2006 Wisconsin Referendum 1

Last updated

Referendum 1
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svgYes1,264,31059.43%
Light brown x.svgNo862,92440.57%
Valid votes2,127,23497.44%
Invalid or blank votes55,9212.56%
Total votes2,183,155100.00%
Registered voters/turnout4,256,72149.97%

2006 Wisconsin Referendum 1 results map by county.svg
WI Referendum 1 2006.svg
Sources: [1] [2] [3]

Wisconsin Referendum 1 of 2006 was a referendum on an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution that would invalidate same-sex marriages or any substantially similar legal status. The referendum was approved by 59% of voters during the general elections in November 2006. [3] All counties in the state voted for the amendment except Dane County (home of the state capital, Madison, and the University of Wisconsin), which opposed it. The constitutional amendment created by Referendum 1 has been effectively nullified since June 26, 2015, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. [4]

Contents

Amendment

The text of the adopted amendment, which became Article XIII, Section 13 of the state constitution, reads:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state. [5]

As required by the constitution, the amendment was approved by both houses of the legislature, in two consecutive sessions. The legislative history of the amendment is as follows:

CountyYesNoTotal Votes
#%#%#
Adams 5,14265.2%2,74134.8%7,883
Ashland 3,56659.9%2,39240.1%5,958
Barron 10,95868.8%4,96231.2%15,920
Bayfield 4,13257.9%3,01042.1%7,142
Brown 55,78060.6%36,30539.4%92,085
Buffalo 3,42864.1%1,92135.9%5,349
Burnett 4,41872.4%1,68627.6%6,104
Calumet 13,33869.0%5,98631.0%19,324
Chippewa 13,99365.4%7,40834.6%21,401
Clark 7,73769.2%3,43630.8%11,173
Columbia 13,02359.5%8,86640.5%21,889
Crawford 3,98062.1%2,42737.9%6,407
Dane 70,37733.1%142,49166.9%212,868
Dodge 22,55273.4%8,15426.6%30,706
Door 8,41259.2%5,79040.8%14,202
Douglas 9,31659.9%6,24140.1%15,557
Dunn 8,52058.9%5,93941.1%14,459
Eau Claire 19,59551.7%18,29748.3%37,892
Florence 1,51575.9%48124.1%1,996
Fond du Lac 25,74568.7%11,73131.3%37,476
Forest 2,40767.1%1,18032.9%3,587
Grant 10,54662.5%6,32137.5%16,867
Green 7,07454.1%6,01145.9%13,085
Green Lake 5,85074.0%2,05126.0%7,901
Iowa 4,55350.7%4,42449.3%8,977
Iron 1,74365.1%93534.9%2,678
Jackson 4,41863.8%2,50436.2%6,922
Jefferson 19,91865.1%10,68734.9%30,605
Juneau 5,71768.5%2,62531.5%8,342
Kenosha 29,67659.2%20,49040.8%50,166
Kewaunee 6,45072.9%2,39927.1%8,849
La Crosse 21,32750.2%21,17549.8%42,502
Lafayette 3,62462.8%2,14937.2%5,773
Langlade 5,85668.3%2,72431.7%8,580
Lincoln 7,12966.1%3,66133.9%10,790
Manitowoc 22,44270.1%9,57229.9%32,014
Marathon 31,67565.0%17,05435.0%48,729
Marinette 12,19272.8%4,55427.2%16,746
Marquette 4,15267.5%2,00332.5%6,155
Menominee 50753.1%44846.9%955
Milwaukee 172,54855.0%141,45345.0%314,001
Monroe 8,87166.2%4,52533.8%13,396
Oconto 10,22271.1%4,16528.9%14,387
Oneida 9,35659.1%6,47840.9%15,834
Outagamie 42,84962.6%25,63137.4%68,480
Ozaukee 25,91463.5%14,91636.5%40,830
Pepin 2,10670.3%88929.7%2,995
Pierce 8,35059.5%5,67340.5%14,023
Polk 10,61969.2%4,73330.8%15,352
Portage 15,40953.7%13,28546.3%28,694
Price 3,94463.6%2,25936.4%6,203
Racine 43,86963.8%24,86836.2%68,737
Richland 3,93961.6%2,45438.4%6,393
Rock 30,22055.6%24,08744.4%54,307
Rusk 3,84866.8%1,91633.2%5,764
St. Croix 16,66863.1%9,74936.9%26,417
Sauk 12,39457.1%9,31042.9%21,704
Sawyer 4,24567.1%2,08232.9%6,327
Shawano 11,33372.6%4,27927.4%15,612
Sheboygan 32,90870.3%13,89529.7%46,803
Taylor 4,74166.3%2,41433.7%7,155
Trempealeau 5,99663.4%3,46636.6%9,462
Vernon 6,25361.6%3,90138.4%10,154
Vilas 6,38661.8%3,95338.2%10,339
Walworth 20,50161.8%12,65238.2%33,153
Washburn 4,46568.0%2,09732.0%6,562
Washington 38,75973.7%13,80426.3%52,563
Waukesha 118,73668.3%55,16531.7%173,901
Waupaca 13,28169.6%5,81030.4%19,091
Waushara 6,16868.5%2,83331.5%9,001
Winnebago 37,18857.7%27,22842.3%64,416
Wood 19,44166.7%9,72333.3%29,164
Totals1,264,31059.4%862,92440.6%2,127,234
Source: Wisconsin Blue Book at the Wayback Machine (archived April 3, 2023)

Effects

The amendment, which took effect on November 7, 2006, constitutionally banned same-sex marriages, which were never recognized by the state and was statutorily banned since 1979, and civil unions or civil union equivalents, which were never recognized by the state. Wisconsin became the 21st US state to ban same-sex marriage in its constitution and 14th US state to ban civil unions or civil union equivalents in its constitution. This preempted the state judiciary from requiring the state to legally recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions or civil union equivalents and preempted the Wisconsin Legislature from enacting a statute legalizing same-sex marriages or civil unions or civil union equivalents. Domestic partnerships in Wisconsin, legal statewide for state employees only and 1 county and 3 municipalities at the time, were unaffected by the amendment. In 2009, Wisconsin would enact statewide domestic partnerships for everyone, which would later be repealed in 2018.

In April 2009 the Wisconsin Supreme Court was asked in McConkey v. Van Hollen to rule on whether the 2006 Referendum 1 was constitutional. William McConkey, a political science instructor, claimed that the measure violated the state's constitution because it proposed more than one question in a single ballot proposal, which is impermissible under Wisconsin law. [9] [10] [11] On June 30, 2010, the Court ruled that the amendment referendum question was permissible and thus the amendment had been properly passed. [12] [13] However, on June 6, 2014, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin overturned all bans on same-sex marriage in the state. [14] On October 6, 2014, same sex marriage was legalized in Wisconsin.

Pre-decision opinion polls

Date of opinion pollConducted by Sample size In favorAgainstUndecidedMarginMargin of ErrorSource
October 2006 St. Norbert College  ?51%44% ?7% pro ? [15]
September 2006Diversified Research for wispolitics.com  ?53%39% ?14% pro ? [16]

Related Research Articles

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment, was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would legally define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA would also prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions</span>

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions of several different types passed, banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as "defense of marriage amendments" or "marriage protection amendments." These state amendments are different from the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage in every U.S. state, and Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, more commonly known as DOMA, which allowed the states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Arizona Proposition 107</span> Failed referendum on a statewide same-sex marriage ban

Arizona Proposition 107 was a proposed same-sex marriage ban, put before voters by ballot initiative in the 2006 general election. If passed, it would have prohibited the U.S. state of Arizona from recognizing same-sex marriages or civil unions. The state already had a statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

The Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment, also known as Tennessee Amendment 1 of 2006, is a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions. The referendum was approved by 81% of voters. It specified that only a marriage between a man and a woman could be legally recognized in the state of Tennessee. This prohibited same-sex marriages within the state, reinforcing previously existing statutes to the same effect until it was overturned by the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling in June 2015.

In response to court action in a number of states, the United States federal government and a number of state legislatures passed or attempted to pass legislation either prohibiting or allowing same-sex marriage or other types of same-sex unions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1998 Alaska Measure 2</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

Ballot Measure 2 of 1998 is a ballot measure, since ruled unconstitutional, that added an amendment to the Alaska Constitution that prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage in Alaska. The Ballot measure was sparked by the lawsuit filed by Jay Brause and Gene Dugan, after the two men were denied a marriage license by the Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics. In Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743, the Alaska Superior Court ruled that the state needed compelling reason to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples and ordered a trial on the question. In response, the Alaska Legislature immediately proposed and passed Resolution 42, which became what is now known as Ballot Measure 2. Ballot Measure 2 passed via public referendum on November 3, 1998, with 68% of voters supporting and 32% opposing. The Bause case was dismissed following the passage of the ballot measure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 South Dakota Amendment C</span> 2006 referendum

South Dakota Amendment C of 2006 is an amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to make it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages, or to recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships, or other quasi-marital relationships regardless of gender. The referendum was approved on 7 November 2006 by 52% of the state's voters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Idaho Amendment 2</span>

Idaho Amendment 2 of 2006 is an amendment to the Idaho Constitution that made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 Texas Proposition 2</span>

Proposition 2 was a referendum for a state constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the Texas legislature and approved by the voters at the November 8, 2005 general election. The measure added a new provision to the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 32, which provides that "Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman", and "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." Texas thus became the nineteenth US state to adopt constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It was the most populous state to adopt a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage until California passed its ban in November 2008. The amendment was later invalidated in June 2015 after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, though the amendment remains in the Texas Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 Kansas Amendment 1</span>

Kansas Amendment 1, which was put before voters on April 5, 2005, is an amendment to the Kansas Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 70% of the voters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2000 Nebraska Initiative 416</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

Nebraska Initiative 416, officially titled "Ban Same-Sex Marriage Act", was a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to make it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships. The referendum was approved on November 7, 2000, by 70% of the voters. The initiative has since been struck down in federal court and same-sex marriage is now legally recognized in the state of Nebraska.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Georgia Amendment 1</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

Georgia Constitutional Amendment 1 of 2004, is an amendment to the Georgia Constitution that previously made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 76% of the voters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Kentucky Amendment 1</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 of 2004, is an amendment to the Kentucky Constitution that made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 75% of the voters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Michigan Proposal 04-2</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

Michigan Proposal 04-2 of 2004, is an amendment to the Michigan Constitution that made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 59% of the voters. The amendment faced multiple legal challenges and was finally overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges by the U.S. Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Oklahoma State Question 711</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

Oklahoma Question 711 of 2004, was an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, thus rendering recognition or performance of same-sex marriages or civil unions null within the state prior to its being ruled unconstitutional. The referendum was approved by 76 percent of the voters.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Wisconsin since October 6, 2014, upon the resolution of a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. On October 6, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of an appellate court ruling in Wolf v. Walker that had found Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The appellate court issued its order prohibiting enforcement of the state's ban on same-sex marriage the next day and Wisconsin counties began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples immediately. Wisconsin had previously recognized domestic partnerships, which afforded limited legal rights to same-sex couples, from August 2009 until they were discontinued in April 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Arizona Proposition 102</span> Successful referendum on an amendment banning same-sex marriage

Arizona Proposition 102 was an amendment to the constitution of the U.S. state of Arizona adopted by a ballot measure held in 2008. It added Article 30 of the Arizona Constitution, which says: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." The amendment added a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage to existing statutory bans in place since 1996. In October 2014, Article 30 of the Arizona Constitution was struck down as unconstitutional in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and is no longer enforced by the state of Arizona, which now allows and recognizes same-sex marriages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Florida Amendment 2</span> Referendum on legally defining marriage as heterosexual

Florida Amendment 2 is an amendment made to the constitution of the U.S. state of Florida in 2008. It added Article I, Section 27 to the constitution, which defines marriage as a union only between one man and one woman, and thus bans the creation of similar unions, such as civil unions or same-sex marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">North Carolina Amendment 1</span>

North Carolina Amendment 1 is a partially overturned legislatively referred constitutional amendment in North Carolina that amended the Constitution of North Carolina to add ARTICLE XIV, Section 6, which prohibit the state from recognizing or performing same-sex marriages, civil unions or civil union equivalents by defining male–female marriage as "the only domestic legal union" considered valid or recognized in the state. It did not prohibit domestic partnerships in the state and also constitutionally protected same-sex and opposite-sex prenuptial agreements, which is the only part that is still in effect today. On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61% to 39%, with a voter turnout of 35%. On May 23, 2012, the amendment took effect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Virginia ballot measures</span>

The 2006 Virginia State Elections took place on Election Day, November 7, 2006, the same day as the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate elections in the state. The only statewide elections on the ballot were three constitutional referendums to amend the Virginia State Constitution. Because Virginia state elections are held on off-years, no statewide officers or state legislative elections were held. All referendums were referred to the voters by the Virginia General Assembly.

References

  1. 2006-11-07_FallElection_Referendum_CountyReturns
  2. General Election Voter Registration and Absentee Statistics 1984-2022.xlsx
  3. 1 2 CNN.com Election 2006 - Ballot Measures Accessed 14 December 2006.
  4. "U.S. 21st country to allow same-sex marriage nationwide". CNN. June 26, 2015.
  5. "DOMAwatch.org - Wisconsin Archived 2005-03-10 at the Wayback Machine " Alliance Defense Fund. 2006. Accessed 06 January 2007.
  6. Assembly Joint Resolution 66, Journal of the Wisconsin Senate, March 11, 2004, p. 717. The final vote was taken shortly after midnight on March 12.
  7. Senate Joint Resolution 53, Journal of the Wisconsin Senate, Dec. 6, 2005, p. 488.
  8. Canvass Summary, Wisconsin State Elections Board, Fall General Election, Nov. 7, 2006.
  9. Wisconsin amendment supreme court
  10. Christopher Magnum, Wis. "Supreme Court Hears Gay Marriage Case", Advocate.com, Nov. 3, 2009.
  11. Patrick Marley, "State Supreme Court hears arguments on gay marriage amendment", The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 3, 2009.
  12. "Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban". 6abc. WPVI-TV. June 30, 2010. Retrieved October 1, 2023.
  13. Foley, Ryan J. (June 30, 2010). "Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously upholds gay marriage ban". Madison.com. Wisconsin State Journal. AP. Archived from the original on July 13, 2022. Retrieved October 1, 2023.
  14. "Wisconsin's same-sex marriage ban struck down" . Retrieved June 6, 2014.
  15. Ballot Measure Update
  16. 2006 Ballot Measures: A National Scorecard