44moon t1_ixaay9a wrote
yep, and then once they're out of power they'll start dangling the carrot in front of us to drive us to the voting booths again. if they actually accomplish something they can't use its promise to drive voter turnout. and if they actually tried, that would open up the possibility of failure. keep trying to kick that football charlie brown.
Monkeybomber t1_ixdnrtl wrote
Jesus christ, did you even read the article before you went all cynical "both sides are the same"?
"To reach next November's ballot, the measure would have had to win legislative approval. There were two ways to do that. The quick route would have been to have it pass it with three-fifths support of the Legislature next year, a move that would have required strong bipartisan support. Republicans already declared that they had no intention of providing the votes.
That left Democrats with a second, longer route: winning a simple majority in both houses in two consecutive years. That meant they would have needed to win approval by the end of this year. But to do that, the measure would first have had to sit on legislators' desks for 20 days once it was introduced, and then face a public hearing.
That meant a very tight schedule to meet during the holiday season. Sinha, of the ACLU, said it left little time for the careful inspection and debate that such a critical step requires.
"Any time you introduce new language into the constitution, you've got to get it right," he said. "And it requires a careful deliberative process involving legal scholars and constitutional experts to ensure that it will safeguard existing rights without adding restrictions or creating limitations to future protections."
The ACLU has generally been a very strong supporter of abortion rights. So I doubt they're saying this just to play stupid electoral games.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments