South Dakotans Reject
Sweeping Abortion Ban
By MONICA DAVEY,
NYTimes on the Web. November 8, 2006
Voters in South Dakota yesterday
rejected the most sweeping abortion ban proposed in the nation in more than a
decade, turning back an effort by the ban’s authors to set up a direct challenge
to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision that made
abortion legal.
In February, the state legislature voted to outlaw all abortions except in cases
where a mother’s life was at stake, but the ban was delayed after its opponents
led a petition drive to let voters decide the matter themselves.
Abortion rights advocates said they saw South Dakota’s vote as a loud and
crucial message to those who have proposed similar bans in a handful of states
around the country. Supporters of the ban, meanwhile, said they would not
give up their efforts.
“This is a wake-up call to lawmakers in other states,” said Nancy Keenan, the
leader of Naral Pro-Choice America.
But Daniel McConchie, the vice president of Americans United for Life, said the
vote was not a larger sign of anything. “The pro-life movement is going to
be continuing to focus on pieces of legislation that have broad support,” he
said.
Voters in 37 states weighed in on 205 ballot measures yesterday, dozens more
than they faced two years ago. In Arizona alone, voters contended with 19
separate measures, more than any other state — a fact election officials said
probably explained some lines there.
In Michigan, despite opposition from business and labor leaders and its
candidates for governor, voters approved a measure barring affirmative action by
public institutions in education employment or contracting.
The outcome in Michigan, the third state to adopt such a measure in the last
decade, was expected to prompt similar challenges to affirmation action programs
in other states.
The measure followed a Supreme Court ruling in 2003 that while the consideration
of race as part of the University of Michigan law school’s admissions policy is
constitutional, a formula giving extra points to minority undergraduate
applicants is not.
A similar proposition passed in California in 1996; there, the number of black
students at the elite public universities has dropped. In 1998, voters in
Washington state approved a similar measure, which banned affirmative action in
higher education, public contracting, and hiring.
Nationally, party officials viewed the scores of ballot measures as one more way
to draw blocs of voters to the polls and, along the way, affect the most
competitive and crucial races for Congress.
Republicans, for instance, hoped measures in eight states explicitly defining
marriage as a union between a man and a woman would bring social conservatives
out to vote. Residents in South Carolina, Tennessee, Idaho, Wisconsin and
Virginia voted to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.
Voters in three other states considered similar provisions.
Democrats believed proposals in six states to raise the minimum wage would bring
labor-union supporters and low-income workers to the polls. Urged on by
labor leaders, those provisions to increase the state minimum wage appeared on
ballots in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and Ohio. Most of
the efforts were successful.
Supporters viewed the measures as a way to draw attention to the issue and also
to mobilize voters in those states where they believed discontented workers
might affect crucial Congressional races, including those in Ohio.
The proposed increases varied in different states, but all reflected an increase
over the current federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. In Ohio, where
voters approved the measure yesterday, the increase would raise the minimum wage
to $6.85 an hour, with an annual cost of living increase. In voting on
other measures on state ballots, fury over the notion that the government might
take away land for private development was evident yesterday.
In Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Oregon, Arizona, North Dakota, Michigan and
New Hampshire, voters approved measures to restrict government’s power to use
eminent domain to seize privately owned land for other private development.
The outcomes were seen as a resounding indication of voters’ anger at a 2005
United States Supreme Court decision that said such takings were legal.
“The eminent domain issue resonates with voters, and they are afraid that power
is going to be greatly expanded by government,” said Stephanie L. Witt, a
professor and director of the public policy center at Boise State University.
“No one likes to have their home taken, and where I think we crossed some kind
of boundary with citizens is when the property is taken for use in some kind of
private development.”
Opponents of the proposals said they anticipated lengthy court battles in states
where the limits passed. Voters in four other states were considering similar
measures.
Among the measures on the ballots were more than 70 issues put there directly by
citizens. Only twice have there been more such citizen-driven initiatives
since 1902, when such measures were first used, said John G. Matsusaka,
president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of
Southern California. The high number this year, he said, may reflect “the
general growing dissatisfaction with government and politicians.”
In Missouri, where one of the hardest fought Senate races in the nation was also
being waged, voters considered a measure guaranteeing that any stem cell
research legal under federal law be allowed in Missouri.
Libby Sander contributed reporting.
|
