Ronald George, chief justice of the California Supreme Court, is scheduled to take on what he calls "the dangers of direct democracy" in a speech today in Massachusetts to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, according to the Sacramento Bee, which appears to be have an advancy copy. (There's no copy posted on the court web site).

It's a daring speech, for no other reason than the fact that California justices face so-called "retention" elections every 12 years in which voters are asked whether they wish to retain judges. And George is up for retention next year.

Among the highlights:

-George comes out against the state's requirement of a two-thirds vote to raise taxes, a key provision of Prop 13. He's right, of course, for reasons that have nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with governing and accountability. (Two-thirds vote allow minorities to block budgeting choices and allow majorities to duck full responsibility for budget and taxation questions). But for a judge facing the voters, saying this is a huge political risk.

-George criticizes California voters for approving the Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriage (overturning the decision he wrote legalizing such marriages) at the same time they enhanced rights for chickens, through approval of Prop 2, the Humane Society initiative to regulate farm animal confinement.

The California Supreme Court's decision today to uphold Prop 8 is more about the California constitution and the initiative process (the true winner in the case) than it is about same-sex marriage. In effect, by a 6-1 vote, the court makes plain that it would have loved to overturn Prop 8--but couldn't because of the constitution.

And in the following passage from today's decision, the court seems to offer a suggestion to advocates of a constitutional convention: that the state needs provisions limiting the ability of the people to change certain parts of the constitution by initiative. The political problem with this is, of course, that advocates of such a convention desperately want to avoid having issues like same-sex marriage brought into the debate over a convention.

Anyway, here's the relevant passage:

I've just completed a very fast reading of the California Supreme Court decision this morning that upholds the Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriage -- and also upholds the legality of the approximately 18,000 gay couples who got married in the state last year.

As readers of this blog know, I'm a strong supporter of same-sex marriage -- but I think the court did the right thing. The California constitution is different than the U.S. constitution. The people have strong powers to change the constitution through the ballot initiative. To overturn Prop 8 would have forced the justices to rewrite the state constitution and strip the people of those powers. I believe that California's initiative process should be less powerful and more flexible, but this wasn't the case to do something about it.

The decision makes plain that Prop 8's effect is confined to one word; marriage. The court writes that gay couples must continue to have all the rights and responsibilities of married couples. But their unions can't be called marriages, because of Prop 8. 

The California Supreme Court just announced it will rule on legal challenges to Prop 8, the California initiative ban on same-sex marriage, on Tuesday.

I filed this item as my Fox & Hounds Daily column while watching this morning's California Supreme Court hearing on the challenges to Prop 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage:

The California Supreme Court hears the challenges to Prop 8 tomorrow morning. And you may have heard that Cal Channel, which broadcasts government hearings, will show the hearing live on its web site.

But as someone who has long experience with Cal Channel, don't count on being able to access that video. Cal Channel is a small operation that is decidedly not ready for prime time. This year's State of the State address -- an essentially meaningless speech that few cared about -- was a minor disaster, with the Internet feed going in and out. It's a good bet that Cal Channel's servers will be quickly overwhelmed by interested parties. Cal Channel's web site has already posted the following warning: "Due to the high demand we expect for this event, if you have problems connecting then the server has reached its limit. Please try back later and watch the video in our archive when it concludes." D

If you want to see it, you're better off looking for it on TV (check your cable provider in California for those who have Cal Channel). Expect some cable news channels to show parts of it.

I'm out of California this week and not monitoring direct democracy with my usual fervor. The goal is to get some writing done. Sad to miss Thursday's oral arguments before the state Supreme Court on the legal challenges to Prop 8, California's same-sex marriage ban. I'll weigh in when I'm back next weekend.

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.

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.

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