Advisory Vote Results

[Oni]

Statewide Advisory Vote

http://www.adn.com/includes/election/2007/april/full_results.html#state

ADVISORY VOTE QUESTION (438 of 439 precincts reporting )
YES    56,107    53.41%
NO    48,939    46.59%

The State has spoken. And now for a lovely artical from ADN.com
http://www.adn.com/news/politics/elections/2007_elections/results/story/8764977p-8666593c.html

Early returns favor a benefits vote

AMENDMENT: Passage asks same-sex rule be put to constitutional vote in 2008.

By ANNE SUTTON
The Associated Press

Published: April 4, 2007
Last Modified: April 4, 2007 at 05:54 AM

JUNEAU -- Early election returns Tuesday night were showing that Alaskans, by a substantial margin, want state lawmakers to pursue a constitutional amendment to strip benefits from the gay partners of public employees.

The vote has no binding authority on the Legislature. But backers had hoped if it passed, especially by a wide margin, it would pressure lawmakers to vote to put the constitutional amendment back before residents -- this time for a binding vote -- in the November 2008 general election.

With nearly half of precincts reporting, unofficial results from the state Division of Elections showed 58 percent of voters in favor of taking the vote and 42 percent against it. However, election officials in the state's largest city didn't intend to tabulate its ballots until well after Anchorage municipal election results were scored, which could make final election results available early this morning.

This was the only statewide question on Tuesday's ballot, and the state estimated the cost of the single-issue ballot to be about $1.2 million.

Lawmakers voted to hold the special election, which was spearheaded by Rep. John Coghill, R-North Pole, after former Gov. Frank Murkowski called them into special session last November to consider the question.

They also passed a bill that sought to block the state from granting public employee benefits to same-sex couples. The measure was vetoed by Republican Gov. Sarah Palin because the attorney general said it was unconstitutional. However, she has voiced support for the constitutional amendment.

The court fight over the benefits has gone on for years. It ended when the state Supreme Court in October 2005 ordered the state to provide benefits to partners of gay employees. The court found that denying the benefits to same-sex domestic partners violated the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

Further political and legal wrangling delayed the benefits until the state's high court this winter told the state it was tired of the delays and ordered it to provide the benefits as of Jan. 1.

During the open enrollment period, 67 state employees signed up their partners for benefits, according to the state Department of Administration. Based on the average claim costs in 2006, the 67 new enrollees could cost the state about $350,000 a year.

For lawmakers to send the constitutional amendment to next year's ballot, it would need two-thirds approval in both the 40-seat House and the 20-seat Senate.

A proposal to put a constitutional amendment before the voters died in House and Senate committees last year because, lawmakers agreed, the votes weren't there to pass it.