EBC Poll: Bar Association on a Knife's Edge

---

---

EBC Poll: Bar Association on a Knife's Edge
The referendum - which requires 60% to pass - could go either way, with varying levels of support for elements of the bill
Written by McEntire​

---

---

The EBC held a 24-hour flash poll on the Bar Association Omnibus Act referendum, and had a live poll results review show, which you can find here. Below, we have posted the results of this poll, and you can find full results here.

This poll shows the Bar Association teetering around the level of support it needs - which as a reminder is 60% for a constitutional referendum. While there is broad support for legal education and creating pathways to the Judiciary, there is wide disapproval of the idea of single-term limits for Justices, and bare majorities for the creating of the Circuit Court and Board of Bar Examiners. And, as expected, voters indicated that they followed the referendum much more closely than they followed the initial debate.

See results below, and let your voice be heard before the referendum opens soon!

Spoiler: Poll Comments

It just seems a little half-baked.

Non but I will one day end the British!!!!

It's not a bad idea but I feel like Rand has been trying to strongarm the Senate throughout the whole process?

I didn't follow the debate over this bill until the referendum. But after going over the debate and the points made on each side, I have developed concerns about this bill as it currently stands.

A Bar Association is fine, but the rest of the judicial reform is not good.

 

[Pland Adanna]

Thanks for posting these results! I love the super fancy graphs. I strongly encourage everyone to listen to the radio show--it was excellent!

 

[Gorundu]

Interesting that almost half of the respondents have served as Justice - given one of the key motivations for the bill is the lack of turnover in Justices, I feel like the sample here might not be very representative

95.2% of the respondents having served as Senator is probably a similar signal.

 

[Pichtonia]

Interesting that almost half of the respondents have served as Justice - given one of the key motivations for the bill is the lack of turnover in Justices, I feel like the sample here might not be very representative

95.2% of the respondents having served as Senator is probably a similar signal.

I was very surprised by these numbers, too!

Even still, I'd probably say the referendum won't succeed. It's my general feeling as well that the proponents of the bill have a slight edge, and I feel like they're more likely to campaign for the bill than anyone against it, too.

 

[Pland Adanna]

Even still, I'd probably say the referendum won't succeed.

My understanding was that the referendum was meant to trigger more discussion on the bill, not necessarily tank it, so I would say it already succeeded.

 

[Pichtonia]

Even still, I'd probably say the referendum won't succeed.

My understanding was that the referendum was meant to trigger more discussion on the bill, not necessarily tank it, so I would say it already succeeded.

That's a good argument, yes. Or maybe: The referendum reached its goals even if it won't succeed

 

[Izzy]

So glad for the EBC reporting, I've caught up on this news. Personally I will be voting no as I'm also against term limits for justices. I would rather see this fail and be redone than passed and potentially not get amended for a long time, if ever.

 

[Lloenflys]

Even still, I'd probably say the referendum won't succeed.

My understanding was that the referendum was meant to trigger more discussion on the bill, not necessarily tank it, so I would say it already succeeded.

As the person who put forth the petition, you are 100% correct that my entire goal was to generate discussion and make sure the region was fully aware of this proposal. I do, in fact, considered that to have been successful, and I'm really glad that we have the referendum option in the Constitution, I think it is useful!

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

So glad for the EBC reporting, I've caught up on this news. Personally I will be voting no as I'm also against term limits for justices. I would rather see this fail and be redone than passed and potentially not get amended for a long time, if ever.

My expectation is that an amendment will be forthcoming before the end of the new Senate term. I wouldn't let that hold you up. I'll also be lobbying for the removal of term limits later but will vote yes.

 

[Izzy]

So glad for the EBC reporting, I've caught up on this news. Personally I will be voting no as I'm also against term limits for justices. I would rather see this fail and be redone than passed and potentially not get amended for a long time, if ever.

My expectation is that an amendment will be forthcoming before the end of the new Senate term. I wouldn't let that hold you up. I'll also be lobbying for the removal of term limits later but will vote yes.

I'm not willing to take the risk that nothing is done. The referendum failing ensures that is done because the Senate wants this to pass so badly.

 

[Lime]

Terms limits is a pretty tiny thing to vote no on.

 

[Prim]

Terms limits is a pretty tiny thing to vote no on.

Especially when 3 out of 5 Senators have already signed on to an amendment to change it.