Palin agrees reluctantly to court order Governor supports amendment barring state, cities from continuing payment By PAT FORGEY JUNEAU EMPIRE Gov. Sarah Palin announced Wednesday that the state would reluctantly comply with an Alaska Supreme Court order to provide same-sex partners of state employees with benefits equal to those of their married co-workers.

At the same time, Palin said she would also move forward with a statewide advisory vote intended to help pass a constitutional amendment barring both state and local governments, such as Anchorage and Juneau, from providing same-sex benefits.

Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich called the advisory vote "a total waste of money," and said Palin should reconsider.

Palin's comments came at an Anchorage press conference the day after the Alaska Supreme Court declined a request by the Legislature to extend its Jan. 1 deadline to begin providing equal benefits.

"We believe we have no more judicial options to pursue," she said.

State administrators are ready to begin providing the benefits on the first of next month for those who apply and qualify, she said.

Palin said 91 state employees are eligible. Anchorage officials said only three of their employees are receiving the benefits; Juneau officials refused to provide the information.

The lawsuit that won the benefits was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, which hailed the end of a seven-year struggle.

The ACLU praised Tuesday's court action and Wednesday's announcement by the governor that benefits would soon begin.

"It feels good to know benefits are going to be in place as of Jan. 1," said Michael MacLeod-Ball, executive director of the ACLU of Alaska.

However, Palin also said Wednesday she would sign a measure passed by the Legislature in its November special session. That measure would set an April 3 statewide advisory vote on the question.

Palin said she hopes the vote would persuade the Legislature to place on the ballot a constitutional amendment barring state and local governments from providing partner benefits to gay employees.

"If it's an overwhelming vote, it really bolsters the confidence to go ahead" and try to change the Constitution, she said.

If the vote fails, she said, she'll abide by the will of the people. But she'll support the measure herself.

"I would vote 'yes,'" she said.

Republican opponents of gay rights in the last legislative session introduced constitutional amendments which would bar same-sex partner benefits, but they failed to win the necessary two-thirds majority in either the House or Senate.

"I don't think they were anywhere close to two-thirds," said MacLeod-Ball. "And I'd be surprised if even an overwhelming vote would turn enough votes."

Begich criticized Palin and the Legislature for wasting money on the special election and dragging cities into the controversy.

"It's a $1.2 million opinion poll," he said. It does nothing "other than give the Legislature some backbone."

The Anchorage mayor said there were better uses for the money, including reimbursing the city for costs it has incurred because the state has refused to pay.

Palin has yet to decide what to do with another bill passed by the Legislature during the special session. That bill would bar the state commissioner for administration from adopting the rules implementing the same-sex benefits.

Attorney General Talis Colberg said it wasn't clear what that step would accomplish, because all the rules are either already in place or will be by Jan. 1. The bill would not take effect for 90 days after being signed by the governor.

Still, Colberg said it may contain provisions which would have an effect, and state lawyers are continuing to study it.

(http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/122106/sta_20061221021.shtml)

Has anyone bothered to ask, How truly accurate are the polls?  If it is true that Obama's people have registered about 12,000,000 new voters in the last year or so, how -- if at all -- does this affect the validity of any national or state-wide polling results? Presumably, that number is statistically significant.  When setting sample sizes and generating lists of voters to poll, don't pollsters make certain evidence-based assumptions (premised on historical indicators, census data, etc.) regarding the number of people and types of people (e.g. likely voter, registered voter, etc.) in the state or national electorate? If they do not accurately perform that function -- by failing to take into correct account the numbers and locations of new voters -- how does this affect their poll results/conclusions (particularly if you assume 12,000,000 newly registered voters nationally who have no voting history/record and are of various ages, not just 18 year olds)?