Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

A look at what happened on Amendment 1 in North Carolina

Marriage equality

By Adam Bink

First, apologies for not finding much time to write over the past few weeks — efforts spent online and offline organizing against Amendment 1 had considerably drained my time, and so Jacob and especially Scottie have been holding down the fort so admirably here at P8TT.

I returned back from the Raleigh/Durham area yesterday and had a chance to chew on the outcome on Amendment 1. It’s been my habit after major wins or losses to reflect on what went right and what went wrong, and offer some thoughts (see Maine 2009 Part 1 and Part 2, along with the 2009 New York State Senate fight on same-sex marriage here and here). Below are some of those along with some analysis.

Composition of the electorate drove the outcome

Over at the Institute for Southern Studies, Chris Kromm describes this best: Republican leadership and rank-and-file in the General Assembly, joined by some Democrats who felt pressured on the issue, decided to help motivate and drive turnout in 2012 using Amendment 1 as a vehicle. Primary electorates tend to be older and, on this issue, more conservative — witness nearly 50% of early votes in this election being from those aged 60% or older. Primaries also tend to favor communities with what Chris describes as “more established turnout vehicles” — in this case, churches whose memberships were for Amendment 1. Durham’s Pam Spaulding of Pam’s House Blend sat back in the war room on Tuesday night and noted how much church rank-and-file on the ground drove — literally drove, in some cases — pro-Amendment 1 voters to the polls.

So while turnout overall was remarkably high — 2.138 million voters turned out, narrowly beating the previous high for a primary (2.125 million voters in 2008) — one person aptly compared the election to the 2004 Kerry campaign. I worked for an organization driving pro-Kerry turnout (America Coming Together) in Cleveland that year, where we hit our vote goals in precinct after precinct. The problem was that pro-Bush turnout was even higher. Also of note to consider: the vote goal for the Campaign to Protect All NC Families was 508,000. Meaning, if we turned out 508,000 voters who vote against Amendment 1, we were likely to win. The total number of raw votes against Amendment was beyond expectations and far beyond the goal — 832,863. That’s over 300,000 more. But again, pro-Amendment 1 forces also did well on the ground. From that point of view, we did our job on turnout — but did not get far enough on persuasion.

“We didn’t lose, we just ran out of time”

Given the data on turnout and composition of the electorate, one way to look at this is the old Vince Lombardi football adage: “we didn’t lose, we just ran out of time.” Given the composition of the primary electorate, would a vote on Amendment 1 in the general election have fared better? Unclear, though likely. The reason is because the campaign was able to cut a 27-point lead for Amendment 1 far down, and because polls over time showed the more North Carolinians knew about Amendment 1, the less they supported it. What’s more, remarkable numbers of North Carolinians did not understand what Amendment 1 did. One need only read the polling memo on April 24th from Public Policy Polling’s (PPP) Tom Jensen (bolding mine):

There is some reason to think a huge upset in two weeks is within the realm of possibility. 53% of voters in the state support either gay marriage or civil unions, with only 44% opposed to any recognition for same sex couples. The proposed amendment would ban both gay marriage and civil unions, but voters continue to be confused about that. Just 36% correctly identify that it would ban both while 26% think it bans only gay marriage, 10% think it actually legalizes gay marriage, and 27% admit that they don’t know what it does.

When voters are informed that the proposed amendment would preclude both marriage and civil unions for gay couples only 38% continue to support it with 46% in opposition. Voters obviously will be more tuned into the amendment debate over the final two weeks of the campaign than they have been to date, particularly as the against side’s tv ads hit the air, and it seems quite possible that as voters become more and more informed about the amendment they will continue to move more and more against it.

This much is certain: there was, and is, a long way to go on persuasion. But the Campaign to Protect All NC Families and allies like us at the Courage Campaign (our members made a total of 75,689 calls to voters) were making headway — the number of voters that misunderstood Amendment 1 shrank over time. We just didn’t get far enough, fast enough.

Why did Amendment 1 pass by such a large margin?

The final result — 61% for, 39% against — was not what many observers, including myself, expected. The final three PPP polls had Amendment 1 passing with 55% for, 54% for, and 55% for, respectively. What’s more, there were many indications of a possible upset, or at least the margin being much closer. Reasons:

  • President Clinton, considered by many to be the most popular political figure in the state, recording a robocall against Amendment 1 which began airing to hundreds of thousands of voters on Sunday, May 6th;
  • Significant indications that early voting went in our favor, including the fact that 23% of early voters were voting for the first time in their primary, indicating young voters (who were overwhelmingly against Amendment 1);
  • That a record of ballots (approximately 508,000) were cast during the early voting period, which again was expected to be a boon against Amendment 1, though in reality it indicated higher turnout on both sides of the issue;
  • The Campaign to Protect All NC Families outspending Vote for Marriage NC by over $1 million;
  • Significant moments in earned media against Amendment 1 during the final several weeks. We’ve covered them all here at P8TT but among the highlights were House Speaker Thom Tillis admitting that Amendment 1 would probably be repealed in 20 years or so; one of the legislative sponsors of Amendment 1 changing his mind and announcing his plans to vote against Amendment 1 because it goes too far; the “protect the Caucasian race” comments by the wife of a state senator supporting Amendment 1 that made national news; major figures and surrogates like Jim Rogers (the CEO of NC-based Duke Energy), Cathy Bessant (NC-headquartered Bank of America’s widely respected lead official in the state), NC Pediatric Society, NC Psychological Association, NC State Board of Education, Chelsea Clinton, Pres. Clinton, NC Attorney General Cooper, to even Jason Mraz, Wilco, and other celebrities coming out against Amendment 1 in the final weeks. All of these generated significant earned media around the state and in some cases nationally.

Unfortunately, it was not enough. The question is why. I spoke to a polling official affiliated with the campaign after the result came in on election night, who had an easy explanation for the 6-7 point difference. First, most of the 5-6% of voters who were undecided swung in favor of Amendment 1 (though many decided to stay home). Second, the margin of error on the PPP polls listed above. Third, the increase in turnout among voters for Amendment 1 outdid those against, and did not line up with the turnout model used in the polls. Last, and this is my own argument, but studies (most notably Egan’s NYU paper) have shown a Bradley effect in polling on same-sex marriage, where voters tend to tell polling firms they would vote for equality when later they cast a vote against it. Add all that up and there’s your 6-7 points. It may not be that simple, but it helps explain why the final polls were so far off the final result.

Was Amendment 1 worth fighting against, and what did we accomplish?

The questions many ask themselves after such a resounding loss is was Amendment 1 worth fighting against, and what did we as a movement accomplish? Both are worthy questions in the pursuit of reflection.

First, I know I join many in the campaign against Amendment 1 who fought because Amendment 1 took away rights and made people’s lives worse. Specifically, the people who had or may one day obtain domestic partnerships in places like Durham, Carrboro and other localities around the state that offered them. On election night, I stood next to North Carolinian couples who just had their rights forcibly annulled and children who may lose their health insurance.

A word on the importance of this. Over at The Huffington Post, journalist Lila Shapiro has a piece examining a split in the gay rights movement. I’m quoted where I note:

Adam Bink, the director of online programs at the Courage Campaign, a group that has been working to get voters to the polls in recent weeks, says that the movement can’t afford to give up on gay couples who don’t have the relatively good fortune to live in Minnesota or Maine.

Said Bink, “I think it’s really important that we don’t leave any state behind.”

For me and many of the people who gave money, made phone calls, blogged, traveled to NC to get out the vote and other actions (along with organizations like HRC, which invested heavily in both money and staff, and its incoming President, Chad Griffin), this wasn’t just about marriage — and for others, if it wasn’t, then it wasn’t worth spending time on. Marriage is the word right now — winning marriage in more states is sexier than defeating a constitutional amendment banning it in a state where it was already banned. That’s the first thing and, winnability arguments aside, much of the reason that many people who normally care about gay rights didn’t care about Amendment 1.

The second reason is much of the media, by and large, focused on this as a “marriage” issue, though many journalists, to their credit, correctly noted it banned any other form of relationship recognition for people of all genders. The problem was, much of the gay rights movement got it wrong. A tiny percentage of people realize many same-sex couples in North Carolina already have legal recognition for their relationship, and Amendment 1 just took it away. So many took a quick look at this and either misunderstood or outright ignored what else Amendment 1 does. Durham and Carrboro aren’t “big cities” like NYC or San Francisco. The average person who cares about gay rights probably hasn’t been and will never travel there. But Charlotte, the home of the 2012 Democratic National Convention, is — and as noted by Charlotte’s Matt Comer of Q-Notes, Amendment 1 will now derail ongoing city council discussions of extending benefits to same-sex partners of city employees because, well, it’s banned. This isn’t written to blame anyone, but to note that the level of engagement by the gay rights community — both at an organizational level and at an individual level — on Amendment 1 was far lower than for other initiatives. It raises a concern about engagement for other “flyover states” where people assume we’ll lose because they took a look at a poll, a date on the calendar, and a map… or because they honestly don’t really care that much unless it’s about winning marriage. Rights for same-sex couples, no matter the label attached to them, matter too, and when couples lost them like they did on Tuesday hurt, that hurts all of us as a movement.

But even if marriage is your only concern, there’s another importance to this. It is critically important to win one, or more, of the states that are voting this year on same-sex marriage, before the Supreme Court considers the issue sometime in the future. Most legal observers commonly believe the Supreme Court follows the states on many issues and this one is likely to be no different. We are now still winless on ballot questions over same-sex marriage, having lost over 30 of them. And this year we are now 0/1. And so Amendment 1, like all of these other states, extends beyond domestic partnerships in small(er) towns to a broad impact on our movement for marriage equality.

On to the question of what we as a movement accomplished by fighting Amendment 1. First, we certainly moved the needle in the state. I shudder to think what the result would have been if people like many of those reading had not put time, money and other resources into trying to change people’s minds on Amendment 1 and marriage generally. Just because the outcome was poor doesn’t mean nothing good happened. If, as many expect, a Supreme Court or other court decision striking down laws banning same-sex marriage does not arrive, and a campaign to repeal Amendment 1 is needed in the next two years, four years or longer, well, then we’ve done much of the work. Starting from a base of 39%, or higher if one considers the potential composition of the electorate in a general election, is not spectacular but also nothing to sneeze at.  On a broader scale, the next time a national poll is released showing a slim majority favoring same-sex marriage, we did some of the work to nudge those numbers a bit. And the next time a North Carolinian considers something as personal as the orientation of someone they love, or whether to attend a same-sex couple’s wedding, that phone call or door knock or ad may have may just a bit of difference.

Slowly, we are progressing towards full equality. Thanks to everyone who gave, called, traveled, clicked, talked, blogged and everything else you did to help make that possible.


  • 1. MJFargo  |  May 11, 2012 at 7:58 am

    It was certainly a fight worthy of your effort. And thank you for all you did, Adam.

  • 2. Michael Scott  |  May 11, 2012 at 8:10 am

    Thanks for everything you guys do. I'm proud to be a monthly recurring donor to this site. Wish it could be more, but every little bit helps.

    Here's a great video retweeted by Bill Corbett of MST3K:
    [youtube PuDitqxZsxg youtube]

  • 3. johnfromco  |  May 11, 2012 at 8:13 am

    I'm sorry for those in NC who have to live with this.

    That said, I still think the good guys gave up the high ground too easily. Rather than focusing on the moral wrong of inequality, the focus was put on the secondary effects of the legislation (women and children).

    After losing in the ballot box EVERY SINGLE FRICKING TIME we should realize that the real problem isn't anti-gay people don't have a non-gay reason to vote against hateful laws.

    When I talk to straight people in churches and elsewhere, I find that they don't understand the issue. And the pro-equality groups haven't sufficiently educated people, particularly in rural, Republican, faith communities. People honestly believe that "everything but taxes" can be done with contracts instead of marriage. They honestly believe that churches are going to be forced to hire gays and perform gay weddings (even pro-equality people don't want to see churches forced to do things). They believe firmly in "freedom" but nobody seems to frame the debate in terms of freedom. They believe gays can change and that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice", because that is what they hear from their pastor. They believe their kids will be turned gay if taught by a gay teacher. They don't hear enough personal stories about how this really affects people. But these things aren't addressed head-on – at least by us. The other side is using them.

    We have the moral high ground, darn it. We're right because the USA stands for freedom and equality. We built a nation on valuing differences. And it's just plain right to treat gays like everyone else.

  • 4. Steve  |  May 11, 2012 at 11:01 am

    Yep. I think I said the same thing, essentially, a couple of weeks ago. Just never seems like the pro-equality side "gets in the fight" and counters the lies and smears and fear-mongering.

    This is going to keep happening until either a) the courts finish it (and with the Roberts court, that may not go the way we want), or b) *every* *single* *lie* that is promulgated by the religious right is EFFECTIVELY countered with facts.

    These people will *never* give up, and every victory like this puts wind in their sails and another "N states have voted to prohibit gay marriage" talking point that they can use to continue their hatred.

    Sorry, but all the spin on these results is just that…I just don't see this as being anything positive in any way. You can talk about how it "energized' everyone, but really, the bottom line is we lost, and lost big, and that's all that people will remember during the next election in another state.

  • 5. Jamie  |  May 14, 2012 at 8:50 am

    Yeah, in a state where a senator's wife said that he wrote Amendment One to "protect the caucasian race", I'm sure you'll have an easy time convincing voters to give gay people equal rights.

  • 6. Fluffyskunk  |  May 12, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    Why are we all so comfortable with churches not being forced to hire gays? Would we be okay with the LDS church not being forced to hire blacks, if they still had that policy?

  • 7. Jamie  |  May 11, 2012 at 8:13 am

    Anyone that thought this amendment could be defeated was either deluding themselves or had never stepped foot inside North Carolina. Congratulations on wasting $2 million dollars. I'm sure that people will be happy to donate to you in the future when you again claim that a fight is winnable.

  • 8. Michael Scott  |  May 11, 2012 at 8:24 am

  • 9. Straight Ally #3008  |  May 11, 2012 at 9:11 am

    I'm on record on this site saying we would lose, even though I donated. North Carolina, statistically speaking, has not had enough time to progress:

    The point is, we pushed things closer to equality. It also woke a lot of people up around the country to the struggle. There are a lot of losing battles that ultimately lead to the war being won – think of the 54th Massachusetts storming Fort Wagner.

  • 10. fiona64  |  May 11, 2012 at 9:18 am

    And the Battle of Brandywine.

  • 11. MJFargo  |  May 11, 2012 at 11:25 am

    I'll be 65 years old this year, and if I'd simply said, "Why bother?" at a whole number of junctions in my life, I wouldn't be where I am today, i.e., happy.

  • 12. MightyAcorn  |  May 11, 2012 at 9:12 am

    We'll be happier than you are, seems like, no matter what. Enjoy fuming.

  • 13. Phillip K  |  May 11, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    I gotta say, I've agreed with Jamie (albeit less vehemently) on this particular battle since the get go. I do believe those funds could have been more effectively used elsewhere.

  • 14. AnonyGrl  |  May 11, 2012 at 8:14 am

    I think a BIG thing that came out of this is that it has people talking all over the country about marriage equality issues that are NOT happening in their own back yards. I think it has helped to put marriage equality on the minds of people who never considered the issue before, and to make them take a side. I find that LOTS of my friends from all over the place are paying attention to these issues in other states where they really weren't before.

    I posted about NC as it was happening on facebook, a friend of mine who has a very diverse friends list picked it up, and his thread ran to over 250 very opinionated posts (in both directions) from people all over the country who argued vehemently for their positions.

    What we are doing, is getting people talking. We are no longer hiding silently in the corners. We are taking our place in the center of the room and demanding equal rights. And it is good.

  • 15. Bob  |  May 11, 2012 at 8:58 am

    remember, back to the beginning of this site,,,, following the prop8 trial,,,, how we wanted so badly to get some news coverage,,,,,,

    N.C. was covered mainstream media,,,, both sides of the media,,,, Fox''s spin,,, and our side,,,, but it got coverage,,,,,,,big time,,,, thanks to C.C. for being in the fray,,,,,,,

    Directly after that disaster at the polls proving "majority never votes for minority rights",,,, Obama,,, made his affirming statement,,,,

    EQUALITY is now a major campaign platform,, and dividing wedge, from which Americans can choose the type of future they want,,,,,

    EQUALITY is front and centre,,, in the public debate,,,, and the question on individual minds is Do we want it or not?

    That's huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 16. John_B_in_DC  |  May 11, 2012 at 9:39 am

    This vote was a disappointment for sure, but not unexpected. Didn't the polls that asked the question exactly as it would appear on the ballot get numbers very similar to the actual results? But I don't think this was as big a victory as our opponents are making it out to be. What's worth noting is that the margin, while large, was considerably smaller than with any similar vote in any other southern state.

    Would Amendment 1 have passed in a general election? Probably, but maybe not by so large a margin. This article has some interesting numbers:

    Just under a million Democrats voted in this primary, and just under a million Republicans, i.e., approximately equal numbers. But according to the North Carolina State Board of Elections ( the number of registered Democrats is about 2.7 million and the number of registered Republicans is about 2 million. That's a difference of about 700,000 voters. If approximately equal numbers of both turned out for this election, then Republicans were considerably overrepresented. There are also over 1.5 million "unaffiliated" voters, who tend to support same-sex marriage–at least more than Republicans–but how many of them turn out for party primaries?

    Finally, it's also worth noting that the 61% of the votes cast for the amendment–1.3 million people–not only represents far less than a majority of the state's population (about 9.7 million people), it isn't anywhere near a majority of the registered voters in the state (about 6.3 million); in fact the people who voted this amendment into the constitution represent only about 21% of the total number of registered voters!!! So much for democracy and "majority rule". This is the real and truly pernicious effect of NOM's constant mantra "let the people vote" (although they conveniently forget that mantra when they start talking about a federal marriage amendment). This is a good illustration of why our rights shouldn't be subject to a "majority" vote in the first place.

  • 17. MightyAcorn  |  May 11, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    ….and why people should get off their butts and vote. Where were all those *millions* of other voters? What excuse could they give, especially since they had a week of early voting to accommodate their schedules?

  • 18. Faceless Bureaucrat  |  May 11, 2012 at 10:02 am

    Thanks for fighting the good fight.

    Have you all seen this slice and dice of voters in NC, CA, AZ and ME?

  • 19. Sagesse  |  May 11, 2012 at 10:22 am

    I believe it was important to fight Amendment 1 because it CHANGED THE STATE CONSTITUTION, not just to create a DOMA, but to harm other unmarried people and their families. That's not what a constitution is for.

    The overly broad effect was damaging because opponents had to deliver multiple messages. In addition to the standard 'respect for LGBT people and their families', it had to be said that the amendment would cause collateral damage. If you spend the same $ delivering two messages, neither one will be as effective.

  • 20. MJFargo  |  May 11, 2012 at 11:23 am

    And I think it's that "overly broad effect" of the amendment that will get the attention of the courts.

  • 21. johnfromco  |  May 11, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    The concern I have is that the overly broad stuff (yes, it was a dumb law as it targeted way beyond the intended target) seemed to be the majority of focus. It seemed as if people basically accepted "NC people are bigots, but maybe they'll care about kids." I think the focus was out-of-proportion with the effects and intent of the bill. Sure, it affects some straight couples. But it affects *ALL* gay couples.

    I also think it smelled "political". It smelled as if the groups opposing the bill had made a political decision on how to present there case, without addressing the meat of the issue – the anti-gay part. It was almost a concession that the anti-gay part was okay.

    Should it have been mentioned that women and kids would get hurt by this bill? Of course! But when Bill Clinton says, "If it passes, it won't change North Carolina's law on marriage. What it will change is North Carolina's ability to keep good businesses, attract new jobs, and attract and keep talented entrepreneurs…Its passage will also take away health insurance from children and could even take away domestic violence protections from women" – well, when he says that "it won't change the law on marriage" and never says the "g" word, it ignores the elephant everyone in the room knows is there. Sure, I'm sure someone thought "if you say gay, they'll vote for the amendment." But people knew this was a bill about gays – not saying gay didn't change that.

    That's the problem I had with what I saw. A political decision was made to downplay the damage to gay people and highlight the damage to straight people. And I still think that was a mistake in focus.

  • 22. Johan  |  May 11, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Exactly! You stated the main reasons why I think the campaign against amendment 1 was a waste of time and money. The proponents were very consistent this was about gays and marriage, that we were bad and marriage had to be saved from us. We did not counter that at all. The only way we CAN counter this is by making ourself front and center of the campaign. Gay and lesbian couples, their kids, gay kids (yes, them too!). Like Andrew Sullivan said: let go of fear. We were going to lose no matter what, but we would have a different narrative (in the state and nationally through the media), a better conversation (in the state and nationally by the media), and a better rehearsal for november in Washington, Maryland, Maine and Minnesota.

    In the end we had next to nothing. A hotly contested amendment with a high national profile ending in a smackdown as never before. And I do not count 2004-2006, because the national climate was even more bleak back then and those amendments were not fiercely contested.

    And still, the next day we were saved by the bell. When the news was about to sink in nationally, the president scooped up all the attention (worldwide, no less!) when he evolved. He seems to get it better than we do. His statement was very simple and straightforward, and very personal. Listen to his wording, he is talking about gay people, couples, and individuals.

    Even if Obamas statement was done out of political expedience, and even when he will hedge his bets on the state rights issue for quite some time, he gets it better than we do. And a whole lot riskier for him than for us.

    I urge everyone to stop donating and spending time and money on the lgbt strategically tactic complex until the campaigns will be simple and straightforward. I for one, will donate money to:

    I do not know much about the exact status of this project, and there might be counter indications on donating to this project, I think this kind of campaigning is the way to go

    [youtube VZqyvI2KMfw youtube]

  • 23. MJFargo  |  May 11, 2012 at 11:22 am

    And for the bean counters among us, there's always the economic argument:

  • 24. truthspew  |  May 11, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    The graphic I saw said it all. The more educated, the less supportive of discriminatory amendments. This was clear when you mapped educational attainment to counties that voted No on question 1.

    And having been all around northeastern North Carolina, what I see a serious lack of is instituted of higher learning, but I see more churches.

  • 25. Mark  |  May 11, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    If this were the only fight on the ballot this year, perhaps spending $2 million on an unwinnable race would have been wise. Or if polls hadn't consistently shown Amendment One easily passing–or if Nate Silver's underlying analysis hadn't suggested that there was no chance of victory in NC–maybe this would have been money and political capital well-spent.

    But some degree of political realism was in order, and instead was wholly absent. The $2 million spent in a futile effort in North Carolina could have made a huge difference in Maine or Washington, which are much cheaper to advertise in (especially Maine), and which appear to be the two races we have the best chances of winning this year.

  • 26. Adam Bink  |  May 12, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    Hindsight is an easy 20/20, but the problem is that the first several hundred thousand is spent early, to see if the poll numbers move. When they did, more people gave and the campaign spent more. When the Yes vote polled below 55% and there was an outside shot of victory, more people gave and the campaign spent more.

    So the point is, there was no magic "let's spent over $2 million or not" one-time decision, and what's more, no one is able to responsibly say "there is a 100% chance of this passing, let's spend $0 on it" when it qualified for the ballot. Not when supermajorities oppose an amendment that banned civil unions and domestic partnerships, a third didn't understand what Amendment 1 did, and another percentage thought it actually legalized same-sex marriage. There was an Achilles' Heel and reasonable people decided to prick at it for months and see what happened. I don't see anything wrong with that.

  • 27. Joe  |  May 12, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    And Minnesota? It has a real chance of failing there. Religious groups representing about half the state have come out against the ban. Fund-raising has already out-stripped what anti-One did and about 50% more than the pro-ban group. Polling right now is roughly 50/50, and an enormous coalition and boots on the group already in place. We have a serious chance to defeat it there. We should definitely lend as much of a hand as we can there!

  • 28. Jamie  |  May 14, 2012 at 8:54 am

    It's not hindsight. It was CLEAR from the beginning that this amendment was going to pass, no matter how many millions of dollars were thrown at it. This site CONTINUALLY covered up polls showing this amendment passing.

  • 29. Michael Scott  |  May 14, 2012 at 10:18 am

  • 30. Larry  |  May 14, 2012 at 8:57 am

    I think the most important criterion should be what the effect of the vote is. In North Carolina and Minnesota, a bad vote would put a marriage ban into the state constitution, but wouldn't change anything on the ground. Marriage would go from banned to "super-banned". In Maryland, Washington, and Maine, there's the potential to go from banned to allowed, a much bigger change. Money should be spent on those states.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!