On Tuesday, Kansas voters resoundingly rejected a state constitutional amendment that would have allowed legislators to enact a total ban on abortion. This was surprising not only because Kansas is a fairly conservative state, but also because the vote took place during what was essentially a Republican primary. This suggested that significantly more Republicans would be turning out than Democrats, skewing the vote toward adopting the constitutional amendment.
Yet 59% of Kansas voters elected to uphold the state’s constitutional protections on abortion. To be clear, this doesn’t mean Kansas legislators are unable to regulate abortion. In fact, there are many restrictions on reproductive care that are likely to remain in place. Per the Guttmacher Institute:
A patient must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion, and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided.
Health plans offered in the state’s health exchange under the Affordable Care Act can only cover abortion in cases of life endangerment.
An abortion may be performed at 20 or more weeks postfertilization (22 weeks after the last menstrual period) only in cases of life or severely compromised physical health.
But the prospect of enacting a total ban was clearly very unpopular, even among many of the state’s Republican and conservative voters.
Besides being a clear win for reproductive rights, there are a few reasons why this matters for the American political system:
Referenda might help correct the undemocratic skew of many legislatures
Given the increasingly gerrymandered nature of legislative districts at both the state and federal level, popular votes could be a way to resolve certain political debates in a more representative manner. In particular, referenda might be a good option for addressing high salience issues that depend primarily upon moral or philosophical judgments. Civil and reproductive rights, gun control, and drug legalization all fall into this category.
Referenda are probably less useful for resolving highly technical debates on economic or climate policy. When I lived in California, I personally felt overwhelmed every year I was asked to vote on subjects like state bond issuance and property tax exemptions. Moral intuitions alone aren’t enough to resolve these issues — voters also need to amass copious subject matter expertise to make decisions that align with their actual preferences for how to shape society.
Dropping the “Democratic” brand could be a boon for progressives
This vote was also interesting because it was an example of how a political debate can play out in the absence of direct involvement from the Democratic and Republican Party brands. The opposing sides of the debate were Value Them Both (pro-amendment / abortion opponents) and Kansans for Constitutional Freedom (anti-amendment / abortion rights supporters) — two brands that voters had to learn about for the first time.
I suspect this provided an opening for many Kansans to vote “No” on the amendment, even though they would never be caught voting for a Democrat. After all, this wasn’t just a turnout issue — the anti-abortion amendment underperformed Donald Trump by 25 percentage points in some of the state’s most conservative counties.
It will be interesting to see if this opens the door for third parties such as Andrew Yang’s recently rechristened Forward Party. These groups could find success running legislative candidates in states like Kansas and Utah where many voters may hold nuanced views on certain subjects yet have a visceral dislike of the Democratic brand.
Messaging that aligns with popular opinion is a winner
Kansas activists could have chosen to take their messaging in many different directions. They might have focused on gender equality or economic opportunity. But instead they leaned into messaging around big government and privacy.
That ad doesn’t even mention abortion, and instead talks about the risks of giving more power to the government. Given the low levels of government trust among many voters, this was a smart decision. Politicians and activists will have the most success advancing their policies if they embrace messaging that aligns with popular opinion.
Re. Kansas, thanks for the thoughtful and well-informed response. With gerrymandering so prevalent in this alleged democracy, it’s nearly impossible for individuals to express their will. You said it best: “Given the increasingly gerrymandered nature of legislative districts at both the state and federal level, popular votes could be a way to resolve certain political debates in a more representative manner.”
Great newsletter! I always look forward to learning from you.