[lg policy] California: Prop. 8 ruling draws attention to state's easy amendment process (fwd)

Tue Jun 2 21:37:01 UTC 2009

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 14:58:47 -0400
From: Harold Schiffman <hfsclpp at gmail.com>
Reply-To: Language Policy List <lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu>
To: lp <lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu>
Subject: [lg policy] California: Prop. 8 ruling draws attention to state's easy
     amendment process

Prop. 8 ruling draws attention to state's easy amendment process

By Maura Dolan
May 31, 2009

The California Supreme Court decision upholding Proposition 8's
same-sex marriage ban illuminated the history and oddities of the
state Constitution, provoking renewed discussion about whether voters
can too easily amend it.

Whereas the U.S. Constitution has been amended only 27 times,
California's top legal document has been altered more than 500 times,
often by voter initiative. The state's Constitution is the third
longest in the world, exceeded only by those of India and Alabama.
Inscribed within its venerable pages are a ban on gill net fishing, a
statement that English is the state's official language, and an
assortment of requirements involving liquor and criminal defendants.

Californians can amend their Constitution by obtaining a simple
majority vote on an initiative. Chief Justice Ronald M. George
observed in Tuesday's ruling that many other state constitutions are
more difficult to amend. Although the court did not call for limiting
the amendment process, the majority said such a move would be possible
and maybe even proper. As in other states that allow initiatives,
California's ballot measures have sometimes been used to take away
rights from minorities.

"We have seen a whole bunch of law review articles saying that in
general the initiative process has been used more against minority
groups than to help them," said Jon W. Davidson, legal director of the
gay-rights group Lambda Legal. California ballots have carried
initiatives to ban gays and lesbians from teaching and quarantine
people with HIV -- both rejected -- and to permit race discrimination
in housing, require English literacy and repeal affirmative action,
which passed. The state high court later overturned the housing law on
federal constitutional grounds.

In upholding Proposition 8, George disputed the challengers'
contention that the measure was unprecedented in taking away a
fundamental right from a minority.

He cited a voter-approved 1894 amendment that withdrew the right to
vote from anyone not literate "in the English language." The provision
remained in effect until 1970, when the state high court struck it
down as a violation of the federal Constitution.

"People don't understand that the people of California can change
their Constitution," Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said in an
interview. The Proposition 8 case "was about procedure," she said.

Despite some activists' anger over Proposition 8, voters are unlikely
to restrict their own power to tinker with the state's most important
legal document, experts said. Voters could make it more difficult to
amend the Constitution by requiring larger margins at the polls or
approval by two-thirds of the Legislature.

At least five commissions have been formed during the past 20 years to
look at the initiative process, and not one measure to change it has
made it to the ballot, said Fred Silva, senior fiscal policy advisor
at California Forward, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group concerned with
fiscal reform and state governance.

"There are people on both sides who don't want anything done -- both
liberals and conservatives," said Bob Stern, president of the Los
Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies.

Still, the state budget fiasco has made constitutional reform a more
pressing issue, and even if voters refuse to change the initiative
process, Stern believes "the public is ready for an examination of the
Constitution."

An initiative expected to qualify for next year's ballot would
authorize a constitutional convention, where delegates could take a
red pencil to the state's massive tome.

Stern cited a daylong conference on constitutional reform held in
Sacramento in February. Attendees had to pay $89 for admission, he
said. More than 400 people showed up and some had to be turned away.

"I was stunned," he said.

When voters amend the Constitution, the state high court can overturn
the amendment only if it decides it was a more sweeping revision,
which must be put on the ballot by a constitutional convention or
two-thirds vote of the Legislature, or because it violated the federal
Constitution.

The court concluded that Proposition 8 was not an impermissible
revision because it did not alter the governmental plan or framework.

But given the court's historic May 15, 2008, ruling affirming the
right of gays and lesbians to wed, the court might well have found the
measure violated federal constitutional equal protection guarantees.

Anti-Proposition 8 lawyers did not pursue that argument, however,
fearing that a reversal in the U.S. Supreme Court would set the
marriage movement back decades.

Same-sex marriage activists looked askance when two high-profile
lawyers, Theodore Olson and David Boies, announced Wednesday that they
are challenging Proposition 8 in federal court. For the U.S. Supreme
Court to rule in favor of a federal constitutional right to marry, it
would have to reject the views of 44 states, 30 of which have
constitutional amendments banning gay and lesbian nuptials, Davidson
said.

Olson and Boies "believe they know a lot about the Supreme Court, but
the reality is they have never done any lesbian and gay rights
litigation nor even really any civil rights litigation from the
plaintiffs' side," Davidson said.

Civil rights groups have tended to choose litigation carefully,
starting with issues they think they can win to establish building
blocks for matters of more consequence later on. The National Assn.
for the Advancement of Colored People first attacked school
segregation with a case against law schools, Davidson noted. They have
tried to avoid cases that could set an unfavorable precedent.

For now, most activists would prefer to overturn Proposition 8 at the
ballot box in 2010 -- a repeal measure could appear alongside the
initiative to hold a constitutional convention.

maura.dolan at latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-constitution31-2009may31,0,6485922.story
-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list