There's going to be a Prop 8 repeal initiative on the ballot in California in 2010. I get why the San Jose Mercury News is covering it, but I don't get why they're concern-trolling it. That's the overwhelming feeling I take away from the way the story is structured. Here's the opening paragraph:

Despite painful consecutive losses at the ballot box and in the courts, advocates for gay marriage are gearing up for a fight they say they can win: a statewide vote on same-sex marriage in 2010. But there are signs next year could be too soon for another fight on this volatile and exhausting issue.
But there's no evidence as to why 2010 would be too soon. Instead, the reporter quotes Frank Schubert, the Sacramento political consultant who ran the Yes on 8 campaign last year, and writes:
Schubert predicts at least a third of the 2008 electorate, particularly those young, first-time voters who turned out to vote for Barack Obama, won't show up at the polls in 2010. "They are not going to show up to vote for Gavin Newsom or Jerry Brown," he said of two potential Democratic gubernatorial nominees for 2010.
Schubert is probably correct about turnout, but more because 2010 is a non-presidential election year, and turnout is consistently down in off-year elections. But that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's too soon for another fight on Prop 8, and neither does anything else in the article. So why make that the lede?

Newer Post Older Post Home