1. “Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State?”

This is the important one. Right now the Connecticut State Constitution can only be changed by a yes vote on an amendment in the General Assembly followed by a yes vote from the voters of the state. However, if this ballot question passes there would be a Constitutional Convention during which the delegates (who would be chosen by state legislators) would be able to change the State Constitution without further input from regular voters.

Not surprisingly, a yes vote on this question is supported by organizations that want to ban gay marriage, get rid of abortion rights, add special tax breaks for businesses, and take away rights for workers. All things that would not pass if the citizens of Connecticut were able to vote on them directly during the regular amendment process.

In addition, the Constitutional Convention process will be expensive, and the state government certainly has better things on which to be spending its limited resources.

If you’re a Connecticut voter, vote NO on Question 1, and make sure your friends and family understand what’s truly at stake. On it’s face, the idea of a Constitutional Convention doesn’t sound like a bad idea, but once you understand what’s truly involved it’s easy to see why a no vote is the way to go. Read more at: http://ctvoteno.org

2. “Shall the constitution of the state be amended to permit any person who will have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the day of a regular election to vote in the primary for such regular election?”

In other words, seventeen year olds would be able to vote in the primaries if they would be of legal voting age in time for the general election. This one’s an easy yes, as it certainly makes sense that first-time voters should be able to participate in the primary process as well as the general election.

via Wil Wheaton

If you’re a California voter, be sure to go out and vote NO on Proposition 8 tomorrow.

Senate Democrats today took a stand for their procedural rights, not against telecom immunity or warrantless eavesdropping. After all, many of the Senate Democrats who voted to filibuster this bill were more than ready last week to vote for that bill, and they will vote for it again soon enough. Moreover, while they were upset that they were denied the right to vote on these amendments, many of them intend to vote against those very same amendments and will ensure that most, if not all of them, fail, so that the bill arrives at the White House in a form acceptable to the Leader.

As indicated, it’s preferable for several reasons that the Cloture Motion failed today — and one can still praise Senate Democrats for refusing to capitulate fully (at least yet) — but it isn’t the case that Senate Democrats collectively took a stand here for anything more substantive than their own institutional customs. Many of the Democratic Senators whom you like today for voting against cloture will be voting soon enough in favor of telecom amnesty and for warrantless eavesdropping. The House is the real hope for stopping these measures.

Yes, better the right vote for the wrong reasons than the wrong vote, but it’s more than a little sad that apparently the only really important things for many Senators (good examples are Rockefeller and Specter) are their precious privileges. I’m sure though that more than one of the Senators who in the future casts votes in favor of telecom amnesty will issue a press release pointing to their vote on Monday as evidence that they stood up for the rule of law, when in fact they couldn’t really care less. For now, the important thing is to keep the pressure on, and give the Senate Democrats another chance to continue on the long road to redemption. I’m skeptical that they actually want to be redeemed, but there’s little harm in trying.