After 8: The Way Forward
By Nick Sifuentes - Nov 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pmPart three of a three-part post (here are parts one and two).
If we are to undo the injustice done by Proposition 8 and the Yes on 8 campaign, it’s clear that we have to redouble our efforts to enlist and engage supporters and potential allied segments of the Californian electorate. Exit polling strongly suggests that persuadable segments of the population voted against marriage equality. A few fall into the category of a persuadable group: any group where exit polls showed evenly divided on Prop 8, and the group represents a large percentage of the population.
Much has been made of the strong support for Proposition 8 from the black community. I think that at a mere ten percent of the California electorate, the blame for Prop 8’s passage can hardly be laid at their feet. While African-American churches remain an important arena for engagement, this is less because blacks are to blame for Prop 8 and more because these churches have long been powerful forces in the civil rights movement, and therefore have an inherently socially conscious bent; if the marriage equality movement can bring these churches into such a coalition, we would have an extraordinarily powerful ally on our side.
In targeting groups which might change their vote in 2010, the LGBT community should turn to the data–exit polls–to see to whom we must appeal.
Here is where we’ll find our data on persuadable groups worth targeting. As the polling indicates, people with children under 18 make up 40 percent of the population and voted in favor of Proposition 8. Meanwhile, the youngest cohort, 18-29, voted widely against 8.
Aside from convincing parents that marriage equality does not then lead to “gay marriage being taught in schools,” an equality coalition should mobilize LGBT groups in colleges and GSAs in high schools to reach out to and educate straight supporters, including parents, about marriage equality. Clearly the vast support for marriage equality from the 18-29 year old set will be a future asset as this age cohort becomes a larger percentage of the voting populace; in the meanwhile, using them to reach out to older voters is key in overturning Proposition 8 in any reasonable amount of time.
The next set of exit poll data concerns socioeconomic breakdowns. People who do not work full-time (forty-one percent of the population) voted in favor, 57 to 43 percent, while full-timers (fifty-nine percent of the population) voted against, 48 to 52 percent. Some of the non-full-time voters were likely retirees who are not easily persuadable. Otherwise, part-time employment is strongly correlated with falling below median income levels. The marriage equality movement should reach out to lower-income communities, identify with their struggles, and work to benefit both communities by fostering reciprocal programs that put lower-income voters in contact with gay activists. To the extent that lower-income communities are dominated by minority groups, this will shore up support for overturning Proposition 8 in those minority groups as well.
Lastly, demographics themselves are on our side, and the Yes campaign is on the wrong side of history. The oldest segments of the population will age out of the electorate, and a base of support for Prop 8 will be replaced by a group (50-64 years of age) that is far less opposed to same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, at the other end of the age spectrum, young voters are overwhelmingly against such a ban on same-sex marriage; as they become a wider swath of the electorate, marriage equality will become-and remain-a reality in California.
Having discussed what groups to target, it is worth mentioning what sort of outreach must take place. I believe a two-year plan should incorporate a wide array of outreach methods: forums, speaking engagements and conferences with allied and potential ally group leaders, who can take the message back to their own supporters; radio interviews, press releases and media materials, to keep visibility high; and community coalitions which put members of the LGBT community alongside people who may be persuadable if only they personally interacted with gays and lesbians. Forums should incorporate faith leaders from mainstream and minority religious groups, but should focus on progressive faith leaders; traditional Protestant and Catholic churchgoers were strongly in favor of Yes on 8, according to exit polling. A positive example of a religious group which strongly opposed Proposition 8 is found in the Los Angeles Jewish community, which overwhelmingly rejected a ban on same-sex marriage.
Andrew Sullivan has written about the need for more minority visibility within the gay rights movement, and I am inclined to agree. Gay minorities should be encouraged to come out and, in so doing, engage people in minority communities on the needs of LGBT individuals. The marriage equality movement should also more fully engage our natural allies: existing LGBT organizations such as Equality California and Lambda Legal , progressive and libertarian groups, secondary school educators and professors, high school and college Gay-Straight Alliances and Democratic college organizations, and the like. The goals with allied groups should be to continue to educate people as widely as possible as to what marriage equality means and does not mean, to use their mailing lists and donor data to raise awareness and funding for a new campaign, and to serve as a base for mobilizing supporters for a new ballot initiative in 2010.
Over the course of two years, dedicated outreach programs can make a difference. A separate battle needs to be waged, however, and that one would come from a new ballot initiative which would strike Prop 8 from the California Constitution. Rather than fighting a defensive battle, as the No on 8 campaign was forced to do, proponents of same-sex marriage should instead qualify an initiative which forces marriage opponents on the defensive. Coupled with a two-year informational campaign which undercuts the lies propagated this year by Yes on 8, marriage equality opponents would find California a much tougher battleground in 2010. Two years would give the marriage equality movement time to focus and create a positive message, as well as organize more effectively throughout the state.
Simultaneously, after qualifying a new ballot measure, an effort to reform California’s ballot initiative process should be undertaken, with two goals: to make it more difficult for out-of-state interests to unduly influence California elections by pouring millions of dollars into the state and to increase the percentages necessary to pass sweeping changes to the California Constitution. After all, there is a reason that changes to the US Constitution require such tall hurdles-a change so difficult to undo should be subject to both a higher margin of victory at the polls and to as little out-of-state influence and funding as possible.
When the time comes to mobilize supporters for a vote in 2010, the new marriage equality campaign should have the benefits of a two-year organizational program in place to give it a base of support which can then be activated. Headquarters for fundraising and get-out-the-vote operations should be located in areas of preexisting geographical support. Looking at exit polling data, it is clear that urban voters overwhelmingly opposed Proposition 8, and that the Bay Area and Coastal regions opposed it as well.
Those same areas should be targeted for get-out-the-vote operations, as well as Los Angeles County, which narrowly went for Prop 8 in 2008, but which would most likely support overturning the ban if outreach efforts are successful. Face-to-face canvassing has the highest success rate of any form of voter contact, so while phone banking and television ads should comprise a healthy segment of the campaign, canvassers should utilize face-to-face efforts to turn out supporters, especially in areas like West Hollywood and the Castro district, where turnout rates should be as close to 100 percent of all registered voters as is possible. Fundraising efforts via canvassing should also take place in supportive areas based on 2008 exit polling data in order to fund GOTV canvassing in other areas of the state which are likely to support overturning Proposition 8. An aggressive ground game, coupled with a successful marketing campaign on television and radio, will make the difference in 2010.
Remember that the entire point of such mobilization is only to sway a mere 500,000 votes-2 percent of the population. While I certainly would enjoy a sizable popular mandate on the issue, the nature of the initiative process in California requires a majority to pass a constitutional amendment. Proposition 8 passed by the barest of margins, even after a well-financed misinformation campaign. If each of these outreach programs only convinces a few thousand people at the margins, that is all we need for the right to marry. Marriage equality is not a question of “if;” it is a question of “when.” The work, however, must begin now.
Post a Comment