Blockbuster Democracy

Why Do California Initiatives Draw So Many Legal Challenges?

Joe Mathews — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:17:00 -0500

This Oakland Tribune story, which quotes your blogger, suggests a number of factors, including the inflexibility of California's initiative system. It's so hard to change initiatives via other means that the default position is to go to court.

Why States Belong In the Stimulus Package

Joe Mathews — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:55:00 -0500

Over at the California Progress Report, my New America colleague Mark Paul explains why.

Why The Court Probably Won't Overturn Prop 8

Joe Mathews — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:00:00 -0500

This San Francisco Chronicle story does a very good job explaining why it's unlikely that Prop 8 will be overturned by the California Supreme Court. The key question is whether the initiative is an amendment to the constitution, which is permitted by initiative, or is actually a revision because the court ruled in May that there is an inherent constitutional right to marriage that applies to gay and straight couples alike. Traditionally, the court has been reluctant to declare an initiative invalid because it's a "revision." The Chronicle points out this has only been done twice, and neither case would seem to apply easily to the case of Prop 8.

California Supremes To Consider Prop 8

Joe Mathews — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:28:00 -0500

No surprise, but the California Supreme Court today agreed to consider whether Prop 8 is constitutional. Both sides had sought a quick move by the court, and it looks like they're going to get it. More details here.

Other Prop 8 news: In a very interesting interview with the Sacramento Bee, California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, who is African-American, said that the post-Prop 8 debate has been "racialized" (because of exit polls showing widespread black support for the Prop 8 ban on same sex marriage) and described how friends of her who attended anti-Prop 8 protests had racial epithets hurled at them.

Arizona Supremes Urge Initiative Reform

Joe Mathews — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:50:00 -0500

In an opinion in a case on a particular initiative, the Arizona Supreme Court urged broader reform of the initiative process, particularly with regards to signature gathering. The court argues that signature gathering has become too big and time-consuming a process. From the opinion, written by Justice Andrew Hurwitz and issued yesterday.

it would clearly be preferable for the legislature to modify the

statutory scheme in light of today’s realities to avoid such

structural problems. Our election officials are required to

process large numbers of initiative and referendum petitions.

The growth of the state’s electorate means that the number of

signatures submitted in order to qualify for placement on the

ballot has also steadily grown. And, even when the Secretary

and county recorders complete the verification process within

the statutory deadlines, the time for judicial review has been

shortened by the need to prepare ballots for early voting.

It is, of course, not within our constitutional

assignment to suggest specific legislative solutions to this

problem. And, if no change is made in the qualification

process, the judiciary will continue to decide election cases

with all appropriate celerity. But it is not, we think, beyond

our role to suggest that there may be a better way, and to

encourage the other branches of government to consider that

issue.

Can't Miss Event Wednesday in Sacramento

Joe Mathews — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:19:00 -0500

New America is sponsoring a very important event this Wednesday from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. in Sacramento, "A Nation Without States," that will offer a whole new way of looking at California -- and some big ideas for reform that you may not have heard before. Below is a description of the event and its panel. To RSVP for it (there's no cost, but they try to get a count so they have enough food for lunch, which is provided), click here.

CALIFORNIA'S REGIONS

The first panel will describe California's regions, detailing the differences between and relationships among them and focusing on how each is transforming itself in response to the globalizing 21st century economy. The speakers will assess how well California's data collection and state agencies serve the needs of policy makers, both in the State Capitol and within the regions themselves.

Jed Kolko
Research Fellow, Public Policy Institute of California
Ed Kawahara
Chief Consultant, Economic Strategy Panel, State of California

PIONEERS OF REGIONALISM

The second panel session will highlight regional initiatives in California, assess their effectiveness in dealing with economic development and environmental protection, and offer ideas to help them carry forward their visions for the future of regional development in California.

Sunne Wright McPeak
President, California Emerging Technology Fund
Mike McKeever
Executive Director, Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Ashley Swearengin
California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley

REPRESENTING CALIFORNIA'S REGIONS

The third panel session will outline a series of bold policy reforms aimed at improving representation in the Legislature while simultaneously updating our state government system to increase our capacity to effectively address issues of regional development and coordination.

Micah Weinberg
Research Fellow, New America Foundation
Mark Paul
Deputy Director, California Program, New America Foundation

First City-Wide Referendum Ever in Taiwan Goes Down to Defeat

Joe Mathews — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:15:00 -0500

Taiwan has recently strengthened direct democracy, making referenda easier. And so the teachers association in the southern port city of Kaohsiung sought to use the enhanced referendum powers in the national law to reduce class sizes from 35 to 25 students. The measure failed however -- because fewer than 10 percent of voters showed up.

Arnold Hints He'll Protect Existing Marriages

Joe Mathews — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:27:00 -0500

Gov. Schwarzenegger, appearing Sunday on ABC's This Week, indicated he was inclined to protect the marriages of gay couples who legally tied the knot this year. These marriages could be at risk because of the passage of Prop 8. Schwarzenegger offers the caveat that such an order must be legal, and that he must first confer with Attorney General Jerry Brown, who has said he will defend Prop 8 while also protecting the existing marriages. Here's the exchange with interviewer George Stephanopolous.

STEPHANOPOULOS: In the meantime, some legal experts have suggested that you should, if you believe that, issue an edict, a ruling, that says that the marriages that have already taken place in California are absolutely legal. Will you do that?

SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, I have to get together with Jerry Brown, our attorney general, and see what the legal opinion is, because he's my lawyer, basically. And so, we always do those things together.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you're inclined to do it?

SCHWARZENEGGER: It's a conversation that I can have with him about the -- if that's the legal way to go.

Protect Gay Married Couples: Three Suggestions

Joe Mathews — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:38:00 -0500

Lost in all the publicity about post-election No on 8 protests is the question of whether the 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot this year in California will see their marriages voided by the courts. Protecting these marriages is essential as a matter of humanity, of avoiding a bigger legal mess. Here's how to respond.

1. The Yes on 8 folks -- the opponents of same-sex marriage -- would be wise not to challenge these marriages in court. It would be both the decent and the politically wise thing to do. Forcing the voiding of these marriages could boomerang against their cause. I'm hearing some discussion among conservatives who favor this step, but I think this is probably too much to hope for.

2. Some of the state's best lawyers are working on protecting these couples and repealing Prop 8. But the courts take time. The legislature and the governor -- who played coy during the Prop 8 campaign instead of showing leadership by actively opposing Prop 8 -- need to move immediately to give every specific protection to the existing marriages that they possibly can. It's unclear what form this could take, but clear statements that the initiative not be applied retroactively would be a good first step.

3. Preparing for defeat. If the marriages are voided, these couples will need help in very pragmatic ways. Some dissolved domestic partnerships to get married. Legislation should turn these voided marriages into domestic partnerships, unless couples specifically opt out. The state also should come up with money that could be used to defray legal bills that result from the voiding of marriages. A whole host of contracts and legal arrangements -- involving adoption of children, property records, wills and estates, etc. -- could be affected by the voiding of the marriages. At the very least, gay married couples should be made financially whole if their marriages are voided.

Jerry Brown, Pretzel

Joe Mathews — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:27:00 -0500

Good politicians have the ability to appear to be on both sides of an issue, but Jerry Brown -- the former governor and presidential candidate, and the current attorney general of California -- is breaking new ground in this realm. Try to follow this: Brown, a likely candidate for governor in 2010, is supportive of same-sex marriage politically. But before the state supreme court, he's defending Prop 8, the just-approved initiative to ban same-sex marriage in California. At the same time, he's defending the marriages of approximately 18,000 gay couples who took the plunge in the past five months, while such unions were legal.

What's interesting about these Brown positions is that it's a safe bet he'll prevail upon all three. It's fairly likely that one of the four members of the state supreme court who voted to legalize same-sex marriage may reconsider when faced with a vote of the public. At the same time, it would be ghastly -- and legally messy -- to void the marriages of gay couples who were married legally. (This is not just a marriage issue; these married couples have changed names, adopted children, planned estates, written wills and bought property together, creating enough legal dilemmas to choke the courts). And in the long term, Brown's political position in favor of same-sex marriage is almost certain to prevail in California (assuming angry same-sex marriage supporters come to their senses and stop marching on churches).