News reports indicated the court was going to publish the opinion yesterday, Thursday May 21, 2009. Some cities, such as San Francisco, erected barriers around the court.
Rumor has it that San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom asked the court to delay the opinion because Thursday Thursday, May 21 marks the 30th anniversary of the White Night Riot and Friday, May 22 is Harvey Milk’s birthday. Newsom denies the rumor.
Reading between the lines, does this mean the SCOCA has likely upheld Prop. 8? Dunno.
Thanks- I just registered for the email notification. I hope like hell that the courts overturns that trash, but I haven’t followed the legal challenge so I don’t know if that’s likely.
If they overturn it, I hope the ruling is broad enough to prevent simple majorities from taking away rights in the future. But that’s probably not possible with our current constitution.
But I think it’ll be better for human rights advocacy in the long run if they don’t overturn it. We’ll here no end of bitching about how the judiciary stepping outside its bounds if it is. Better to suffer a setback now and then pass a pro-marriage amendment in 2012. Then the social conservatives will only be able to gripe about how depraved the world is, rather than rational-sounding complaints about the subversion of the people’s will.
He’s no saint, but a) why would they listen to such a request? And 2) such an anniversary sounds like a damn fine time to announce such a decision. Good or bad, it could become a de facto remembrance/activism day for LGBT rights, one that’s not easily drowned out by the flamboyance of Pride parades.
As Mayor of San Francisco (the city were the CA Supreme Court is) Newsom has responsibility for the San Francisco Police Department. Riots are a very real possibility. FWIW they’re already putting up barricades around the SCC building.
Wait- isn’t a constitutional amendment supposed to get 2/3? And BTW, hearing the talking heads spout about an amendment vs. a revision just about made my husband’s head explode- he doesn’t think (based on his legal training) that the word “revision” even belongs in a discussion of con law…
The procedure depends on whether an initiative is an “amendment” or" revision" of the constitution.
-If an initiative is a lowly constitutional amendment, then a simple majority vote of the voters will suffice.
-If the initiative is substantial enough to be considered a constitutional revision, then you need a 2/3 vote of the legislature before you go for your simple majority vote by the voters to pass it.
-The court decides what is an amendment versus a revision based essentially on how fundamental the changes are to the constitution.
The issue with Prop. 8 is whether the court thinks Prop. 8 is a revision or an amendment. The question is significant because there was no 2/3 legislative approval for Prop. 8 before the voters approved it by simple majority vote.
Adding to Bearflag’s explanation: As I understand it, what constitutes a “revision” depends on two things:
– if it makes a substantial revision (in the normal vernacular usage) to the existing text, or
– if it makes a significant change in rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The suits challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 hang their hats on the latter point.
Note that Section 7.5, the actual amendment to the constitution, is unquestionably constitutional by definition; if duly adopted, it’s a part of the constitution itself – the issue is whether it was validly passed. That is, was Proposition 8 a valid way, under the constitutional provisions for amending the state constitution, to adopt Section 7.5.
Imagine, if you will, Amendment XXVIII to the U.S. Constitution, passed 61-38 (one abstention in the Senate) and 278-153 (4 people not voting) in the House, then ratified by 30 states. The problem here is that it did not get a 2/3 majority in either house nor did 3/4 (38) of the states ratify it. The content is immaterial – it did not meet the adoption or ratification criteria.
The court was getting at an interesting point in oral argument. Some Justices were getting at the role of the Court in meddling with people’s fundamental right to marry versus meddling with the people’s fundamental right to amend their constitution.
This whole thing makes me crazy. “The will of the people? The people have spoken?” God damn it, segregation was the will of the people, as was the lack of rights for women. Doesn’t make it right.