I’ve heard this explained before as the selfishness of believing that if you’re protected on a local level, that frees these voters up to vote for other conservative policies on a national level.
That sometimes with these ordinances, they work the other way. If moderate voters pass the statewide protection, it allows them to rationalize a vote for Republicans to do immigration measures and tax cuts, because they feel protected by the state amendment.
states rights don’t mean a damn thing when the party of states rights (but only when it serves the far right agenda) enacts a federal ban superseding all the local and state protections.
I’m hoping a federal abortion ban would be unenforceable in states that guarantee protections
Haha Supremacy Clause go brrrrrrrr
(It’s not funny tho)
File under “world’s stupidest motherfuckers”
This year, Trump voters who supported abortion rights amendments may have decided to take Trump “at his word that he was not going to support a national ban,”
Trusting that Trump is telling the truth? What could possibly go wrong…
In Michigan we elected two Democratic Supreme Court justices by nearly a million votes although they are in the non partisan section. And we went for Trump.
And abortion rights are already protected pretty well here so I don’t know how much of a push that was.
There were about 1.3 million less votes for justices as there were for President (couldn’t link straight to Michigan results but just click the state).
Meanwhile, the numbers for Kamala are only about 150k higher than for the justices. Meaning nearly all dems voted for aligned justices while a huge number of Trump voters just didn’t bother with non partisan races or there were a bunch of Trump voters who swung left on Justices.
I’m hesitant to project any of my own analysis onto those numbers, but it’s an interesting discrepancy.
the hackers of the voting computers didn’t code for those races because they didn’t have the answers right next to names or they weren’t paid to care so they were left blank.
