Secret Ballot, Schmecret Ballot
Following Chris’s lead, here’s how I plan to vote on Tuesday:
- Ballot Question #1: Marriage Amendment: No. Long-time readers know I’m not a big fan of gay marriage and am neutral on civil unions and domestic partnerships. I’m not big on making either policy preference democracy-proof, however, which is probably the only substanantive effect this amendment will have. It may have other effects, however, due to its horrible wording. All this to stave off far left judicial activism in a state that has never known it? Feh. Massachusetts and New Jersey need this amendment. We don’t.
- Ballot Question #2: Incorporated Churches: Yes. Apparently, courts have ruled that Article IV of our Constitution is … er … unconstitutional. This amendment would excise the unconstitutional portions of our Constitution, thereby rendering our Constitution constitutional again – unless, of course, the new marriage amendment is held unconstitutional, in which case this amendment will merely preserve the current level of unconstitutionality in our Constitution. Regardless of the merits of the ruling, it is what it is, the unconstitutional constitutional provision is inoperative, so let’s get rid of it.
- Ballot Question #3: Real Estate Tax Exemptions: Yes. This is the one I know and care the least about, but my knee jerk reaction is to vote “yes” on anything that expands the power of one level of governement to expand the powers of another level of government to tax its residents less. But I fully admit there could be more to the picture, so if you’re looking to change my vote on anything between now and Black Tuesday, focus on this measure.
- US Senate: George Allen. Webb’s pretty good as Democrats go, but the fact remains that Allen wants to keep your taxes low by making the Bush tax cuts permanent, while Webb does not. Allen opposes President Bush’s non-amnesty amnesty scamnesty. Webb does not. Most importantly, a vote for any Democrat Senator now is a vote to keep good, solid, principled judges off the bench for a generation to come. If you were disappointed to see Sam Alito confirmed instead of Harriet Miers, elect a Democrat controlled Senate, and if Justice Stevens retires during the remainder of President Bush’s terms, he just might nominate her again – and this time, she’ll be the best he can do. Don’t even think of sitting this election out or casting any protest votes. This race is going down to the wire.
- US Congress (Dist. 7): Eric Cantor. Cantor gets my vote because he seems like a good guy, and the campaign ads against him are dowright goofy. Besides, a vote for any Democrat in the House is a vote for Speaker Pelosi and a vote for throwing in the towel in Iraq. However, Cantor’s district is overwhelmingly Republican, so he’s in no danger of losing. If you feel like casting any joke or protest votes, here’s the place to do it. Write in Mickey Mouse, Bo Gritz, Xrlq, or whoever. Just don’t write in Tommy Flanagan, or they might think you intended to cast a serious vote for Jim Nachman. Better still, vote for Brad “Don’t Vote For Me” Blanton, just to spite him.
November 5th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
I voted (absentee) against #3 because I think property tax exemptions is a major contributing factor to the mess that is Jersey’s property taxes (quite high and quite byzantine).
I also don’t think the government should be favoring some legal activities over other legal activities. It’s why we have K-street and a confusing income tax code. I don’t want to see that replicated at the local level.
November 6th, 2006 at 10:58 am
This tax provision really concerns me.
Now, there seem to be two ways to read it – both bad.
First, It can be read as an incentive for developers to come into a distressed urban environment and re-develop it. This will only lead to more Kelo type takings, and besides, there are already plenty of brownfield program type incentives available for this kind of development.
Second, and as I read it, a developer will be granted a property tax credit for putting in stream buffer strips, planting trees and other natural sound and pollution barriers, etc. in a development. These are all things the developer ought to be doing anyway (they enhance the value of the property) but aren’t, ought to be required by the county (at least here in NoVA) but arent, and are simply another giveaway to West Group and Til Hazel. Frankly, the end result of this is amendment – as I see it – is to allow West Group and Til Hazel to make even more money, while putting added pressure on local governments (ie: Fairfax COunty Board of Supervisors) to FURTHER raise my taxes as they are now limited in their ability to go after new infill development.
I’m voting no.
November 6th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
XLRQ, you forget that when the Supreme Court is deciding whether new rights are to be minted they look at the State’s enactments. For instance, look at the ruling that 17 year olds could no longer be sentenced to death. They added up the states and determined it had suddenly become unconstitutional. They did the same thing with the sodomy laws. If we do not pass the marriage amendment dollars to donuts the Left will count Virginia as a State that does not protect traditional marriage constitutionally. Virginia state judges aren’t the problem, federal judges are. Only by strong consistent messages against social liberalism will we be able to slow the polymorphous perversity folk’s march.
November 6th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
I haven’t forgotten anything. Virginia already has such enactments (Va. Code §§ 20-45.2, 20-45.3), so even if the Supremes were to hear a case and rule on that basis, Virginia [a big "if" in its own right, as the chief proponent of the faux consensus doctrine is no longer on the court] would have to be counted among the traditional marriage states. Moving a sensible law (Va. Code 20-45.2) and a not-so-sensible one (Va. Code 20-45.3) from the Virginia Code to the state constitution won’t affect that analysis one whit. Very few of the states counted as anti-death penalty for minors in Roper v. Simmons were constitutional provisions, and the few that were were actually court decisions, not explicit constitutional pronouncements. The Supreme Court didn’t care about that, only which side the state policy came down on, for or against. Ditto for sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas, where the mere absence of a law relating to sodomy was enough. How many states do you think had an explicit right to sodomy codified in their respective versions of the Bill of Rights? Again, the Supreme Court didn’t care about that; all that mattered was which way the state came down on the substantive issue, for or against. There’s no reason to believe they’re going to suddenly discover a distinction between state constitutional policies and ordinary state statutes.
If you really believe, notwithstanding your protestations to the contrary, that the problem lies with Virginia courts or the General Assembly (presumably future ones, and not the one that put this amendment on the ballot in the first place), then you have a rational reason to support some constituitonal amendment, albeit not necessarily the horribly drafted one we get to vote on tomorrow. If you don’t really think the problem is (or will be) with the Virginia General Assembly or the Virginia courts, there is no rational reason to support this amendment or any other relating to marriage. We might as well constitutionalize the fee for a marriage license or, more substantively, the right of every free man to marry his cousin.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
[...] Xrlq and Lileks both support the distinction. Xrlq and I had a weak Round 1 about this a couple months ago. [...]