Prop 8 Repeal Initiative Can Begin Signature Gathering

The organization Love Honor Cherish announced this week that it has been given the go-ahead by the Attorney General of California to begin circulating ballot petitions to repeal Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment which purports to ban people of the same sex from marrying in California.

The text of the amendment is:

This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution.  Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in strikeout type.  Language proposed to be added is printed in underlined type.

Section 1.  To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.

Section 2.  To provide for fairness in the government’s issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5.  Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

The ballot summary is:

Reinstates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary Date: 12/15/11 | Circulation Deadline: 05/14/12 | Signatures Required: 807,615

Proponent: Thomas B. Watson

Repeals the current provision in California's Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Provides that marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Clarifies that the initiative shall not be interpreted to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person to perform a marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments. (11-0058) (Full Text)

Of course, Love Honor Cherish also went forward with a signature-gathering campaign in two years ago in Winter 2009-Spring 2010 to repeal Proposition 8 which failed miserably. Gathering enough signatures to get a measure on the ballot in California is a resource-intensive task, not one that has been achieved by a mainly volunteer or unpaid effort in years.

This effort does not have the backing of any of the state's major LGBT organizations (like Equality California and the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center). The proponents have until May 14, 2012 to gather well over a million signatures, in the hopes that 807, 615 will be valid.

I agree that Propsition 8 should be repealed but I do not think that the LGBT community of California has had a discussion about what it would take to repeal Proposition 8 and I think it is incredibly naive and presumptious of one organization to think that they can make the decision for all LGBT Californians to put our rights up for a public vote.

I will not be signing the petition and I urge you not to as well.

Harvey Milk May 22, 1930 – November 27, 1978

Harvey Milk, the most famous openly gay politician in U.S. history, was assassinated in San Francisco on November 27, 1978, 33 years ago today.

Bob Slatten of the blog I Should Be Laughing posted some of Harvey Milk's most memorable quotes today in remembrance. My favorite is:

“If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door.”

Unfortunately, a bullet did enter Harvey's brain on that fateful day in November 33 years ago, but there are still far too many closeted people, especially politicians, often letting their internalized homophobia lead them into committing external acts of homophobia as well.

Lawrence King's Killer Accepts 21-Year Plea Deal

Finally, there is some sense of justice restored to the world. Brandon McInerney, who shot to death his teenaged, openly-gay  classmate Lawrence King at point-blank range on February 12, 2008, has apparently agreed to accept a plea deal which will lead to him serving 21 years in prison. Previously, McInerney had been tried with first-degree murder (with a hate crime enhancement) but the judge was forced to declare a mistrial after multiple jurors declared that they empathized with McInerney's rough home life and disagreed with the decision to try him as an adult because he had committed the crime as a 14-year-old as well as the anti-gay hate crime aspect.

The prosecution had made the decision to re-try McInerney as an adult but had dropped the hate crime enhancement (exactly the wrong decision, I argued).

The Los Angeles Times reports:

The Oxnard teen who shot a gay classmate he believed was flirting with him has agreed to spend the next 21 years in prison, a plea deal that ends a case that drew national attention and ignited debate on how schools should deal with openly gay students.

Brandon McInerney, who was 14 when he pulled a gun out of his backpack and shot Larry King twice in the head in 2008, has already served nearly four years in jail and would be released by the time he is 38, under terms of the deal.

"Larry had a complicated life, but he did not deserve to be murdered," the youth's father,Greg King, said after a court hearing Monday afternoon.

McInerney’s first trial ended with jurors split between convicting him of voluntary manslaughter and first-degree murder. Several of the jurors have since spoken in favor of a plea bargain, in order to avoid a second trial.

Prosecutors, in initially deciding to try McInerney a second time, had already dropped a key allegation that the shooting was motivated by a hatred of homosexuals, an accusation that several jurors in the original trial said they did not believe.

During the first trial, prosecutors portrayed McInerney as a budding white supremacist who hated homosexuals and was enraged by King's sexuality and aggressive flirtations.

The defense argued that McInerney was the product of a violent and dysfunctional home and had reached an emotional breaking point in response to King's advances.

McInerney was 14 when he carried a .22-caliber handgun to school in a backpack on Feb. 12, 2008, took a seat behind King, 15, and shot him twice in the back of the head.

Gay rights advocates were largely silent after the mistrial. A national gay rights group later said prosecutors should have done the "just and merciful thing" and reached a plea deal in the case.

It's probably the best decision overall to make the case go away. I am satisfied that the brazen killer of an openly gay (or transgender) teen will be serving significant time in jail, thus validating the idea that perpretators of such heinous acts will be prosecuted and punished by the state.

REPORT: Many Same-Sex Couples Impacted By Immigration Laws

The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School has released a report entitled "Same-Sex Couples and Immigration in the United States" by Craig Konnoth and Gary Gates.

An excerpt from the Executive Summary of the report highlights the fascinating details about the diversity of same-sex couples impacted by unfair immigration laws (and the Defense of Marriage Act) in the United States.

As of 2010,  nearly  79,200 same-sex couples living in the United States include at least one partner who iscurrently not a U.S citizen or was naturalized as a citizen.  Of the nearly 650,000 same-sex couples in the US:
 4.4% or 28,574 are binational couples (one partner is a U.S. citizen and one is not)
 1.8% or 11,442 are dual non-citizen couples
 6.1% or 39,176 are dual citizen couples with at least one naturalized partner 

Under U.S. immigration policy, a citizen may obtain permanent residence for their non-citizen different-sex spouse, and expedited citizenship for a resident, different-sex spouse. Permanent residents may also petition for permanent resident status for their different-sex spouses.   However, these options are not extended to same-sex couples, even if they are married or are in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships.  Currently none of the estimated 40,000 binational and dual non-citizen same-sex couples in US are eligible to use  the immigration mechanisms available to different-sex spouses.


[...]


  Additional findings from the analyses include:

 California ranks first in the total number of binational same-sex couples.  A quarter of them (7,115) live in the state.  California is followed by New York (3,695), Florida (2,545), Texas (1,607), and Illinois (1,596).
 Mexico is the country of birth for a quarter of non-citizens in binational same-sex couples.  Canada, the second highest country of origin, is home to 8% of the non-citizen partners, followed by the United Kingdom at 6%.
 More than two-thirds of binational same-sex couples (69%) are male.
 A third of binational couples (33%) are inter-racial/ethnic.
 Forty-five percent of non-citizens in binational same-sex couples are Latino or Latina, while 14% are Asian/Pacific Islander.  Just over a third (36%) are White.  Among citizens in same-sex binational couples, a third (33%) are Latino or Latina while 54% are White and 7% are Asian/Pacific Islander.  AfricanAmericans comprise just 3% of both groups.
 A quarter of male binational couples and 39% of female binational couples are raising an estimated 17,000 children.  Rates of childrearing are even higher among non-citizen same-sex couples. More than half (52%) of male non-citizen couples and nearly two-thirds (64%) of non-citizen female couples are raising more than 7,700 children.
 Citizens in binational same-sex couples have higher median income levels than their non-citizen partners.  However, the non-citizen partners in binational couples have median incomes that are substantially higher than non-citizens with non-citizen partners.
 Almost two-thirds of binational same-sex couples own their home.  They are more than twice as likely to be home owners as dual non-citizen same-sex couples (30%).
 The vast majority of same-sex partners in binational couples speak English “well” or “very well”.   Among citizens in binational couples, 93% report a very good command of English compared to 81% of their non-citizen partners.
 More than 40% of citizens and non-citizens in same-sex binational couples have a college degree.
 Non-citizens in binational same-sex couples evidence low rates of unemployment at just 2%.  Nearly 8% of citizens in binational same-sex couples say they are unemployed.  

Immigration Equality is the premier national LGBT organization advocating for and assisting same-sex couples impacted by federal immigration policies. (MadProfessah has served on the board of the organization since November 2008).

Interestingly, the estimate of 28,574 is more precise but also smaller than the previous estimate of 36,000 binational couples in the United States but the 40,016 couples who are negatively impacted by current immigration law is slightly higher. MadProfessah is a naturalized citizen from the island-nation of Grenada, and Sentient Meat is a "natural born citizen" so we would be classified in the 6.1% of all U.S. same-sex couples who are both citizens where one partner is naturalized.

Now There Are 8 Out LGBT CA Legislators!

Assemblywoman Cathleen Gagliani (D)

Well, well! This is big news: California has regained it's #1 position as having the largest openly LGBT legislative caucus in  the country with the surprising announcement by Democratic Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani that she is a lesbian.

Galgiani represents the 17th Assembly District in California, which is in a conservative Central Valley section of the state.

Her local newspaper, The Record has the scoop:

Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani is gay, she said Tuesday during an interview at The Record.

Galgiani, D-Livingston, said that by coming out now, she hopes to send a positive message to young people who are struggling to come to terms with their sexual identity

"It sickens me that young people would think about taking their lives because of who they are," Galgiani said. Galgiani, 47, said it was not until well into adulthood, after she was elected to represent the 17th Assembly District in 2006, that she knew she was gay.

This story will be pretty big in the next few days. California now has 8 openly LGBT legislators, the most of any state. It is fascinating that Galgiani would come out now, when she is running in a very competitive primary next year to join the State Senate, since she is now termed out of the Assembly.

Saturday Politics: Isadore Hall Outraises Both Incumbents in CA-44

Assemblyman Isadore Hall previously came to my attention because he announced he was interested in a run for Congress way back in June even before redistricting was complete which would have entailed him challenging a sitting African-American Congresswoman. Now that redistricting is complete, there is much drama in what is being called the 44th Congressional District because it contains most of U.S. Rep. Laura Richardson's old district but also contains pieces of the former 36th Congressional district which was won by former Los Angeles City councilmember Janice Hahn in a special election this July.

Now  U.S. Rep. Hahn has controversially decided to run in the 44th congressional district, a district specifically designed to be "majority-minority" against U.S. Rep. Laura Richardson and Assemblymember Hall, who are both African-Americans.

However, what is striking that this week came the news that in the last reporting period the state legislator out-raised both of his federal legislator rivals.

The National Journal reports:

Richardson’s been the subject of ethics questions recently: She’s accused of forcing her staff to work for and contribute to her campaign. She’s denied the allegations, but her fundraising dropped off in the third quarter, bringing in only $72,000 with just $116,000 in the bank. Hahn, after her special election, raised $139,000. A third Democrat, Assemblyman Isadore Hall, outraised them both with $158,000.

Very interesting. In the Los Angeles area there are a number of these intra-Democrat incumbent versus incumbent battles, the most amusing being Rep. Brad Sherman versus Rep. Howard Berman (in the new CA-30), who not only have similar sounding names but basically identical voting records.

Gov. Brown Signs Two Bills Outlining Transgender Protections

The legislative session in California has come to a close and Governor Brown is busy signing or vetoing bills that made it through the Democratically controlled legislature.

Two bills that are of great interest to the LGBT community are Assembly Bill 433 and Assembly Bill 887.

The Transgender Law Center trumpeted the enactment of the bills into law (and explained what they do):

These laws have been years in the making.  Through our statewide survey of almost 650 transgender Californians, the 1,200 calls that our legal team receives annually and our conversations with you at events around the state, we discovered two problems that continued to resurface: We found that California's nondiscrimination laws were often not accessible to those who needed them the most. Employers, health care providers, housing authorities - even transgender and gender non-conforming people - were unaware that it is illegal to discriminate against transgender Californians. Our legal rights were hidden within the definition of "gender", leaving many people in the dark about their rights, and many institutions out of compliance responsibilities. This had an especially severe impact on low-income and trans communities of color who tend to face employment discrimination at higher frequencies within transgender communities.   We heard from many transgender people who were unable to change their birth certificates and other identity documents due to financial and medical barriers. Onerous and outdated standards for court-ordered gender changes created unfair and damaging barriers that disproportionately impacted trans people of color, immigrant trans people, low-income trans people and others who could not overcome the many hurdles to securing basic identity documents. These are identity documents we all need to work, travel, and be our authentic selves. With the help of your input and our partners at Equality California and GSA Network, we came up with two legislative solutions to these problems. The Gender Nondiscrimination Act (AB 887) takes existing protections based on gender and spells out "gender identity and expression" as their own protected categories in our nondiscrimination laws. By making these protections explicit, people will more clearly understand California's nondiscrimination laws, which should increase the likelihood that employers, schools, housing authorities, and other institutions will work to prevent discrimination and/or respond more quickly at the first indications of discrimination. The Vital Statistics Modernization Act (AB 433) will alleviate the confusion, anxiety and even danger that transgender people face when we have identity documents that do not reflect who we are. The bill will streamline current law and clarify that eligible petitioners living or born in California can submit gender change petitions in the State of California. The Vital Statistics Modernization Act conforms California's standards to the standards set by the United States Department of State for gender changes on passports, and it makes common-sense changes to the law that ensure the process is simple for qualified petitioners to navigate.

It should be noted that California law already prohibited discrimination against transgender individuals but because the words "gender identity" or "gender expression" did not appear in the most common places in the California code lawyers would look these anti-discrimination protections were not well publicized or well-understood.

The new laws make it explicitly clear that California's non-discrimination laws also cover transgender residents.

BREAKING NEWS! Palencia Steeping Down As EQCA Head

Late today it was announced that my friend, Roland Palencia, has decided to step down as executive director of Equality California, effective Friday October 14.

I gave Roland a call and he told me that it is entirely his decision to step down (despite being named head of the organization a mere 5 months ago); he is not being pushed out by the board. He called it a "personal decision" and said that his priority is making sure that the community rallies around EQCA, which he called a "valuable and important organization." I'm sad that my friend will no longer be leading California's largest LGBT political organization but wish him well in his future endeavors and realize he has to do what is best for him.

Here's the official press release:

     

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 10, 2011

CONTACT: Rebekah Orr, Equality CaliforniaPHONE: 415-498-0847 EMAIL: rebekah@eqca.org

EQCA Executive Director Roland Palencia to Step Down From Post Friday, October 14

(San Francisco) Equality California (EQCA) announced today that Executive Director Roland Palencia will step down as of Friday, October 14. Palencia was selected to succeed long-time Executive Director Geoff Kors in May of this year. 
"Equality California serves a critical role in the movement for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality in the state of California," said Palencia. "Over the next year, the movement in California faces a unique set of challenges that demands leadership uniquely positioned to take those challenges head-on, strengthen the organization and bring together the diverse parts of our movement into a powerful force for change. It's been my privilege to serve as the Executive Director of Equality California and I will continue to be an avid and involved supporter of EQCA and its work for equality."
Equality California will release a transition plan by the end of this week.
"During his tenure with Equality California, Roland Palencia did important work to build diverse and inclusive coalitions and engage and reconnect our movement," said Cathy Schwamberger, Equality California Institute Board Chair. "That work has helped to position our movement to fight back against attacks on the LGBT community and protect advances in equality--the effects of which will impact our movement for years to come. We are grateful for his service to Equality California and his contributions to our movement and wish him the best in all of his future endeavors."
For more information on Equality California sponsored legislation, please visit:www.eqca.org/legislation.Equality California (EQCA) is the largest statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights advocacy organization in California. Over the past decade, Equality California has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for LGBT individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation. Equality California has passed more than 80 pieces of legislation and continues to advance equality through legislative advocacy, electoral work, public education and community empowerment. www.eqca.org

-30-

Saturday Politics: Brown Signs Bill Moving All Measures To November Ballots

This is huge news. No longer will conservatives be able to put crazy initiatives (or constitutional amendments) on the California ballot and hope that it appears on an election ballot which is particularly conservative.

Thanks to a bill signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, all ballot measures will have to appear on the November general election ballot of the next even-numbered year (or special elections called by the legislature), not primary elections.

The Scaramento Bee reports:

Chuck Bell, a GOP attorney, submitted a request for title and summary for a referendum on the bill within hours of Brown's announcement. 

But the political implications of the measure may not have resonated outside Sacramento, even among Republicans. According to a recent Field Poll, registered Republicans support the proposed change by a 15-point margin, and 56 percent of voters overall favor it. 

After the poll was released, Brown said of Republican lawmakers' opposition, "I think they're a little out of touch with their own members, because obviously the Republicans seem to want that."
The bill is also controversial because it would delay until 2014 a "rainy-day fund" measure approved as part of a budget agreement last year. Republicans characterized the legislation as a take-back by Democrats.

The immediate impact on LGBT rights means that 1) the earliest Proposition 8 will be repealed is the 2014 gubernatorial election and 2) if the FAIR Education Act referendum people get enough signatures by their deadline of Wednesday October 12th, it will appear on the November 2012 ballot, not June.

EQCA: No Go On Prop 8 Re-Do In '12

Well! Equality California has finally acknowledged a repeal effort of 2008's Proposition 8 is not going to happen in 2012:

Equality California said that while public opinion on marriage for same-sex couples has increased since Proposition 8 passed in 2008, support continues to hover near 50 percent—indicating more work must be done before asking voters to overturn Proposition 8 through what would inevitably be  a very expensive and difficult campaign. In addition, the Perry v. Brown legal challenge to Proposition 8 has provided hope that the freedom to marry can be restored in California and create a legal precedent to protect marriage without the potential risks and expense of a multi-million dollar campaign in these very trying economic times. 

"With a challenge to Prop 8’s discrimination now before the courts, Freedom to Marry supports Equality California’s decision to forego a ballot campaign in 2012,” said Evan Wolfson, founder and President of Freedom to Marry. ”Freedom to Marry will continue to work with Equality California and our many other partners to engage Californians in the crucial conversations necessary to grow the pro-marriage majority and permanently restore the freedom to marry in California as soon as possible."

“We share the pain, frustration and discrimination that California same-sex couples and their families experience every day because they are denied the freedom to marry,” Palencia said. “Today, we are recommitting ourselves to doing the hard work of changing hearts and minds to be ready to change that reality should the courts fail to do their job.” 

Although I only live part-time in California, I am still registered to vote there, and I support the decision not to move forward with a ballot measure, especially since there will almost definitely be marriage equality fights in Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina and Oregon next year.

Saturday Politics: DiFi's Low Poll Numbers, Cash Problem

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, no longer California's most popular politician?

Dianne Feinstein, long thought to be the most popular politician in California, has been running into some rough times lately. MadProfessah blogged about her poll numbers approaching the danger zone in June 2011 and now comes word of a more recent poll (September 16) confirming the conservadem's fall from grace.

Reuters reports:

The Field Research Corp poll estimated voters who do not want Feinstein to win reelection in 2012 to another six-year term at 44 percent, compared to 41 percent who favor her.

That is the first time the Field Poll has seen a larger share of voters say they are opposed to seeing Feinstein win reelection compared to the percentage who favor her election.

Feinstein is chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and has a reputation for being more conservative than California's other Senator, Barbara Boxer, also a Democrat.

In nearly every Field Poll over the past two decades, voters who approved of Feinstein outnumbered by double-digit margins those who disapproved, researchers said.

But the Field Poll showed only 41 percent said they approved of her job performance while 39 percent disapproved, representing the lowest rating of Feinstein's tenure.

Besides the low poll numbers, Sen. Feinstein is also caught up in the burgeoning Kinde Durkee accounting scandal. Apparently her $5 millon war chest for next November's re-election has been wiped out. Feinstein is responding by using $5 million of her (husband's) money to replace the amount stolen by the corrupt Democratic political accountant.

Politico reported about Feinstein's troubles last week:

Feinstein’s campaign already had a cloud hanging over it: This will be the first major race she navigates without her longtime strategist Kam Kuwata, whose death in April stunned political observers and left a gaping hole in her operation.

Those developments, coupled with Feinstein’s age — she’ll turn 79 next year — have fueled retirement speculation. While a formal announcement isn’t planned until 2012, Carrick told POLITICO that Feinstein will pursue a fourth term. But a volatile environment that continues to punish politicians with longtime ties to the establishment could still provide an opening for a robust Republican challenge.

While most see a weakened Feinstein still sailing to a comfortable victory, some believe a legitimate GOP challenger could be a boon to both sides. The scandal forced Feinstein to begin fundraising from scratch, and donors are hesitant to throw money at a campaign that so far faces no serious threats.

“There’s nothing more frustrating than shadow boxing,” said Carrick. “That’s a fundraising issue too. You get some people to say, ‘I’ll give when she has a serious opponent.’”

I know that I will most definitely not donating to or voting for Dianna Feinstein, for anything, ever again. She lost me when she carried water for President George W. Bush to get some of his conservative federal judicial appointments through the United States Senate, teaming up with her "good friend" Joe Lieberman to give aid and comfort to the Republicans.

I don't care that she voted against DOMA in 1996 and supports the Respect for Marriage Act and  marriage equality. She's bad on a whole lot of other progressive issues, something which can NOT be said for California's other U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, who I would walk 3 miles in the snow, barefoot to support. It's amazing that California has two Democratic female Senators who are so very different on the issues.d

Heterosexual Supremaists Caught Lying About SB48 (Again)

The above video shows that people are being told that they are signing petitions to increase penalties for child molestation when actually they are signing petitions to repeal SB 48, the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, Respectful Education Act of 2011 which mandates the inclusion of LGBT people in school history curricula.That's all the law does. If you think teaching kids about Harvey Milk and Bayard Rustin and Gertrude Stein will turn them into gays and lesbians you need to get your nose out of the Bible!

This is not the first time and it probably won't be the last time that religious extremists and heterosexual supremacists will be caught lying, cheating and stealing to get SB 48 on the June 2012 ballot.

WATCH: Prop 8 Oral Arguments in CA Sup Ct

There is also excellent analysis of yesterday's California Supreme Court oral arguments (featuring newly minted Justice Goodwin Liu) available at TowleRoad.

WATCH: EQCA Responds To FRC Lies About FAIR Education Act

There is an attempt being made to have California voters vote on a referendum to overturn this year's FAIR Education Act in a June 2012 election. The FAIR Education Act (SB 48) is a law passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Governor Brown which insures that LGBT, people of color and people with disabilities are included in educational social studies curricula. The Family Research Council joined the fight on the side of the heterosexual supremacists who think that any inclusion of homosexuality in schools must be indoctrination. Equality California, the state's largest LGBT political advocacy organization struck back with a video response of their own within days. In the video response, EQCA rolls Tony Perkins video and then stops it when he lies (which is often) or uses scare tactics (also often) to attempt to persuade viewers that the FAIR Education Act is something it is not.
Watch it!
Hat/tip to TowleRoad.

CA Joins Plan To Kill Electoral College

This is excellent news! Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill to add California's 55 electoral votes to an interstate compact which says that the state's electoral votes will only go for the winner of the nationwide popular vote. Once states with 270 electoral votes have enacted this legislation, it would effectively make the electoral college irrelevant.

This would have the effect of making every vote of every person in the country have
equal weight, since each vote equally affects the outcome of
the national popular vote, which would determine the winner of
the presidential election.

With California's addition, there are now states with 132 electoral
votes in the interstate compact, about half-way to the needed total of 270.
Anything which makes sure we never have another Bush v Gore situation I am in favor of!

Cal Sup Ct Prop 8 Arguments To Be Televised Live

Last week I told you that the California Supreme Court had set oral arguments in "the Prop 8 case" (Perry v. Brown) for September 6, 2011 at 10am. This week comes news that those oral arguments will be televised live!

Online newspaper SF Appeal has the deets:

In January, a panel of the appeals court said that federal law, as defined in a 1997 Supreme Court decision, doesn't seem to allow sponsors to defend an initiative when state officials refuse to do so.

But the appeals panel said there might be a right under state law, and asked the California Supreme Court to step in and decide that issue.

The seven-member state high court will hear one hour of arguments in its State Building courtroom on Sept. 6 and then will have 90 days to issue a written ruling.

Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said that because of public interest in the case, the court has approved a live statewide television broadcast of the arguments on the California Channel, a public affairs network.

If the state court eventually rules that the sponsors have standing, or the right to appeal, the case will then go back to the 9th Circuit for review of Walker's decision, a process that might take several more months.

But the federal appeals court said earlier this year that if the sponsors lack legal standing, the federal court would be required to dismiss the appeal.

Hat/tip to Wonder Man

CA Sup Ct Sets Prop 8 Case Oral Arguments Date: 9/6/2011

Good news! The California Supreme Court has finally set a date of September 6 at 10:00am for the oral arguments in the Perry v. Brown lawsuit (informally known as "The Proposition 8 case") in which the question at hand is a very limited one. Namely,

Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

Although the question is limited, the stakes are not. If the state Supreme Court rules, most likely within 90 days of oral arguments, that the heterosexual supremacists who drafted and promulgated Proposition 8 now have no legal standing to defend its constitutionality, it is very likely a 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will follow that decision and rule that the Proposition 8 proponents have no standing to defend the measure in federal court, either.

In that case, the lower court's decision would go into effect and federal Judge Vaughn Walker's brilliant ruling determining that Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution would go into effect. Of course the bad guys would probably appeal to the Suprem Court but since the case would only be about California (and California law) it is unlikely that SCOTUS would take the case. There is a possibility that SCOTUS would take the appeal to try to clarify once and for all whether proponents of state ballot measures who are not named plaintiffs in lawsuits have a right to continue appeals when the named plaintiffs fail to appeal but there's already a decision called Arizona for Official English vs Arizona in which SCOTUS basically says you need a particularized interest under state law in order to pursue a federal appeal. And it is precisely that question of whether a particularized interest exists under California law that the California Supreme Court will decided, by the end of 2011.

Another wrinkle is that the 7-member Supreme Court has recently lost its most pro-gay member, Carlos Moreno, and Governor Brown only announced his replacement, Goodwin Liu, who is probably as similarly pro-equality as Moreno, this week. If Liu is not on the court by September 6th, the court will probably name a state appellate judge to hear oral arguments and participate in the decision.

Hang on to your hats, folks, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!

Brown Nominates Goodwin Liu To CA Sup Ct!

Charles Dharapak / AP Photo

Goodwin Liu, 40, was rejected by a Republican United States Senate filibuster for a coveted position on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals but has received a pretty nice consolation prize: a nomination by Governor Jerry Brown to the California State Supreme Court (from which he could still be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court before he's 50).

The Los Angeles Times reports:

Liu, a graduate of Yale Law School, is the son of Taiwanese immigrants. He was born in Georgia, grew up in Sacramento and has a history of public service.

“I’m deeply honored by Gov. Brown’s nomination and look forward to the opportunity to serve the people of California on our state’s highest court,” Liu said in a statement.

Before joining the Berkeley Law faculty in 2003, Liu was an appellate litigator at O'Melveny & Myers in Washington. He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and for Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He also served as special assistant to the deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Education and as senior program officer for higher education at the Corporation for National Service (AmeriCorps).

Brown has forwarded Liu’s name to the State Bar’s Commission of Judicial Nominees Evaluation. The appointment will not become final until the Commission on Judicial Appointments -- consisting of state Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris and Justice Joan Dempsey Klein, senior presiding justice of the state Court of Appeal -- confirms the nomination.

Liu will replace Associate Justice Carlos Moreno, who retired from the court earlier this year.

Justice Moreno was a very strong advocate for the LGBT community, voting with 4-3 majority to end marriage discrimination in California's landmark In Re Marriage cases in 2008 and was the lone dissenter in 2009's California Supreme Court decision which upheld Proposition 8 as not violating the California constitution.

Goodwin Liu has previously expressed his belief that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional so it will be interesting to see if he can get confirmed in time to participate in the case now before the case as to whether the heterosexual supremacist supporters of Proposition 8 have legal standing to defend it in court when the elected representatives of the people of California have decided not to defend a voter-approved ballot measure.

Another interesting feature that Liu, if confirmed will produce a court with an Asian American majority and no Black or Latino members, in a state which has Latino plurality in the population. Things that make you go Hmmmmmm! That being said, Liu is a great choice, since he can't get through the Senate to a federal judgeship while Republicans have more than 40 votes and no compunctions about filibustering extremely qualified judges purely based on ideology, a state supreme court seat is fantastic.

1st Anti-Gay Ballot Measure (To Repeal SB48) Ready To Go

Bad news about SB 48, the FAIR Education Act Governor Brown signed into law on July 14, 2011. The heterosexual supremacists who brough California Proposition 8 have filed a referendum challenge to the law and received approval from Attorney General Kamala Harris to start circulating petitions in order to gather the 504,000 valid signatures to submit to Secretary of State Debra Bowen to place the question of the measure's legality on the June 2012 ballot.

Karen Ocamb of LGBTPOV has the scoop:

Referendum to Overturn Non-Discrimination Requirements for School Instruction.

Summary Date: 07/25/11 | Circulation Deadline: 10/12/11 | Signatures Required: 504,760

Proponent: Paulo E. Sibaja (909) 996-9391

If signed by the required number of registered voters and filed with the Secretary of State, this petition will place on the statewide ballot a challenge to a state law previously approved by the Legislature and Governor. The law must then be approved by a majority of voters at the next statewide election to go into effect. The law would require school instructional materials to recognize societal contributions of various groups; and would prohibit school instructional materials that reflect adversely on persons based on their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and other characteristics. (11-0023.) (Full Text)

By a referendum, all passage of the measure would do is take back the laws of California to the way they were prior to July 14, 2011. LGBT people and the disability community would not be required to be included in instructional materials. Previously the law mandated the teaching of many other groups, mainly racial and ethnic minorities and Equality California and Mark Leno sponsored legislation to add LGBT and people with disabilities to the list (and change American Indian to Native American and Asian Pacific to Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders).

This is basically a proxy fight over gay rights the right wing is hoping to use to increase conservative turnout in the June 2012 election which will be an incredibly important election (maybe more important than the Presidential election in California) as (almost) every single district-based political office in California will be up for election for the first time in a redrawn district.

I've also heard rumors of a second anti-gay ballot measure which would attempt to divorce the 18,000 same-sex couples that got married in California prior to Proposition 8 and preempt any positive decision striking down Proposition 8 as violating the federal constitution. This second measure seems like even more folly because any measure seeking to replicate or even out do Proposition 8 in anti-gay fervor would clearly also be subject to a similar lawsuit which will probably nullify that measure.

POLL: CA Voters Reject "Tough On Crime" Policies

Excellent news from California! In the midst of a financial meltdown California voters are beginning to realize that they can not continue to spend billions of dollars locking up non-violent criminal offenders in more and more prisons.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

The ailing economy far outweighs crime as the top concern for most people today, the pollsters said. That, along with the court order, could help explain voters' new receptivity to changes long sought by prisoner-rights advocates:

— More than 60% of respondents, including majorities among Democrats, Republicans and those who declined to state a party preference, said they would support reducing life sentences for third strike offenders convicted of property crimes such as burglary, auto theft and shoplifting.

— Nearly 70% said they would sanction the early release of some low-level offenders whose crimes did not involve violence.

— About 80% said they approve of keeping low-level, nonviolent offenders in county custody — including jails, home detention or parole — instead of sending them to state prisons. The same percentage favors paroling inmates who are paralyzed, in comas or so debilitated by advanced disease that they no longer pose a threat to public safety.

The pollsters noted that people don't generally favor the release of convicted criminals. But "when it comes to prisons," said Linda DiVall of American Viewpoint, "voters are looking for solutions that don't raise taxes or take money from other priorities like education."

Only 12% of respondents said they'd be willing to accept less state spending on healthcare or education to pay for more prisons. And less than a quarter of voters want to pay higher taxes to build prisons or ship inmates to private lockups in other states to comply with the courts.

This year the state plans to spend $9.8 billion on prisons, making it the third-highest general fund expenditure, behind education and healthcare.

"We spend such a large portion of our budget on crime and prison systems, and we get so little for it," said Amanda Hixson, 59, a Democrat from Sacramento.

Politicians determined to burnish their law-and-order credentials try to scare the public about releasing inmates early, Hixson said, "but some guy who's got three pot busts just isn't going to be that terrifying on the street."

I look forward to voting on ballot measures in 2012 which will finally end this madness which seeks o bankrupt the state by spending ridiculous amounts on criminal justice as compared to education.