California Supreme Court

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

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.