Missouri’s Mixed Messages

Missouri voters chose to ban gay marriage; but they also gave Democrats a strong candidate for governor.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


“Show-Me State” voters showed up in record numbers for Missouri’s primary election Tuesday, and they made history. With polls indicating a close election there in November, the day’s results brought a mix of good and bad news for both Republicans and Democrats.

Missouri became the first state to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage since the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled to allow the practice. The state also became the first in 10 years to oust a sitting governor in his party’s primary.

While the gay marriage ban was expected to pass, it did so by a surprisingly large margin, and turnout was the highest since the state began keeping primary records in 1980. About 71 percent of Missouri voters supported the measure despite the presence of an anti-gay marriage law already on the books. As the Kansas City Star reports, the amendment also passed despite its opponents outspending supporters by a large margin. (They mounted a $300,000 campaign.) The amendment did well across the state, with more than 80 percent support in rural areas, a majority in most suburbs, and a narrow majority in Kansas City.

Even in the Democratic stronghold of St. Louis, the amendment gained more than 46 percent of the vote. Perhaps most disheartening for gay-rights activists, more than 846,000 Democrats voted Tuesday, compared to about 604,000 Republicans. Given the margin of victory, a large number of Democrats clearly voted for the amendment.

Gay-marriage supporters have little time to mourn the loss, as seven other states in the next three months will vote on changing their state constitutions to outlaw gay marriage – and Nevada, Hawaii, Alaska and Nebraska have already passed such amendments. When the federal attempt at an amendment failed last month, many opponents argued that gay marriage should be left to the states to decide. Groups like Human Rights Campaign, which spent $60,000 trying to stop the Missouri amendment, are finding little success in that approach. As HRC coordinator Seth Kilbourn said:

“I think we’ll definitely have an uphill battle. But I do think we’ll have more time in other states to educate voters and talk about what the amendments are really about.”

For the Kerry campaign, the overwhelming support for the amendment can’t help. Both John Kerry and John Edwards oppose gay marriage, but also opposed amending the constitution in response. With Missouri voters willing to take such a drastic step, George Bush might be able to use gay marriage as a wedge issue in a state that narrowly supported him in 2000.

Kerry got better news in the Missouri gubernatorial race, where state auditor Claire McCaskill defeated Gov. Bob Holden in the Democratic primary. Holden – who Republicans nicknamed “One-Term Bob” – battled a budget crisis nearly from the start of his term, cut millions of dollars from popular programs to balance said budget, and oversaw the Republican takeover of the Senate for the first time in decades. Lawmakers overrode three of Holden’s vetoes last year alone – the same number of overrides the state had previously seen since the Civil War.

“He’s a victim of circumstance,” said St. Louis University political science professor Kenneth Warren. “He is like so many governors in the United States who went through hard times amid a budgetary collapse. The Republicans in Missouri went after this guy in the most aggressive way imaginable. They sort of beat him to a pulp.”

Democrats reportedly saw electability as a key reason for McCaskill’s victory in an expensive and bitter primary against the embattled Holden. Polls already give her a narrow edge against Republican Matt Blunt, the current secretary of state and the son of Rep. Roy Blunt. Holden has already met with McCaskill and called for party unity. As political scientist Dave Robertson told the Associated Press:

“As bitter as this Democratic primary has been, it is not as bitter as the 1992 Republican primary for governor. The Democrats are really hungry to win this fall, and that should give them incentive to find unity.”

McCaskill has already fielded congratulatory calls from the likes of Terry McAuliffe, Tom Vilsack and Kathleen Sebelius. And John Kerry was quick to praise McCaskill, who Democrats hope can boost the national ticket in Missouri:

“Claire is a strong leader who will rally women, men, Democrats, Republicans and the hundreds of thousands of independent voters in the Show Me State. Together, Claire and I are going to win in Missouri come November.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate