Re: Marriage equality in Iowa
- From: Jed Davis <jld@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 22:06:17 -0400
"David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Jed Davis <jld@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes; the requirement for votes of two consecutive sessions of the
legislature is a nice feature, though the article I saw didn't
mention the votes' threshold.
Wasn't the Massachussetts situation similar? The Iowa legislative
votes require only majorities in both houses, but I think the MA
situation was some supermajority? Paging Mr. Coren...
Other way around, alas: it was a 25%, um, submajority? of a joint
session of the two houses, as the amendment was introduced by a petition
rather than by the legislature itself (in which case it'd've been 50%).
The second one failed even that, so it never went to a popular vote.
It's Connecticut that, IIRC, requires a supermajority (3/4?), but only
of a single legislative vote.
(let ((C call-with-current-continuation)) (apply (lambda (x y) (x y)) (map
((lambda (r) ((C C) (lambda (s) (r (lambda l (apply (s s) l)))))) (lambda
(f) (lambda (l) (if (null? l) C (lambda (k) (display (car l)) ((f (cdr l))
(C k))))))) '((#\J #\d #\D #\v #\s) (#\e #\space #\a #\i #\newline)))))
- Prev by Date: Re: Gay Equality (Re: New facebook group)
- Next by Date: Re: Gay Equality (Re: New facebook group)
- Previous by thread: Re: Marriage equality in Iowa
- Next by thread: Re: Marriage equality in Iowa