A few election notes

- Democrats won gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey. :yawn: Both were expected to win and both were ahead in the polls pretty consistently and in the case of Jon Corzine (New Jersey), pretty far ahead for the most part. The only interesting things were that Bush's last-minute appearance in Virginia certainly didn't help GOPper Jerry Kilgore, who lost to Dim Tim Kaine by a margin clearly bigger than the polls indicated, and that in New Jersey the GOPpers reached what might be a new low in campaign ads, showing Corzine's ex-wife saying he let his family down and would probably let New Jersey down.

- Arnold lost big. All four of the propositions he championed in California went down. Someone - I don't recall who just now - recently commented that the Gropinator had campaigned for office saying the state was a mess and it was all the state government's fault and since getting into office he's been saying the state's a mess and it's all everyone else's fault. It seems that at least some people in California are thinking that it's the governor's fault.

- Not surprisingly, by a hefty margin Texas voters endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Human rights supporters were disappointed by the results, but they could hardly say they were surprised by much of anything in Texas. (See Ivins, Molly.)

- On the other hand, voters in Maine clearly rejected an attempt to undo the ban on discrimination against gays and lesbians

approved by lawmakers earlier this year. The lawmakers expanded the state's human rights act to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, a step already taken by the five other New England states.

In near-complete returns, about 55 percent of voters were opposing repeal of the new law, which is broadly worded to protect transsexuals and transvestites as well as gays and lesbians.

As the folks at The Next Hurrah pointed out, this was proof that despite wingnut claims to the contrary, human rights can win at the ballot box.

- You may have heard about all of those, certainly the first three, but what you may not have heard is that in Dover, Pennsylvania,

[v]oters came down hard Tuesday on school board members who backed a statement on intelligent design being read in biology class, ousting eight Republicans and replacing them with Democrats who want the concept stripped from the science curriculum.

As I predicted just the other day, supporters of the slate of challengers apparently included both those who oppose ID and support actual science and those who just wish the whole business would go away.

The new board is to take office on December 5; it will be interesting to see if in the interim the lame-duck board will petition the judge in the suit over the policy to either declare a mistrial (if he can do that after all the testimony is in) or to decline to issue a verdict on the grounds that with the change in the board and the declared intention of the incoming members to strip ID from the curriculum, the issue is now moot - thus avoiding the possibility of a further embarrassing defeat.

Interestingly, the new board seems in no major rush to undo the ID policy, saying they'll "consider" the judge's decision, which is expected in January. That seems to me to indicate at least a fair degree of confidence in the outcome.

Footnote: It's not election news, but it did happen on election day and is relevant to what was just mentioned:

Revisiting a topic that exposed Kansas to nationwide ridicule six years ago, the state Board of Education approved science standards for public schools Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution[, AP reported on Tuesday].

The 6-4 vote was a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards.

Not only do the standards now falsely claim that evolution has been "challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology," the board also - get this, now - rewrote the definition of science, so that "it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."

The vote was not a surprise, especially in the wake of the kangaroo court the board majority staged to justify their pre-determined conclusion, a practice entirely in keeping with the entire ID project.

"This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that," said board member Janet Waugh, a Democrat.

You'll pardon the expression, but amen to that, Ms. Waugh.