Louisiana amendment struck down like the "B" it was.

[stpauler]

Link:

A state judge Tuesday threw out a Louisiana constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, less than three weeks after it was overwhelmingly approved by the voters.

District Judge William Morvant said the amendment was flawed as drawn up by the Legislature because it had more than one purpose: banning not only gay marriage but also civil unions.

A gay rights group challenged the amendment on several grounds, arguing among other things that combining the question of gay marriage and the issue of civil unions in one ballot question violated state law.

Woohoo!

[Jenaroph]

Good. Damn glad to hear that, as Michigan is putting a similar amendment to the voters this election day. The language of our proposed amendment can easily be interpreted as banning civil unions as well. Hopefully this decision will force the folks up here to have to rethink or at least rewrite this.

[photopat]

I’m glad to hear this. I do have a prediction. In the next day or so, O’Reilly and other members of the radio-right will complain that this is another example of an “activist judge run amok.”

If it is, it’s still a good mok.

[Kythereia]

Right on.

[whiterabbit]

I’m now slightly less embarassed to live here.

[Bricker]

Is this a correct decision, as a matter of law?

I certainly think it was unwise of Lousiana voters to seek to ban civil unions, no matter what their feelings on same-sex marriage might be.

But…

District Judge William Morvant said the amendment was flawed as drawn up by the Legislature because it had more than one purpose: banning not only gay marriage but also civil unions.
.
.
.
A gay-rights group called Forum for Equality had challenged the amendment on several grounds, arguing among other things that combining the question of gay marriage and the issue of civil unions in one ballot question violated state law.

Now, state law does not trump the state constitution. But if state law requires that a ballot question have only one subject, then it’s possible that while the amendment itself is kosher, the method in which the question was presented to voters was flawed.

On the other hand, the two subjects may be held to be so closely related that they were a proper subject for one ballot question.

Undoubtedly this question of law will be decided by an appellate court. The district judge’s conclusion of law is not remotely binding on an appellate court, unlike the court’s finding of fact would be.

If the ultimate finding is that the amendment is struck down, undoubtedly it will re-appear. I hope, if that happens, the people of Louisiana are predisposed to view the issue more calmly than they were the first time out. I recognize their right to regulate marriage; I am aghast at their willingness to ban even contractual arrangements between adults.

• Rick

[iampunha]

@Bricker

Is this a correct decision, as a matter of law?

---

If the ultimate finding is that the amendment is struck down, undoubtedly it will re-appear. I hope, if that happens, the people of Louisiana are predisposed to view the issue more calmly than they were the first time out. I recognize their right to regulate marriage; I am aghast at their willingness to ban even contractual arrangements between adults.

Take this as you will, of course, but I found this post (not just the quoted bit; it was abridged for emphasis, not for relevance) both more informative and more open-minded than several others on this issue (not LA specifically but the issue of states’ rights, gay marriage etc.) from several posters.

[partlycloudy]

As far as I remember, the amendment passed with ~80% of the votes. If it sprang back up, it would likely pass again. Of course, people say some voters may have misunderstood the question (when they were reading it). So maybe this was fated to happen - to set the record straight.

Sorry… I’m rambling again.

[partlycloudy]

Yippee! … by the way. This is the first I’ve heard of this news.

[Blonde]

@whiterabbit

I’m now slightly less embarassed to live here.

Good for you, because it will take…oh, say an assault rifle repeal law or a President that can say anything but “um…” for me to feel the same way.

IMHO, this subject is being used by the current administration to win votes from homophobic people in our nation. It’s just idiotic. Hopefully, change is in the air.

[whiterabbit]

@Blonde

Good for you, because it will take…oh, say an assault rifle repeal law or a President that can say anything but “um…” for me to feel the same way.

Ah, but I spent ten years (from six to sixteen) in Texas, so I feel your pain as well!

[Telperien]

@Bricker

Now, state law does not trump the state constitution. But if state law requires that a ballot question have only one subject, then it’s possible that while the amendment itself is kosher, the method in which the question was presented to voters was flawed.

On the other hand, the two subjects may be held to be so closely related that they were a proper subject for one ballot question.

My view is that the subjects were not closely related enough for a single question, and the contract part of the question was piggybacked onto the hot button issue of same-sex marriage. But then I’m a bit cynical about that topic.

[Ephemera]

While this is promising, I have no hope that this will not be brought up again with the right wording the next time around and will go through with a strong majority once again.

It’s reasons like that (amongst others) that I moved from the Southeast to the Pacific Northwest. I remember hearing on one news broadcast or another that of all the similar measures to be voted on next month, Oregon, where I moved, is the only state expected to not pass it.

I’m simultaneously proud and ashamed of that.

[whiterabbit]

I WANT to move to Oregon or Washington, because of the weather as much as the political climate.

I am expecting to see a different version of this thing come back, but them killing one based on a technicality does give me hope that some people aren’t so blinded by their bigotry that they’ll let an apparently unconstitutional amendment pass just so them homos can’t wreck our families…by making their own. (Never have figured that one out.)

[Bricker]

@whiterabbit

I WANT to move to Oregon or Washington, because of the weather as much as the political climate.

I am expecting to see a different version of this thing come back, but them killing one based on a technicality does give me hope that some people aren’t so blinded by their bigotry that they’ll let an apparently unconstitutional amendment pass just so them homos can’t wreck our families…by making their own. (Never have figured that one out.)

I’m not sure what you mean when you say that this was an “apparently unconstitutional” amendment.

The reason it was held invalid in Louisiana was not a conflict in substance. If it were, ab initio, a part of the constitution, it could not be unconstitutional. The dispute is over the method of enactment: a proposed amendment must confine itself to one subject. Since the proposed amendment dealt both with same-sex marriage and the voiding of civil unions, it was held (thus far) to violate that rule. The problem is not the merit - it’s that a proposed amendment can’t have two subjects. Presumably, if TWO amendments were proposed, one forbidding same sex marriage and the next forbidding civil unions, and both passed, then both would be valid. The problem is the inlcusion of both subjects in the same amendment.

Of course, you could be contending that the merits ARE unconstitutional as to the federal constitution, which is, of course, a claim that is far from settled.

• Rick

[Otto]

@Bricker

On the other hand, the two subjects may be held to be so closely related that they were a proper subject for one ballot question.

Which would put the nail in the coffin of your “marriage is just different” shtick…

[Ephemera]

@whiterabbit

I WANT to move to Oregon or Washington, because of the weather as much as the political climate.

Those’re the reasons I moved. I’ll take cool, rainy, and progressive over hot, muggy, and reactionary any day of the week.

You should move if you get the chance… it’s beautiful up here.

[susan]

I can’t give poilitical opinions at work because I’m a state employee, but I can tell all of you how proud I am of the many students in my college working against Measure 36 in Oregon.

[iampunha]

@Bricker

The dispute is over the method of enactment: a proposed amendment must confine itself to one subject. Since the proposed amendment dealt both with same-sex marriage and the voiding of civil unions, it was held (thus far) to violate that rule.

I’m confused and interested about this - mainly because this thread is the first I have ever heard of it. While I have no doubt whatsoever regarding the accuracy of your statement, I am wondering a few things:

1. Is this limitation (one topic per amendment) held for all states’ constitutions (and if so by what?), is it a federal government mandate, or is there some other binding agent? I understand the rationale behind it, certainly, as it seems for one to be designed against having non sequitur riders on amendments.

2. How many times has the requirement of one topic per amendment been the cause for striking down an amendment? I do not exactly run in a circle with a bunch of ConLaw lawyers, but given the level of activity on this board I would think there’d be some mention of it if there had been any such challenge.

[Captain_Amazing]

@iampunha

1. Is this limitation (one topic per amendment) held for all states’ constitutions (and if so by what?), is it a federal government mandate, or is there some other binding agent? I understand the rationale behind it, certainly, as it seems for one to be designed against having non sequitur riders on amendments.

It’s in the Louisiana State Constitution. From Article XII, Section 1 B

A proposed amendment shall have a title containing a brief summary of the changes proposed; shall be confined to one object; and shall set forth the entire article, or the sections or other subdivisions thereof, as proposed to be revised or only the article, sections, or other subdivisions proposed to be added. However, the legislature may propose, as one amendment, a revision of an entire article of this constitution which may contain multiple objects or changes.

(That’s also true for regular bills, under the LA constitution, btw). I don’t know if other states have that rule.