| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Marriage Protection Amendment Amends the Arizona Constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Results | ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Sources: [2] |
Elections in Arizona |
---|
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." [3] The amendment added a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage to existing statutory bans in place since 1996. [4] 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. [5]
Despite the court ruling, Article 30 still remains on the state's constitution, and on the Arizona State Legislature's website, there are no notes within the page for Article 30 that that part of the constitution was struck down or otherwise rendered inoperative. [6]
On August 26, 2008, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and Secretary of State Jan Brewer agreed that the ballot description would state that same-sex marriage was already prohibited by statute. [7] Incorporating the same provision into the Arizona Constitution was meant to prevent an Arizona court from ruling that the statute was invalid under the Arizona Constitution.
Along with similar measures in California (California Proposition 8 (2008)) and Florida (Florida Amendment 2 (2008)), Proposition 102 was decided by voters in the general election on November 4, 2008. The amendment passed by a margin of 56% in favor and 44% against.
Proposition 102 had no immediate impact because its definition of marriage was consistent with the existing statutory definition. [8] As an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona, the definition cannot be changed by the state legislature, and the possibility that a state court might find a state constitutional guarantee of same-sex couples' right to marry is eliminated.
As of August 27, 2008 three committees related to Proposition 102 were registered with the Secretary of State: [9] YESforMarriage.com supporting Prop 102 was the one committee in support, and the two committees in opposition were No on Prop 102 and Arizona Together Opposed to Prop 102.
Supporters said that Proposition 102 was necessary to prevent judges changing the legal definition of marriage, as was done in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut and Iowa. Opponents said that Proposition 102 was unnecessary because same-sex marriage was already illegal in Arizona, and that there were more pressing issues facing Arizona; also they cited the issue of the separation of church and state. [10]
Proposition 102 was placed on the ballot via referendum rather than through the initiative process on the last day of the legislative session. Presiding State Senator Jack Harper defeated a filibuster on June 27, 2008 to place the proposed Constitutional Amendment on the ballot. Harper faced an ethics investigation over allegedly violating Senate rules by cutting off the microphones of two senators who were attempting to filibuster the bill. [11] Despite the fact that Harper admitted to cutting off the microphones intentionally, [12] a Senate ethics committee consisting of three Republicans and two Democrats voted 3–2, along strict party lines, to dismiss the charges. [13]
State Senators Jack W. Harper, Ronald Gould, Thayer Verschoor, and John Huppenthal stood out as the proponents of the Marriage Amendment to the Arizona State Constitution. The language of Prop 102 was adopted as a strike-everything amendment to Senator Gould's SCR1042.
In 2006, a more restrictive measure, Proposition 107, had been defeated in the general election.
Choice | Votes | % |
---|---|---|
Yes | 1,258,355 | 56.2 |
No | 980,753 | 43.8 |
Total votes | 2,239,078 | 100.00 |
County [15] | Yes (%) | Yes (#) | No (%) | No (#) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Apache | 76% | 18,044 | 23% | 5,405 |
Cochise | 63% | 30,492 | 37% | 17,582 |
Coconino | 50% | 26,845 | 49% | 26,264 |
Gila | 68% | 14,443 | 32% | 6,884 |
Graham | 80% | 9,406 | 20% | 2,352 |
Greenlee | 73% | 2,024 | 27% | 744 |
La Paz | 66% | 3,524 | 34% | 1,785 |
Maricopa | 55% | 741,797 | 45% | 595,077 |
Mohave | 66% | 43,258 | 34% | 21,861 |
Navajo | 75% | 25,317 | 25% | 8,460 |
Pima | 49% | 188,942 | 51% | 195,148 |
Pinal | 61% | 62,425 | 39% | 39,457 |
Santa Cruz | 52% | 6,412 | 48% | 5,902 |
Yavapai | 61% | 59,497 | 39% | 38,546 |
Yuma | 63% | 25,929 | 37% | 15,286 |
Total | 56.2% | 1,258,355 | 44% | 980,753 |
Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of Arizona, the House of Representatives concurring:
1. Article XXX, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be added as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:
ARTICLE XXX. MARRIAGE
SECTION 1. ONLY A UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED AS A MARRIAGE IN THIS STATE.
2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article XXI, Constitution of Arizona.
The amendment, which took effect on December 1, 2008, constitutionally banned same-sex marriages, which were never recognized by the state and was statutorily banned since 1975. Arizona became the 29th US state to ban same-sex marriage in its constitution. This preempted the state judiciary from requiring the state to legally recognize same-sex marriages and preempted the Arizona State Legislature from enacting a statute legalizing same-sex marriages.
Date of opinion poll | Conducted by | Sample size | In favor | Against | Undecided | Margin | Margin of Error | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
September 25 – 28, 2008 | KAET-TV and Arizona State University | 976 registered voters | 49% | 42% | 9% | 7% pro | ±3% | [16] |
Prior to May 15, 2008 | ? | ? | 49% | 40% | 11% | 9% pro | ? | [17] |
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.
Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 stating that marriage was between one man and one woman. In November 2008, Proposition 8 was also passed by voters, again only allowing marriage between one man and one woman. The Act was proposed by means of the initiative process. It was authored by state Senator William "Pete" Knight and is known informally as the Knight initiative. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000, with 61% in favor to 39% against. The margin of victory surprised many, since a Field Poll immediately prior to the election estimated support at 53%, with 40% against and 7% undecided.
Proposition 60 was an amendment of the Constitution of California, enacted in 2004, guaranteeing the right of a party participating in a primary election to also participate in the general election that follows. It was proposed by the California Legislature and approved by the voters in referendum held as part of the November 2004 election, by a majority of 67%.
Proposition 62 was a California ballot proposition on the November 2, 2004 ballot. It failed to pass with 5,119,155 (46.1%) votes in favor and 5,968,770 (53.9%) against.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in California since June 28, 2013. The State of California first issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples from June 16, 2008 to November 5, 2008, a period of approximately 4 months, 2 weeks and 6 days, as a result of the Supreme Court of California finding in the case of In re Marriage Cases that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the Constitution of California. The issuance of such licenses was halted from November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. The granting of same-sex marriages recommenced following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.
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.
The Arizona state elections of 2006 were held on November 7, 2006. All election results are from the Arizona Secretary of State's office.
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.
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.
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.
Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.
The California state elections, November 2008 were held on November 4, 2008 throughout California. Among the elections taking place were those for the office of President of the United States, all the seats of California's delegation to the House of Representatives, all of the seats of the State Assembly, and all of the odd-numbered seats of the State Senate. Twelve propositions also appeared on the ballot. Numerous local elections also took place throughout the state.
Proposition 11 of 2008 was a law enacted by California voters that placed the power to draw electoral boundaries for State Assembly and State Senate districts in a Citizens Redistricting Commission, as opposed to the State Legislature. To do this the Act amended both the Constitution of California and the Government Code. The law was proposed by means of the initiative process and was put to voters as part of the November 4, 2008 state elections. In 2010, voters passed Proposition 20 which extended the Citizen Redistricting Commission's power to draw electoral boundaries to include U.S. House seats as well.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Arizona since October 17, 2014. The U.S. state had denied marriage rights to same-sex couples by statute since 1996 and by an amendment to its State Constitution approved by voters in 2008. On October 17, Judge John W. Sedwick ruled in two lawsuits that Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and enjoined the state from enforcing its ban, effective immediately. Attorney General Tom Horne said the state would not appeal that ruling, and instructed county clerks to comply and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The California state elections was held on Election Day, November 6, 2012. On the ballot were eleven propositions, various parties' nominees for the United States presidency, the Class I Senator to the United States Senate, all of California's seats to the House of Representatives, all of the seats of the State Assembly, and all odd-numbered seats of the State Senate.
California state elections in 2018 were held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018, with the primary elections being held on June 5, 2018. Voters elected one member to the United States Senate, 53 members to the United States House of Representatives, all eight state constitutional offices, all four members to the Board of Equalization, 20 members to the California State Senate, and all 80 members to the California State Assembly, among other elected offices.
Proposition 1, titled Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom and initially known as Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 (SCA 10), was a California ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment that was voted on in the 2022 general election on November 8. Passing with more than two-thirds of the vote, the proposition amended the Constitution of California to explicitly grant the right to an abortion and contraceptives, making California among the first states in the nation to codify the right. The decision to propose the codification of abortion rights in the state constitution was precipitated in May 2022 by Politico's publishing of a leaked draft opinion showing the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The decision reversed judicial precedent that previously held that the United States Constitution protected the right to an abortion.
2024 Colorado Amendment J is an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that appeared on the general election ballot on November 5, 2024, in Colorado. As it passed, the amendment repealed Amendment 43, a 2006 constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in the Constitution of Colorado. While Constitutional ballot measures typically require a 55% vote to pass in Colorado, Amendment J only needed a simple majority. This is because the 55% vote threshold only applies to proposed amendments adding to the Constitution, not those which repeal provisions from it.
Proposition 3, titled Constitutional Right to Marry, was a California ballot proposition and legislative statutes that passed by vote on in the 2024 general election on November 5, 2024. The proposition repealed Proposition 8 passed during the 2008 general election and amend the state constitution to declare that the "right to marry is a fundamental right". It also ensured that same-sex couples would have the right to marry in California in case the United States Supreme Court ever withdraws that federal right.