I normally do not agree with the opinions expressed over at the Rural Democrat blog, but one recent post descends from simply being disagreeable being downright ignorant.
The bold question; will Senate President David Williams (R) ignore Kentucky? Williams has already made his position on the possibility of allowing Kentuckians the right to vote on allowing casinos known to all, he will not entertain it. But as we move forward in this year's legislative session; will Williams be forced to entertain our right to vote on the casino issue? The data clearly indicates that the people want to vote on the issue and it also indicates that some of Kentucky's most populous regions want casino gaming. Regions that are represented by Republican members of the State Senate.
In what way is David Williams denying Kentuckians a "right" to vote on the gambling issue? What "right" to vote are they talking about? The argument is, apparently, that since the people have expressed through various polls, that they want to vote on the issue, therefore the General Assembly has some sort of obligation to vote to amend the Constitution so people can vote on it.
Huh?
There two big problems staring this argument in the face: The first is that there are a whole lot of issues, that, if you ask Kentuckians, they would like to vote on. If you asked them if they would like to vote on the abortion issues, I bet you'd get a majority in favor. If you asked them if they would like to vote on the domestic partner benefits issue, I'd bet they would say yes. Just fill in the blank. Everyone would love to vote on everything.
So the question becomes: Why should we amend the Constitution on this one issue and put it on the ballot and not all the others?
Is it because it has actually been proposed as a Constitutional amendment in the General Assembly? Is that when it becomes the right of voters to vote on it? So all we need to do is to propose it as a bill and it becomes an obligation of the General Assembly to pass it?
That doesn't seem right.
Secondly, the folks over at the Rural Democrat seem to have absolutely no clue about how the constitutional amendment process works in this state. They seem, in fact, to be under the impression that we have a ballot referendum process, which we most definitely do not. The only questions that get put on the ballot of this state are Constitutional amendments, and the only reason they are supposed to be put on the ballot is not to "let the people vote," a concept that appears nowhere in our Constitution, but because lawmakers think it is good policy.
So the only question before state lawmakers is not should they "let the people vote". If that is the case, then everything should be put on the ballot. The only question is whether lawmakers themselves think expanded gambling is good public policy: No more, no less.
Their vote to pass a Constitutional amendment allowing casinos is not a vote to "let the people decide" whether to do it; it is a vote to do it. That's what the Constitution says. The folks over at the Rural Democrat ought to read it sometime.
Comments