A quick, and probably wildly inaccurate, summary of the decision.
by Brian Leubitz
I read the decision very quickly (you can find it over the flip), so I likely missed many of the finer points. Nonetheless, I figured I wanted to get this up quickly, so, my apologies for any errors. At any rate, today the Court decided a few issues:
1) They have authority to intervene and provide a new map if a Redistricting map is challenged.
2) The Commission map is the best map to use in the interim, as it does the best job of adhering to the goals set forth in the redistricting initiative, even if the referendum gets on the ballot.
The discussion at the hearing was sort of meandering, but touched on all of these issues. Starting with the Commission's map, the entire Court agreed that it was the best map to use both for June and November. Interestingly, there were two semi-conflicting decisions from Supreme Court precedence to choose from. Legislature v. Reinecke held that the 1972 maps, which were vetoed by Gov. Reagan, could not be used. Rather, the previous maps based on 1960 census data should be used. The maps proposed by the 1972 Legislature had only been presented in a "truncated" Legislative process.
On the other hand, Assembly v Deukmejian held that the maps signed into law Gov. Jerry Brown and put to a referendum by the Republicans should go ahead in 1982. The Court reasoned that
Although the Constitution of our state grants the power to initiate a referendum to 5 percent of the voters, it does not require that the effect of that referendum be articulated in a manner that does such serious injury to conflicting and equally compelling constitutional mandates.
In other words, there were competing Constitutional interests. The right to a referendum, which is provided in the state Constitution, and the principle of "One person, One vote." (OPOV) Using the old maps would have meant that districts would be out of balance. In 1972, the Court held that the never really approved, because they were vetoed, maps could not be imposed, the principle of OPOV had to take a back seat because it would be far more destructive to impose the fake maps than it would be to just accept disproportionate districts for two more years. At the same time, because the 1972 district netted 2 Congressional seats, the Court let those be imposed on an interim basis. So, apparently they weren't so odious or destructive.
On the other hand, the legitimately passed 1982 maps were put in place, for reasons both of pragmatism and of principle. The maps had been duly passed by the Legislature. While the right of referendum was an important Constitutional right, it was not so important as to throw the system into chaos. This was a 4-3 decision, with the dissenters basically calling the decision a wholly political one.
And with that in mind, the Court ultimately decided that the Assembly v Deukmejian was more applicable in this instance. The referendum situation ultimately bearing more similarity to the newer case than the older.
The court considered several maps in the case the referendum is put on the ballot:
The 2002 maps. They would have resulted in districts that varied by nearly 40% from largest to smallest. The court ultimately dismissed this as varying too far from the OPOV and not complying with the standards set in the 2008 redistricting initiative.
"Nesting ADs" - The Republicans also suggested just nesting assembly districts, which I suppose might present them with somewhat better chances to get to 1/3 representation. However, these districts did not in any meaningful way meet the listed requirements of the 2008 initiative (now Article XXI) and would "defer" too many voters from their new districts for too long.
The GOP Dream Plan - Basically, Republicans hired Anthony Quinn, an advisor to the GOP redistricting efforts in 1971 and 1981( and author one of five co-editors of the California Target Book) to come up with a set of maps when they first challenged the maps for legality, and now they want to try it again. The Court said this would take too long and would not yield a better map than the final option.
The Commission map - The SoS and the Commission argued that the commission map best meets the goals of Art XXI, is ready to be implemented, and would cause the least amount of upheavel. Ultimately, the Court agreed, adding that any new plan would not be vetted by the public at all and yield additional hardship
Now, while seemingly less interesting, the question of authority seems to have been a more controversial question. In fact, Justice Liu wrote a concurring opinion, but pointed out that the Court did not need to come to a decision on whether they have the power to intercede in a situation where the referendum is only likely to succeed. I'll not dwell too long on this issue, but if you are interested, read the concurring opinion down there at the end of the decision.
To put it as succinctly as possible, Justice Liu feels that the majority could have come to the decision of using the Commission's map without deciding that "under California Constitution, article VI, section 10, this court is authorized to issue an order to show cause and decide which districts should be used in the event a proposed referendum directed at a Commission-certified redistricting map qualifies for the ballot, even in the absence of a showing that the proposed referendum is likely to qualify for the ballot."
He felt that the decision could have been arrived at simply by looking at the superiority of the Commission's map as an interim map. Legally, narrowly tailored decisions are preferred, so this one went too far. Perhaps Liu is right that at some point in the future this decision could be abused for political purposes, but ultimately it is a question that will bear more importance in the future than it does for the 2012 Senate maps.
And so, as they say, that is a quick summary of the case.
As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court decided a few things on redistricting today. Obviously this is a major blow to the Republicans. Let the whining commence:
Republican State Sen. Mimi Walters of Laguna Niguel, a leader of the referendum drive, blasted the ruling as "shortsighted and disrespectful" of California voters who signed petitions and are awaiting the opportunity to vote on the commission's Senate maps.
"They kind of gutted the whole idea behind the referendum process," said Dave Gilliard, another leader of the drive to kill the maps.
Peter Yao, current chairman of the commission, countered that use of the commission maps is important to maintain electoral stability and that the challenge is based on "partisan self interest" that has "cost precious taxpayer dollars to defend."(SacBee)
Except that, as the court stated in the decision the power of referendum isn't the only constitutional right in question in this case. The power of referendum, which grants to 5 percent of the state's voters the power to put to a vote, does not override all other constitutional rights.
But whine as they may, the Commission's maps do present a very good Democratic opportunity to pick up that fateful 27th seat. With Sen. Blakeslee already saying he wouldn't run in the Commission's district, there are few routes for the Republicans to maintain 14 seats. Possible, certainly, but they'll need a pretty strong election cycle.
It is all rather ironic, really. Now that Schwarzenegger got his wish in the redistricting initiative, the Republicans are freaking out. While the Republicans (and ProPublica) whine that the system was gamed, six Republican appointees just finalized (mostly) the process.
As was said on Twitter by many Sacramento-watchers, what could the CRP have done with all the money they just wasted on this measure. It now seems rather hard to fathom that the CRP either has the resources to pass this measure, or would even want to. Who knows what other map is around the corner. This was really all about stalling the Commission maps for a cycle. It would have been expensive and unlikely that they could defeat the maps, and the CRP knew that. They were just hoping to hold on for one more cycle.
So much for that. I'll be posting a brief summary of the legal opinion shortly.
Court must decide how they want to intervene with impending referendum possible in June
by Brian Leubitz
UPDATE: Here is the decision in PDF. Basically the Court opted for the suggestion that I believe was made by Justice Liu to use the Commission's maps on an interim basis if the referendum does succeed in getting on the ballot. At the hearing, Justice Liu noted that it was at the very least one way of meeting all the goals of redistricting initiative. So, on that, we now know the maps we'll be voting on in June and November. More in a bit.
At the beginning of the month, the courts held a hearing on what do about the Senate maps. As you may recall, the Republicans spent a bunch of money, mostly from Mercury Insurance CEO George Joseph, to gather signatures to put the Senate map to a referendum. You see, the maps present something of an existential crisis for the Senate Republican caucus. While it isn't a sure thing that Democrats will exceed the necessary 27 Senators to attain 2/3 in the Senate, the new map presents an exceedingly good opportunity to do so. Heck, Sam Blakeslee has already said he wouldn't run again unless his district changes. After that, you basically only need to pick up one more seat from 2 or 3 lean-Dem opportunities.
And dipping below 1/3 of the Senate would basically mean that the swing vote would no longer be a Republican, but a conservative Democrat. It is a prospect that would dry up funding from lobbyists, as who really wants to lobby an irrelevant politician? Whatever power they do have through the supermajority revenue measure would do little for them. They claim they gathered sufficient signatures, but that is far from clear. As of right now, the status of the initiative is that it had enough signatures to not be bounced at the random check stage, but not enough that it didn't have to get a more thorough check. The more thorough check won't be decided until mid to late February.
The problem with that is that it would leave precious little time to come up with some other map to vote on for the June "primary" election. The Supreme Court's hearing thus addressed which of many map options they could use, what the meaning of "likely to qualify" is, and whether they could use the Commission's map instead of drawing their own.
High Court to consider massive cuts to services and reimbursement rates.
by Brian Leubitz
The United States Supreme Court opened up its 2011-2012 term, and oh yeah, they're talking California:
The Supreme Court began a new term Monday by refereeing a major healthcare dispute to decide whether cash-strapped states like California can cut their Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals who serve low-income patients.
*** **** ***
Lawyers for California and the Obama administration urged the court to rule that Medicaid is a "voluntary" effort to provide medical care for the poor and that disputes over funding should be resolved by healthcare officials in Sacramento and Washington, not by federal judges in San Francisco.
*** **** ***
But Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan spoke up for the medical providers who sued. They said California was seeking to cut its reimbursements even before the state had cleared the move with federal Medicaid officials in Washington. Ginsburg said there is no effective way to enforce the Medicaid Act if patients and providers cannot go to court when spending is slashed. (LA Times)
And really, that is kind of the point, right? The poor have a very difficult time complaining about the cuts, and they have a smaller financial interest than the medical industry. I don't think this is necessarily the best way to go about a health care system, but denying the providers access to the courts means that there will be no challenges at all.
Sure, we need single payer or something that will actually work, but we need to be sure that we don't close the courthouse door in the interim.
Swearing-in ceremony comes at a time of pressure for the court system
by Brian Leubitz
Goodwin Liu officially got the thumbs up yesterday, and will be sworn in as the 4th Asian-American Justice of the 7 member panel. The occasion also marks the first time the Court has ever had an Asian-American majority.
But the state court system has taken a beating over the last eighteen months, right along with the rest of the state government. Of the three billion dollars that used to come from the general fund for the courts, that number is down to about $2.1 billion. In other words, a cut that is roughly 30% of the state's share. And, as a side note, the general fund is still the greatest source of revenue for the courts.
The cuts have hit different counties in different ways, however. I've written about the struggles at the San Francisco courts, where the cuts were felt most acutely. However, it seems that Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein has reached a deal with leaders of the Administrative Office of the Courts to save a big chunk of what was to be cut:
An emergency funding compromise reached with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) would significantly reduce the San Francisco Superior Court's staff layoffs from 177 to 75 and allow the Court to keep 11 civil courtrooms open, including both complex litigation departments, Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein announced today. The agreement, which was struck after negotiations that began late last week and continued over the weekend, must be approved by the Judicial Council in a special meeting on September 9, 2011.
"This agreement represents a true compromise with the AOC to help the San Francisco Superior Court lessen the blow on access to justice," Judge Feinstein said. "If the Judicial Council approves the terms of the agreement, our Court would reduce civil courtroom closures from 25 to 14 and lay off 15 percent instead of 40 percent of our staff."
You can check the full release here. Judge Feinstein has never had particularly good relations with the AOC, as they have clashed over local court funding. But while this agreement saves civil justice in San Francisco for 18 months or so, the crisis is far from over. The courts, allegedly a co-equal branch of government, need funding just to keep the lights on.
Rumors of a possible ballot measure have been floated, but as of yet, neither the funding nor the will has been present. Another cycle of court funding crisis will likely change that.
On several occasions I've bemoaned cuts to the state court system. But the recent cuts will devastate the justice system in California. Take what is about to happen in San Francisco as an example:
Forty-one percent of San Francisco Superior Court staff will be laid off, and 40 percent of courtrooms will be closed in September due to California's latest $150 million in cuts to the statewide judiciary. Those cuts are in addition to the $200 million already slashed earlier this year.(SF Examiner:)
Under Constitutional requirements, criminal cases must be held in a "speedy" manner. That's important for a number of reasons, and I don't think the priority for criminal cases would change even if not Constitutionally required. However, that also means that civil cases are going to be almost at a standstill.
At first blush, no big deal, right? Well, perhaps it isn't that big of a deal if that crazy neighbor down the street can't get a remedy for his tree related dispute, or if some corporation is left holding the bag for a million bucks or two. But in many cases, these are real people's lives.
It's already taking some civil cases nearly two years to move through the system. Divorces, child-custody and other family-law matters will take between eight and 18 months longer to settle after 200 court clerks, court reporters, research attorneys and management employees are no longer on the job and 25 courtrooms have been closed, according to Michael Yuen, the Superior Court's chief executive officer.
In addition to the family cases, these cuts will make big winners out of big corporations that have nearly unlimited legal budgets don't mind delaying litigation, and big losers out of plaintiffs who are trying to be compensated for injuries. Don't plan on getting that big insurance company to speed up the process any time soon. Why should they? They can just hold onto the money and earn the interest while the courts can't do a damn thing about it.
To be sure, the court system could implement a number of cost-saving workforce reductions and technology improvements that would save millions of dollars. For example, unlike the federal court system, the state courts require filings to be submitted in hard copy rather than electronic filing. This means hundreds of employees in the system are at windows stamping papers that could be processed much more smoothly by computers.
California should be a leader in using technology to reduce court costs and the delays of litigation, and cuts to the system aren't necessarily antithetical to that goal. However, these cuts go too far, too fast. Some right-wingers may agree with me on vastly different grounds, look no further than that SF Examiner: article quoted above, where they call for voters to do something at the ballot box.
Of course, what would they have voters do? They essentially have two choices, vote for the incumbent Democrats or for the obstinate Republicans and their repeated requests for further cuts. What options are they given.
"Courts are not a luxury," Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye said. "They are at the heart of our democracy. These cuts threaten access to justice for all."
Democrats attempted to get revenue that would have prevented the last round of cuts, but unfortunately, trying just isn't good enough in this case. We need revenue now, but until we get it, we have to come up with some way to finance the court system at reasonable levels.
Yesterday I noted that the Supreme Court would likely try to deal quickly with the appeal on the building case, as Schwarzenegger was practically begging for action. If the 6th district's stay isn't overturned shortly, the ball will be in Jerry Brown's court. Apparently, Arnold isn't too down with that, as well, Jerry Brown seemingly opposes the sale.
One problem: the Supreme Court is housed in one of those buildings, and so they have an interest in the litigation. And under the ethics guidelines, that means that they should recuse themselves from the litigation. They've now done that:
All seven state Supreme Court justices have removed themselves from participation in a lawsuit seeking to block the sale of 11 state buildings. They did not offer a formal reason, but it is safe to assume they did so because their court is housed in the San Francisco Civic Center Complex, one of the properties up for sale.
Because the Supreme Court justices recused themselves, the state will call upon seven appellate court judges to serve in their place, according to Judicial Council spokeswoman Lynn Holton. To select them, the Supreme Court will go down an alphabetical list of judges. That could happen as soon as this week.(SacBee)
Of course, because the 1st and 3rd districts are also housed in the buildings, the pool of judges is a bit thinner than otherwise would be the case. With all this wrangling, Arnold is rapidly running out of time for his little corporate endeavor here.
Also in that SacBee article was the fact that Schwarzenegger has just named the San Francisco Civic Center the "Ron George Civic Center." You'd think that he would confer with the city, but no dice. The whole complex, mind you, not just one building. But lest you be worried, the deal requires the new owners to retain the names of all of the facilities.
The Governor's pick to be the next Chief Justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, has been confirmed by the commission on judicial appointments today. The commission consists of three persons: Chief Justice Ron George, Attorney General Jerry Brown, and Senior Appellate Justice Joan Dempsey Klein.
Of course, this being California, that is hardly the end of it. She will next go before the voters in a Yes/No referendum on the November ballot. If elected, she will serve a 12 year term.
Cantil-Sakauye would be the first Asian Chief Justice, as well as the first Filipina on the court. As a jurist, she is considered to be something of a moderate, but as far as the larger social issues of the day, we will have to wait and see where she stands.
Update: My mistake on the approving body. It was the commission on judicial appointments, not the senate.
The twittersphere is abuzz with the news that California Supreme Court Justice Ron George will step down at the end of his term on January 2 of 2011. The author of the landmark In re Marriage Cases, that struck down Prop 22's ban of same-sex marriage and Strauss v Horton, which upheld Prop 8, was always somethiing of a riddle. Socially moderate, but always something of a friend to corporations, George wrote many of the big decisions over the last 14 years.
If a justice wants to run again, he or she has to file by August 16 in the year prior to their term's expiration. If they file, they just appear as a Yes/No question on the ballot.
If they do not file, the Governor appoints a nominee by September 16. Only this candidate can appear on the ballot.
If that candidate does not win the Yes/No election, the Governor appoints a judge that will serve until the next general election (subject to Confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments)
Now, it is unlikely that any judge Arnold appoints would be that controversial. At this point, the last thing he wants out of a judge is controversy, what with the AB32 repeal also appearing on the ballot. Furthermore, Arnold doesn't seem to have much love for either candidate for governor, so he wouldn't really like to see them get the appointment gift-wrapped on the date of their inauguration.
It's not clear who exactly would get to appoint the nominee if the election goes "No." But, again, odds are pretty stacked against that scenario.
As for George, well, he made a mistake on Strauss v Horton, and what would have been his crowning legacy, marriage equality, will be left to either the electorate or some other jurist. In the end, he'll go down as a pretty decent justice who fit his time, and fit the governor (Wilson) who appointed him. The appointment makes it clear just how important it is that we take back the governor's seat.
Timm Herdt was on a conference call yesterday with a top official from the Department of Corrections, and that official acknowledged that the plan due to federal judges by midnight today on prison reduction will not meet the goal:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday will submit to a panel of three federal judges a plan that would reduce the inmate population at California's overcrowded prisons by substantially less than what the court has ordered, a move that a top prison administrator acknowledged will place state officials at risk of being held in contempt.
Although the final plan will not be submitted until late Friday, administration officials have briefed other parties involved in the court proceedings on its major elements. They said exact projections of how much the prison population will be reduced have not yet been calculated, but the reduction would not lower the population to the court's standard of 137.5 percent of the prison system's design capacity.
"This plan will not meet the court's requirements," said Lee Seale, deputy chief of staff of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in a conference call Wednesday with legislative staff members. "I certainly don't think this panel will be thrilled by this plan. I think we recognize we may be held in contempt."
Under the plan the state will submit, they will get to around 27,000 prisoner reduction. The judges want something close to 44,000.
The question is how the three-judge panel will react. They may mandate a release of enough prisoners to get to that number, at which point the state will challenge the ruling and throw it to the US Supreme Court. This is precisely was Tough on Crime member emeritus George Runner wants.
Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, who has intervened in the court case in the hope of preventing a judicial mandate to lower the prison population, believes the administration is taking exactly the right approach.
"I would like to see the state plan be as easily rejected as possible," Runner said.
If the administration submitted a plan that came close to meeting the court's order, Runner said, that could lead to a negotiated compromise. This way, he said, the court will be forced to propose its own plan - one that would set up a showdown before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Where Runner would pitch the "I'm right because I say so" defense. And with this Supreme Court, who knows, that may work.
We don't know when the appeal would come in the process. The Governor's office seem to think that they can appeal the initial ruling as soon as they offer their alternative plan, while others believe that they'd have to wait for the three-judge panel to issue a final order with the full reductions. At some point, everyone agrees, an appeal is allowable. Kevin Yamamura has more.
I don't want to put this entirely on the Governor, though he's clearly dragging his feet. The Assembly forced the weak proposal you'll see from the Governor today by scaling back the reform plan that would have come closer to the judge's goal of reducing the population by 44,000 prisoners. But the Governor didn't actually have to follow the Assembly in submitting their plan. They could have come up with one of their own making, putting pressure on the Legislature to conform it. They chose not to stand behind their own plan and do so. So while there's plenty of blame to go around, I think the Governor needs to own this one, although he and everyone else want to take the blame off themselves.
By the end of the week, it will be apparent what all the posturing accomplished: nothing. That may suit lawmakers just fine -- they can blame the coming prison reforms on the federal courts rather than taking heat from voters for being insufficiently hard on criminals. But the episode is further evidence that if California's prison system is a national disgrace, its Legislature is a national laughingstock.
Perhaps it's not surprising that, in this environment, Schwarzenegger seems to be taking on the characteristics of a dictator. On Tuesday, he rejected the Legislature's plan to promote renewable energy and said he'd impose his own by executive fiat. He's on surer legal ground when it comes to the prisons because his actions will be backed by the federal court. But it's dismaying to watch the state's democratic procedures break down so thoroughly.
As long as he now appears to be king of California, we humbly beseech our lord and Terminator to finally do the right thing by the prisons. His proposal to the court should be modeled on the one approved by the Senate and include a commission to review the unsustainable determinate sentencing system. Meanwhile, it's time to drop the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court of the federal court order so we can get on with the business of fixing the prisons and out of the habit of defending the indefensible.
But that's not going to happen. Seeing the Department of Corrections reduce the very rehabilitation programs by $250 million, that even the Assembly plan used as a means to let inmates out for completing them, show how the mission of corrections has been completely lost in this. What the state is fighting by appealing the judge's order is their privilege to let people die in jail needlessly in violation of the Constitution. Today, they will continue to assert that privilege.
The Assembly's passage of a prison "reform" bill is not the end of the line for the legislation, as the Senate simply won't accept it in this form.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the reaction in the Senate to the Assembly's low calorie prison bill was muted. Senate Democrats certainly wouldn't have come out and said the plan stinks. But there's no official timetable on a reconciliation vote in the upper house, either.
The official response from Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg came in a written statement: "The Assembly took a good first step today but it's not a complete package. In the coming weeks, I look forward to working with (Assembly) Speaker Karen Bass and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on further reforms that will strengthen our criminal justice system."
The key phrase in that statement: "In the coming weeks." This one's not going to go away anytime soon.
The main reason is that the Assembly bill costs $233 million more to the overall budget than the Senate's, and that money simply does not exist. It'll eventually come out of the hides of other programs if allowed to let stand. And the Assembly Republicans and Democrats who help up the bill can then explain why it was necessary to keep terminally ill blind people in jail at the expense of children's health care or some other social program.
Steinberg expanded on his dissent from the Assembly bill today, calling the legislature's inability to pass the reforms based on cuts they already passed in July an example of the legislature's "culture of failure". I've been saying that for weeks.
Meanwhile, I'm hearing a lot of reactionaries taking the example of Phillip Garrido, the kidnapper of Jaycee Lee Dugard, and the fact that he only served 10 1/2 years of a 50-year kidnapping sentence in the 1970s, to argue for more stringent parole and prison laws in California. This is the typical Willie Horton-ing of any sane discourse on prison policy. Garrido was convicted of a FEDERAL crime, not a state crime. And that federal parole policy was abolished by 1987. It bears no application to this debate whatsoever, particularly since, under this policy, violent criminals would not be subject to release and would face more stringent parole supervision, as resources would be allocated to those who require it. The failure of parole officers to discover Garrido's deviance demands EXACTLY the kind of parole reform in both the Assembly and Senate bill, so officers have smaller caseloads and can focus on the most dangerous cases instead of returning nonviolent offenders to prison for technical violations.
Meanwhile, the Governor, even while promoting a real reform plan, wants to get a stay from federal judges on implementing the required reduction of 44,000 to the prison population, which even the Senate bill doesn't do. He plans to file an appeal with the US Supreme Court as well, and if the three-judge panel doesn't grant the stay, he'll ask the Supremes to do so.
Sacramento politicians are still in between the "denial" and "bargaining" stage in reacting to their immoral and unconstitutional handling of the prison crisis.
(Some history occurred yesterday. Congratulations Justice Sotomayor! - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Great to see you all again! It's always a pleasure to visit Calitics, especially on days like today when we have occasion to celebrate.
Today, by a 68 - 31 vote, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly voted to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court!
I couldn't be more thrilled that this talented and experienced judge will be joining the highest court in the land. She will be an amazing asset to our country on the Supreme Court.
This is a time to celebrate. I hope you'll join me in congratulating Justice Sotomayor right now.
Even more dramatically, Olson and Boies, who have an amazing track record of winning cases, had requested a preliminary injunction against the initiative while the courts heard the merits of their case. In other words, this would have put the enforcement of Prop 8 in the Golden State on hold during the trial, consequently allowing same-sex marriages to occur again.
The hearing on July 2nd would've centered around the merits of the injunction, but Judge Walker had other thoughts in mind, calling recently for a move to "proceed expeditiously to trial."
"Given that serious questions are raised in these proceedings ... the court is inclined to proceed directly and expeditiously to the merits of plaintiffs' claims," the judge declared. "The just, speedy and inexpensive determination of these issues would appear to call for proceeding promptly to trial."
In a stunning show of fealty to insurance giant Safeco, 14 Republican state Senators and 11 Assemblymembers have asked the California Supreme Court to overturn an appellate ruling that Safeco Insurance has to disclose the names of policyholders it may have cheated.
Considering that state lawmakers are supposed to be spending their time grappling with the disastrous state budget, it must be very important to these lawmakers to protect Safeco from accountability for overcharging Californians, including, no doubt, folks in their district. Who do they think are their constituents?... O' Safeco, how can we serve you?
The Senators who signed the letter are, pictured from left to right, Sen. Cogdil, Sen. Aanasted, Sen. Benoit, Sen. Ashburn, Sen. Cox and Sen. Hollingsworth, as well as Senators Denham, Dutton, Harman, Huff, Runner, Strickland, Walters and Wyland (Maldonado is the only Republican Senator not to sign). Also signing were Assemblymembers Smyth, Tran, Strickland, Silva, Fletcher, Berryhill, Garrick, Gilmore, Fuller, Anderson and Logue.
In the spirit of helpfulness, here is a link to the Supreme Court's Prop 8 High Profile Cases page. You'll find the decision posted there in just under an hour.
UPDATE by Dave: The egg stays off Tommy Christopher's face, as the Court upholds Prop. 8 by a 6-1 count, with Judge Moreno the only dissenting vote. The judges unanimously uphold the 18,000 existing marriages.
UPDATE by Robert: The decision is about as bad as it can get - the logic used to uphold Prop 8 is everything Ken Starr hoped it would be. Two key excerpts:
Contrary to petitioners' assertion,
Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases - that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to "choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage" (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term "marriage" for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
And the clear embrace of the Starr Doctrine:
Neither the language of the relevant constitutional provisions, nor our past cases, support the proposition that any of these rights is totally exempt from modification by a constitutional amendment adopted by a majority of the voters through the initiative process.
To the CA Supreme Court, voters can do whatever the fuck they want to via the initiative process.
CA is officially broken.
UPDATE by Dave: State Senator Mark Leno, who wrote the two gay marriage bills passed by the legislature and vetoed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, has released a statement. So has Sen. Feinstein, CDP Chair John Burton, House Speaker Pelosi and Lt. Governor Garamendi. I'll catalog them on the flip:
UPDATE by Brian:I'll post videos from SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera's press conference as soon as I can upload them.
It's depressing to think - after having just lost an expensive and exhausting campaign - that repealing Proposition 8 could mean going back to the ballot. It is unfair and unjust that a slim majority of California voters took a fundamental right away from a minority, jeopardizing equal protection. But the state Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the City Attorney's lawsuit yesterday, and the signs were very discouraging. Justice Joyce Kennard (who last year voted to grant marriage equality) was hostile to the case against Prop 8, and Chief Justice Ron George was skeptical. Not that there isn't any hope: perhaps the extreme arguments made by Prop 8 lawyer Kenneth Starr will inadvertently sway the Court into recognizing the measure's dangerous effects. But no one should expect the Court to repeal Prop 8. Activists must get ready for a 2010 proposition campaign as the next available remedy, however deficient a political solution that would be. We must learn from the colossal mistakes of the past campaign, and a new generation of activists will make it happen.
(full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign)
News broke Tuesday that the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on March 5, and will then make a decision within 90 days on the validity of Prop 8 and the 18,000 marriages that took place last year before the election.
When Ken Starr's legal brief, on behalf of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund went public in December, the Courage Campaign immediately launched the "Don't Divorce..." campaign, asking our members to send us pictures with a simple message for Starr and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund.
Those pictures, and the heartfelt messages on them, inspired Calitician and all around great guy Paul Delehanty (kid oakland) to send us a suggestion: Would Regina Spektor allow us to put your pictures to the words and music of her hit song "Fidelity"? So, we asked her and she very enthusiastically said yes.
Regina Spektor's song, in concert with the pictures, shines a beautiful light on the 18,000 couples that Ken Starr wants to forcibly divorce.
Watch "Fidelity" and then tell the Supreme Court not to divorce 18,000 California couples. Tell the Court to invalidate Prop 8, reject Ken Starr's case, and let loving, committed couples marry.
When SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera sued last week to overrule Proposition 8, I didn't expect him to prevail - as much as I appreciated him trying. As wrong as it sounds, the initiative process allows a bare majority of California voters to change our state constitution - and with other states having passed similar marriage amendments, I couldn't see how the courts would repeal it. But after having read Herrera's well-written brief and done some legal research, I am now more optimistic that justice will prevail. Prop 8 was not your typical "amendment" that merely tinkers with the California Constitution. It was a drastic revision that deprives a "suspect class" (gays and lesbians) of a fundamental right under equal protection. And a simple majority vote of the people is not enough to take that right away - especially when the purpose of equal protection is to shield minorities. While other courts have upheld marriage amendments in other states, they have different Constitutions - and court rulings have changed considerably in a short period of time. And unlike many states, California has explicitly found sexual orientation to be a "suspect class." If the Court overrules Prop 8, it will be a powerful affirmation for justice - capping what has been a powerful year of "change."
The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to remove an anti-gay marriage initiative from the November ballot.
Meeting in closed session, the court denied a petition calling for the removal of the initiative, Proposition 8, on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters....
The court, meeting at its regular weekly conference, denied the petition without comment in a brief order.
It's time for some random links and a good ole fashioned open thread.
Rather than having a blog, Capitol Weekly decided to post an email thread between the beloved around these parts Steve Maviglio and his counterpart in the SenateAssembly Morgan Crinklaw. Steve naturally starts his first response by paraphrasing an old SNL skits and calls Morgan an "ignorant slut". (Note: Morgan's employer corrected)
Another gay victory from the CA Supremes. No longer can doctors refuse to treat us because we are gay and their religion does not approve.
McClintock decided to be a whiney brat and refused to show up to the last debate with Doug Ose. About 180 well paying guests didn't get the smackdown show they had paid good money to attend. McClintock's excuse was that the also rans were not invited, that and he is sulking about Ose's attack ads.
The AFT just informed the Mt. Shasta Brewing Co., based in Weed, CA that they can no longer use bottle caps that read "Try Legal Weed". Evidently, alluding to marijuana on beer is not allowed. The town is named after a dude named Abner Weed and has nothing to do with pot.
That's all I got. Any FP'ers who feel inspired, go ahead and add to this thread.
Considering that state lawmakers are supposed to be spending their time grappling with the disastrous state budget, it must be very important to these lawmakers to protect Safeco from accountability for overcharging Californians, including, no doubt, folks in their district. Who do they think are their constituents?... O' Safeco, how can we serve you?
