About this Blog
Direct democracy -- the Switzerland-inspired system of initiatives, referenda and recalls that allows voters to make and repeal laws in 24 states -- is poorly understood. It isn’t even very direct. Direct democracy has become blockbuster democracy: a half-billion-dollar international industry of signature gatherers, consultants, and election lawyers who use ballot measures less as a method of making law and more as a tool of mega-communications to boost some politicians, hurt others, and supplement lobbying campaigns.
Blockbuster democracy is a decentralized business that practices wide-open politics. This blog aims to provide a center of news, analysis and conversation for and about the industry. We will report from blockbuster democracy’s capital -- California -- but we’ll monitor ballot measures from across the country and around the globe.
Your Blogger: Joe Mathews is an
User login
The Gay Marriage Ballot Title Fight
Supporters of Prop 8, the California ballot initiative to ban same sex marriage, have gone to court to reverse changes in the official title and summary. Their petition is available here.
After reading the briefs, I think the supporters have a strong case. The original title and summary, approved before the state supreme court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, read simply, "LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Amends the California constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." After the court decision, the title now says, "ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME SEX COUPLES TO MARRY..." That's very, very argumentative. Whether there is such a right in the California constitution is the focus of the legal and political dispute that voters will decide in November.
Attorney General Jerry Brown has some justification for he change. The court identified a constitutional right to marry that includes same-sex couples. But the first title remains accurate, and the Prop 8 supporters should be able to put Brown on the defensive. The attorney general has publicly taken sides in the controversy. Your blogger thinks he's on the correct side, but in ballot initiative titles, the a.g. is supposed to accurately describe the measure, not argue the case. The outcome is important, as these titles do affect undecided voters.
You're wrong
When you write, "whether there is such a right in the California constitution is the focus of the legal and political dispute that voters will decide in November," you are simply wrong. Since the date of the California Supreme Court decision, that right has existed in the State of California. The November ballot will determine whether that right will *continue* to exist, but it does not change the fact that the right *exists* in California, as of now.
You know that right exists, because hundreds of couples have exercised that right by getting married. They are recognized by the State of California as married couples. The existence of their marriage is not in dispute. Whether they have the right to marry, as of today, is not a "dispute that will be settled in November."
Exactly
I wrote my last comment before I read yours. Pretty much exactly the same thing I wrote. Glad to see someone else is thinking clearly here.
silly bigots....
TKD is entirely correctly. The CA Supreme has already declared that the right exists...the uneducated conservative/religious/homophobic bigots are now wanting to remove that right. The new wording is entirely accurate.
If you bigots have the balls to create this Proposition, then have the balls to reveal it for exactly what it is. The California voters deserve to be told exactly what they're voting on so they can informed voters; misleading them through vague language isn't very democratic. If you have so much faith in your backwards, discriminatory Proposition, then the new wording shouldn't be a problem.
Nice try.
BS!
"Whether there is such a right in the California constitution is the focus of the legal and political dispute that voters will decide in November."
No! Whether there will CONTINUE to be such a right is what the voters will decide in November. The California Supreme Court, pursuant to its duty, has interpreted the state Constitution as it CURRENTLY stands. The Court has held that same-sex couples CURRENTLY have the right to marry. That means, the passing of Prop. 8 in November will do exactly what the attorney general has put in the title: Take that right away.
The anti-gay crowd has to stop framing this argument as if there's still debate over whether the right currently exists; THERE'S NOT! The Supreme Court has held it exists, end of story. The vote in November may change that, but that's neither here nor there.
A Fair Point
Of course, this right may "vanish" -- along with these marriages -- if the measure passes in November. Still, your criticism is right. And to add to the self-criticism, the dispute may not be settled in November. We're sure to see litigation if the initiative passes, and we'll likely see another ballot initiative if Prop 8 fails. Joe Mathews Irvine senior fellow, New America Foundation www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/
Evangelicals are the most hateful people around . . .
Let's face it; the Evangelical Christian's are the new KKK(I encourage people to study the history of his horrible gang). The KKK once control government, police, military, corporations, churches, etc and had millions of memembers. They also encouraged hate for those who were not like them. Sound familiar? Unfortunately the new scape goats are gay people. I hope that people start fighting back at these cruel and horrible people who insist on marginalizing and demonizing everyone who is not like them. Everyone deserves equal rights in the U.S.A.!!! Isn't this the land of the free? Oh wait, it is the land of the free if you are white, rich, Republican, heterosexual, and an Evangelical Christian. I encourage all Americans to look at places like Iran or Afghanistan to see what intolerance can bring to a society. I'm sure they feel very justified in treating women like dogs. Is that their right? What makes them any better than America treating gay people as second class citizens?
Post new comment