Expect long lines at the polls on November 4th. That's the word from the media, which sees large voter turnout. Not even calculated into their warnings are the three ballot propositions that face South Carolina voters. Those have received virtually no attention--and their content is unknown even to really savvy voters. Believe it or not, some states (like New Jersey) send out sample ballots to voters in advance to avoid confusion on voting day. Could it be they expect large numbers at the polls?
So it was with great interest that I skimmed the P & C's Saturday article on one proposition, Contradictory Age of Consent on Ballot.
Then I slowed down and read the article from start to finish.
Then I read its contents to my better half out loud, hoping that its information finally would become clear.
I think I got it. The second half of the article had nothing to do with the question on the ballot. Oh, yes, it was interesting background but did not give the voter any guidelines on what voting "yes" or "no"would mean. A simple "if you vote 'yes,' wording in the state constitution that contradicts established state law will be eliminated" would have sufficed.
Whoever created the wording on the ballot needs to be sent back to Composition 101:
"Must Section 33, Article III of the Constitution of this State be amended so as to delete the provision that no unmarried woman shall legally consent to sexual intercourse who shall not have attained the age of fourteen years?"Got that? Vote "yes" and a girl under 14 will be able give consent!
Of course, once you study the background of the ballot question, you discover that's not the purpose at all. The age of consent in South Carolina is 16, and, no matter how you vote on November 4th, it will remain 16.
Well, I hope the people in front of me will just skip over ballot questions or (more likely) vote "no"on general principles and make room in the booths.
1 comment:
I've already voted. The line was short and just like you predicted, I was confused by the constitutional questions. Yep, I voted "No" on this question...not because I care one way or the other, but because I don't like the idea of our legislators playing moral police with one gender but not the other. This whole proposal sounds fishy, so I just voted "No".
Post a Comment