Proposition C was roundly defeated in Missouri yesterday, with 71% of voters saying they don’t need no steenking Obamacare individual mandate.
The results may be a bit less overwhelming than one might think, however, because (a) it’s unclear whether this will have any legal effect at all; (b) turnout was relatively light; and (c) more voters seem to have been drawn to the ballot on the Republican side because the Missouri Republican primary was more competitive than the Democratic one.
Since Missouri has an open primary in which voters are not restricted to voting for their own party, it’s hard to say what the breakdown of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents was among the voters yesterday. What we do know is that about 65% of the participants voted on the Republican ballot. The 71% overall pro-Prop C figure means that a significant number of those voting on the Democrat side must have approved of the measure, as well.
We also can assume that the vote for Proposition C yesterday was evidence that there are a lot of disgruntled ex-Obama voters right now in Missouri. In the 2008 election, McCain won Missouri, but only by a hair: 49.4% to 49.3%. Missouri’s nickname is the “show-me” state; it seems Obama has shown them quite a bit in the last year and a half, and they’re not liking what they see.
[NOTE: Other states are planning similar votes on the individual mandate. Legal scholars seem to be saying such states' rights protest votes are unenforceable and merely symbolic. Although I've seen many articles that mention this, I've seen no actual discussions on the merits, nor links to such discussions. If more states go the Missouri route, I would imagine we'll see more debate on the subject.]
Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely 
August 4th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Good for Missouri. Alas, I live in a state that lined up for the free oil that Venezuela was offering (remember Joe for Oil?). I WANT MY FREE STUFF!!!!
But even in my wretched state of residence, I have been slowly seeing more and more Gadsden flags. I even saw one of those car memorial stickers that said “US Constitution, 1789-2009 RIP” LOL
August 4th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
What? So states’ rights are already meaningless? Is that what was settled in the 1860′s?
August 4th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
While the individual mandate is a small part of the bill, it is its foundation. Without lots of young people pulled into the system, Obamacare can not be sustained.
August 4th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
The vote may well not have any legal force, but the Democrats & MSM allies would be well-advised not to keep repeating that the votes of citizens are “symbolic” — that’s another way of saying the vote can be ignored and lots of voters are getting very tired of that.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
We essentially have a government of, by and for the elites if these state voices are merely symbolic.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
The symbolism of the vote is boding very well for the anti-dem forces in November. Watched Karl Rove on Hannity tonite. Even he is getting excited about the way things are trending. Good!!
August 4th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
I lived in St Louis for most of my life. Missourians are not extremists but this result is extreme. I think it means the public is much angrier than may be appreciated. Who knew?!
August 5th, 2010 at 1:25 am
Show ‘em!
August 5th, 2010 at 3:48 am
“Legal scholars seem to be saying such states’ rights protest votes are unenforceable and merely symbolic.”
What is or is not “unenforceable” depends upon the force, and will, deployed by both sides.
August 5th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Such votes send a crystal-clear message to Washington: regardless of what the polls say, here’s what we think when we vote.
Whether Washington is listening to that message is an entirely different matter.
No politician can afford to ignore the stated wishes of his or her constituents. But if anybody would fall into that trap, it would be an idealist politician, enacting policy “for the people’s own good”. Sound familiar?
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
August 5th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Doesn’t the law give the state standing to sue?
Virginia had standing, but only because the law conflicted with state law. “First, Hudson rejected the federal government’s claim that Virginia did not have standing to challenge the mandate. Although states are generally not allowed standing to litigate the interests of their citizens, Hudson argues that Virginia has standing because the federal health care bill conflicts with a recently enacted Virginia state law…” via Volock Conspiracy