Pro-Marriage Legislators Win Elections

Pro-Marriage Legislators Win Elections

The politics of marriage for gay couples are changing rapidly, and evidence from the most recent election shows that it is not politically perilous for state legislators to vote in favor of laws allowing committed gay and lesbian couples to marry. Since the 2010 election, both chambers of the state legislatures in New York (June 2011), Washington (February 2012), New Jersey (February 2012), and Maryland (March 2012) have passed laws allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. Since those votes, the legislatures of New York and Washington faced reelection in the 2012 elections. In those two states, a total of 196 legislators voted in favor of marriage: 113 in New York and 83 in Washington. Of the 196 legislators who voted to support marriage for committed gay and lesbian couples, only 5 lost their seats in the 2012 election: 4 in New York and 1 in Washington. And only in 3 of those elections is there even a remote possibility that a legislator’s marriage vote contributed to their loss.

Ninety-seven percent of state legislators who voted for marriage and ran for reelection won.

A staggering 97% of the state legislators from both parties who voted to allow gay couples to marry in their state and ran for reelection in 2012 won their races: 141 legislators were reelected, 50 did not run (either because they were not up for reelection in 2012, or because they retired, resigned, or ran for another public office), and only 5 lost their races. Of those 5 who lost, 2 were under investigation for corruption or misuse of taxpayer dollars, and 3 ran for reelection and lost without being under a cloud of ethics. In these 3 cases—which represent only 2% of these races—there were multiple factors contributing to the losses. This 97% reelection rate was significantly higher than the national average—across the country in 2012, 10% of incumbent state legislators who filed for reelection were defeated.¹

2012 Electoral Outcomes for Pro-Marriage Legislators

*Includes 14 who were not up in 2012

While for Republicans, a vote in support of marriage may still come up in a primary, the evidence shows that it is not determinative to their electoral prospects—in fact, only two of the 13 Republicans who supported marriage lost their seat in a way that could even be partly attributed to their marriage vote. And for Democrats, a vote for marriage appears unlikely to have any negative effect at all, as only 1 out of 139 Democratic lawmakers who voted for marriage and was not under investigation was defeated—less than a 1% rate of loss.

Even for Democrats in moderate districts, marriage does not appear to hurt state legislators’ chances of reelection. For example, New York State Senator Joseph Addabbo represents a particularly moderate district in Queens that had become even more conservative since his last election, when it was redistricted to include much of the Rockaway Peninsula.² And yet he won reelection in 2012 after voting for marriage just one year earlier. Only one Democrat who voted for marriage and was not under investigation lost her seat in 2012, and still her conservative-leaning district voted for marriage in the state-wide referendum on the issue.

The losses had many factors, and in most, marriage wasn’t even among them.

Marriage Not a Factor for Two New York Democratic Losses

The two Democratic legislators (Naomi Rivera and Shirley Huntley) who lost their seats in New York were under investigation for corruption or misuse of taxpayer dollars—making those troubles the likely cause of their losses, not their vote on marriage.

Marriage Not a Likely Cause of Washington Democratic Loss

Washington State Senator Mary Margaret Haugen (D) lost her seat in the general election, but on that same day her district voted in favor of marriage in the state-wide referendum, making it unlikely that her vote was the cause of her defeat.

Marriage Not a Major Factor in New York Republican General Election Loss

New York State Senator Stephan Saland won his primary against a Republican challenger who accused him of betraying traditional family values. He later lost to a Democrat in the general election. While it is plausible that marriage played a small part in Saland’s general election loss, it was clearly not the main reason for it, since the Democrat who defeated him supported marriage for gay couples as well.

Marriage Not the Only Factor in New York Republican Primary Loss

Of the four Republican Senators and three Assemblymen who voted for marriage in New York, State Senator Roy McDonald was the only one to lose his seat in a primary challenge. He was also the only one to raise less money than his opponent. Even so, the vote was so close that it could not be called on Election Day and came down to the counting of absentee ballots.

The vast majority of Americans wouldn’t punish a policymaker for supporting marriage.

Most Americans consistently say that a lawmaker’s position on marriage would not affect whether they vote for that person. For example, in a 2011 national poll by Grove Insight for Third Way, a plurality (45%) said that a candidate’s view on marriage for gay couples would make no difference in their vote.³ An immediate post-election poll in Washington State in November 2012 echoed that conclusion: 44% said that President Obama’s marriage support had no effect on their vote, and the numbers were similar for state legislators—40% said the issue made no difference.⁴

But when the sample was narrowed to moderate voters—who nearly always decide elections—the numbers looked even better for marriage. A full 30% of moderates said they were more likely to vote for the President because he supported marriage for gay couples, while only 12% said that issue made them less likely to pull the lever to reelect him. Fifty-eight percent of moderates said it made no difference. These numbers were nearly identical for state legislators. A full 30% of moderate voters said they were more prone to vote for a state legislator who supported marriage, while only 14% said they were less prone to do so, and 56% said the issue made no difference in their vote.

Conclusion

The politics of marriage for gay couples is changing rapidly, and support for marriage is growing every day. For example, between 2004 and 2011, support increased 16 points, with big shifts across every demographic group and region of the country.⁵ In fact, during that time period, moderates shifted faster than any other group—gaining 21 points in support for marriage—and the number of conservatives who supported marriage doubled over that timeframe. While a quarter of this shift has come from younger people who are more accepting aging into the population, 75% of the movement is due to Americans changing their minds on the issue and deciding to support the freedom to marry.⁶

Today, Americans in 9 states and the District of Columbia have the ability to marry the person they love, and many were granted that freedom by their state legislatures or by a direct vote of the people. Supporting marriage for gay couples should no longer be considered a political risk for Democrats—even those in moderate districts. In fact, all but 1 of the 139 Democrats who ran without being under an ethics investigation won re-election. For Republicans, the issue may still play a small role in primary campaigns, but at least 85% of Republican legislators who voted for marriage since the 2010 election did not lose their seat because of it. By the 2014 election, we expect marriage votes to have an even more negligible effect than they had in 2012.

Appendi: Election Results for Pro-Marriage Legislators