California Supreme Court

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 Judges Could Feel Political Heat on Same Sex Marriage

Joe Mathews — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:24:00 -0500

People outside California may not know this, but our supreme court judges don't have lifetime terms. Every 12 years, they face "retention" elections -- up or down votesby thep ublic on whether they remain on the court or not. Two judges -- including Chief Justice Ronald George, the author of the 4-3 opinion in May that legalized same-sex marriage -- face retention elections in 2010. (The other judge up for retention was in the minority in the gay marriage opinion). Before 2010, the court will decide whether or not to overturn Prop 8, the ban on same-sex marriage just passed by voters. Writing at Fox & Hounds Daily, Joel Fox suggests George could face a campaign against his retention no matter how he decides on Prop 8.

Breaking News: California Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Challenge To Initiative Banning Gay Marriage

Joe Mathews — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:15:00 -0400

The challenge sought to knock the initiaive off the ballot. So the campaign is on. AP story on the court's decision is here.

Big Day For Anti-Gay Marriage Initiative?

Joe Mathews — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:44:00 -0400

Today the state supreme court holds a conference and could decide whether to accept or reject a petition by gay marriage supporters that seeks to remove the initiative banning same-sex marriage from California's November ballot. The petition argues that, because of the court's recent decision declaring that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, the initiative, which would write its ban into the state constitution, constitutes not an amendment of the constituion -- which can be done by initiative -- but a constitutional revision, which requires approval of either the legislature or a constitutional convention. The LA Times' opinion blog has a deeper explanation here.

I may be a little slow in updating, so check the LAT opinion blog for updates. I'm spending the day driving north from Los Angeles (which Shaquille O'Neal correctly called "the real capital of California") to official capital Sacramento. All those chairs have been left empty by legislators who have decided to go on vacation instead of passing a budget, and your blogger is a man with a new apartment and a desperate need for some furniture.

No Marriages for Anyone?

Joe Mathews — Sat, 24 May 2008 17:14:00 -0400

The blog Cal Law, which focuses on California legal questions, suggests that if voters approve a new, constitutional ban on same sex marriage this November, the result could be the end of state-sanctioned marriage of any kind. Everyone would sign up for domestic partnerships, and the definition of marriage would be left up to the churches.

This seems a bit much to me, but the look for the anti-initiative/pro-gay marriage campaign to raise the question of whethre not only same sex marriages but also domestic partnerships could be at legal risk if the initiative fails. And the legal protections for gay couples that come with domestic partnerships are broadly popular in California.

LAT Poll: Anti-Gay Marriage Initiative In Trouble

Joe Mathews — Fri, 23 May 2008 17:50:00 -0400

But, you say, the LA Times poll shows a lead of 54-35 for the initiative to put a ban on gay marriage in the state constitution! The story even says, "Californians narrowly reject gay marriage." That's a misreading of the poll.

The problem for opponents of same sex marriage: initiatives with numbers like those six months before an election lose. (The rule of thumb is that you want to have at least 60 percent support at this time, because support almost always falls). "No" campaigns are easier to win than most, and this is a "no" campaign that will be well-funded, get lots of attention, and can point to a Supreme Court opinion written by Republicans. The more I think about it, the more the decision by the supreme court is exquisitely timed for those who support same-sex marriage. First off, the gay marriage supporters get to be on the "no" side of this measure, making their path easier. Second, the central conservative argument against the court's legaliziation of gay marriage -- "judges are making law!" -- is undercut by the fact that the voters are going to be able to vote on the question in November. And that timing will push the debate towards the human beings who want to get married. The bottom line: California voters may be about to do something very big.

California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

Joe Mathews — Thu, 15 May 2008 18:22:00 -0400

The ruling is here. The AP story is here. I'll leave the legal analysis to the lawyers, and offer a political explanation. This ruling invalidates Prop 22, the 2000 ballot initiative that barred same-sex marriage in California. And it likely means that local officials around the state will permit gay and lesbian couples to marry. Such marriages will raise this issue's profile politically, both in California and in the presidential race. All eyes this fall should be on the November initiative in California to establish a state constitutional ban against gay marriage.

Good for the Workers, Bad for the People?

Joe Mathews — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:19:00 -0400

The California Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal of of a lower court ruling that upheld a law guaranteeing a "living wage" to workers at hotels near Los Angeles International Airport.

This is good news for many of the approximately 3,500 workers there. Salary data is hard to come by, but many workers there make an hourly wage of less than $10.64 per hour ($9.39 an hour if health benefits are included). The hotels have argued that many of the lowest-salaried workers take home more than living wage when tips are factored in. The court decision is also a victory for Unite Here, the hotel workers' union, which has led a massive union organizing campaign at the hotels (it's one of the largest organizing efforts in the country) and has made the living wage a rallying cry. That campaign has real momentum; one of the hotels, the LAX Westin, recently agreed to unionization. As an LA Times reporter, I covered the organizing campaign and talked to a lot of these workers; they work very hard -- you should see how heavy bedspreads and pillows are when you're a housekeeper making up 16 hotel rooms day -- and deserve every dollar they can get.

On a less human and more constitutional level, the decision may undermine the people's right to referendum. The living wage law that was upheld was actually the second such law passed to benefit these hotel workers. The first living wage drew a referendum from the hotels and Los Angeles business community. In the face of that referendum, the Los Angeles city council repealed the first law -- but then, after negotiations but no final agreement with business leaders, the council passed the second law which also imposed a living wage but had new provisions added. This appeared to be a way to dodge the referendum. A Superior Judge thought so, but then an appeals court overruled that decision--finding that the second law was substantially different than the first. The Supreme Court, by letting this appeals court decision stand Thursday, may encourage other city councils -- particularly in charter cities such as Los Angeles -- to dodge referenda in similar ways.