized conservatives were yes voters, compared to 22% of liberals.

Using multi-variate analysis, Egan and Sherrill found that the percentage of votes affected by each characteristic was as follows:

• Party identification        15.2%
• Ideology                        14.6%
• Religiosity                     11.8%
• Age                                 8.7%
• Race/ethnicity                5.5%
• Gender                           4.9%
• Knowing someone gay      0.6%

As is obvious from these figures, by far the least significant factor of those studied was whether the individual knew someone gay or lesbian. Overall, almost 75% of all voters said they had gay family members or friends, which means that most conservative and Republican voters who know gay people voted for Prop 8.

To me, this signals a need to adjust some of the old slogans -- coming out per se is necessary but far from sufficient for achieving change. Milk was a good movie, but we're no longer living in that moment. The society has moved way past the time when only a small number of straight people realized that they knew a gay person. At least for conservative voters, on this particular issue, the impact of having someone they know come out or of seeing appealing lgbt families on tv is probably insignificant. It would be interesting to know whether having gay friends or family members has a bigger impact on voters for issues other than marriage, or whether it's just lost some of its political oomph.

The effect that all those years of coming out has had up to now is quite real, though, and evident from the study. By comparing data from 2008 to data from the 2000 election in California, when voters adopted a statute limiting marriage to heterosexuals by a 61% majority, the authors were able to map the change in voting patterns within birth cohorts. For example, among "boomers" - those born between 1940 and 1960 - support for legalizing same-sex marriage grew by 13 points between 2000 and 2008. For those born between 1960 and 1982, it grew by 4%. A majority in both of those groups voted against Prop 8. For voters born before 1940, however, there has been no shift in opinion.

New on SSRN: "The LDS Church, Prop 8 and the Federal Law of Charities"

Up on SSRN and forthcoming in Northwestern Law Review, Brian Galle (Florida State, visiting at Georgetown) has a new paper on the tax law implications of the participation by the Mormon church in the campaign against Prop 8.  Galle's essay raises interesting questions,including the issue of how such things as the church's phone-tree and e/mail lists should be valued in determining whether it spent "substantial" resources on lobbying activities.  The litmus test under federal tax law for the permissible amount of lobbying by a tax exempt charitable organization is whether the lobbying constituted a "substantial" part of the charity's activities.

Galle argues that Prop 8 "exposes a serious hole in the fabric of federal law: the possibility that massive million dollar lobbying expenditures, large enough to swamp any opposition, may be perfectly legitimate so long as they are undertaken by a sufficiently gigantic organization." The law is unclear enough that there is no clear basis for concluding that the Mormon church was in violation for its Prop 8 activities, but Galle argues that those activities are problematic in light of the purposes behind the exemption for charities.

Kilroy will soon be here - in the House of Representatives

One of the candidates that I followed on election night was Mary Jo Kilroy, who was in a tight race in central Ohio. Her opponent was declared the winner by the networks, but the AP now reports that provisional ballots put her over the top. Kilroy, an attorney serving on the county commission, was attacked as "socialist" because she had written for the local alternative paper, the Columbus Free Press. I guess it was kind of a mini version of the attacks on Obama.  Note to Republicans - how's that working for ya?

No on 8: "political malpractice"?

There is no shortage of blame, to put it mildly, circulating around the failure to stop Prop 8. Many voices have described the failure to connect adequately with communities of color. LA Weekly reports demands for a generational shift in power, away from those who led No on 8 and to younger activists.  It's easy to understand the raw anger and frustration, and it's a safe prediction that no future campaign will get community support unless it promises not to repeat the mistakes made in this one. I must also say that I know some CA folks who worked tirelessly in the No on 8 campaign, and whatever mistakes were made, they should be appreciated for that.

The article I'm excerpting here, from Rolling Stone, contains the best analysis of the No on 8 campaign that I've read so far. What's most interesting to me is the link between the Yes on 8 campaign director and his strategy, and the Bush 2004 ground campaign that blew out the Dems in Ohio:

From the start, the leaders of the No on Prop 8 campaign and their high-priced consultants failed to realize what they were up against. According to Geoff Kors, who headed the campaign's executive committee, the No side anticipated needing no more than $20 million to stop the gay-marriage ban. The Yes side, by contrast, set out to change how initiative politics are played, building a well-funded operation that rivaled a swing-state presidential campaign in its scope and complexity. It also built a powerful, faith-based coalition that included the Catholic Church, Protestant evangelicals and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "The direct involvement of the Mormon church — moving donors in a very short window to give early — was stunning," says Patrick Guerriero, who was called in to take over as campaign manager of No on Prop 8 in the final month. "It was unprecedented — and probably impossible to predict."

In fact, as documented in an internal LDS memo leaked during the campaign, proposals for such a coalition had been on the table for more than a decade. In the memo, a high-ranking Mormon leader discusses approaches for fighting gay marriage in California: "The Church should be in a coalition and not out front by itself," the memo advocates. "The public image of the Catholic Church is higher than our Church. . . . If we get into this, they are the ones with which to join."

... [O]nce the Mormons joined the effort, they quickly established themselves as "the foundation of the campaign," says Frank Schubert, the consultant who directed Yes on 8. "We could count on their money and their people being there early."

Schubert put Mormon volunteers to work in an expansive field campaign modeled on the effort his business partner, Jeff Flint, worked on in 2004 for George Bush in Ohio. "This is the first time in initiative history that it's ever been done" for a ballot measure, says Schubert. Throughout the summer, Yes on 8 deployed an army of more than 100,000 volunteers to knock on doors in every zip code in the state.

"We had an enormous grass-roots advantage," Schubert says. "Our core was people of faith, and we were able to organize through churches." In the end, he says, the campaign visited 70 percent of all California households in person, and contacted another 15 percent by phone.

The No on Prop 8 campaign, meanwhile, was oblivious to the formidable field operation that the other side was mounting. Worse, its executive committee refused to include leaders of top gay and lesbian grass-roots organizations, which deprived them of an army of willing foot soldiers. "We didn't have people going door to door," admits Yvette Martinez, the campaign's political director. The field operation consisted of volunteers phone-banking from 135 call centers across the state, an effort that didn't begin ramping up until mid-October.

"They had no ground game," says a leading Democratic consultant. "They thought they could win this thing by slapping some ads together. It was the height of naiveté."

The Yes on 8 campaign's get-out-the-vote effort was equally prodigious. The weekend before the vote, Schubert's religious volunteers once again went door to door, speaking to supporters and directing them to the right precinct locations. "On Election Day," he says, "we had 100,000 people — five per precinct — checking voter rolls and contacting supporters who hadn't showed up to vote."

By contrast, the No on Prop 8 campaign mobilized just 11,000 volunteers on Election Day, which they deployed to polling locations to hold "Vote No on 8" signs. The campaign even turned away volunteers who were unable to attend a sign-holding training seminar. Terry Leftgoff, a veteran campaign consultant who was once the highest-ranking gay officer in the California Democratic Party, was one of those who was informed that his services weren't needed. "I was told I could come by on November 5th and help clean up a campaign office," Leftgoff says.

As terrible as the no on prop 8 campaign did on the ground, it did even worse on the air....

[Continue reading at the link]

Williams Institute event analyzing election results available on web

Video of the November 13 panel discussion and analysis of the 2008 election results that was held at UCLA Law School, sponsored by the Williams Institute, has just become available on the web. The event features analysis by the Director of Polling for the L A Times; Professor Tobias Barrington Wolff (University of Pennsylvania Law), a leading policy advisor to President-elect Obama; Professor Ken Sherrill (Poli Sci, Hunter College), an expert on lgbt political participation; Geoff Kors of Equality California, Winnie Stachelberg of the Center for American Progress, Patrick Guerriero of Gill Action, and others.