Oh come now, a lot of people are not willing to vote someone out of office over just one issue.

I just fail to see the parade of horrors if every once in a while someone besides the state gets to defend an initiative in court. The courts have to rule on the arguments presented, not whether or not they like the attorneys who show up in court.

If you’re a Californian, you know what kind of nuts we have here drafting initiatives. LaRouche is but an example.

Sure his initiatives didn’t win at the polls. But he could have. And a court decision that would turn the defense of our state’s interest over to Lyndon LaRouche – under any scenario – is one that is pretty scary.

Or ignore LaRouche. Would you prefer that the proponents of 1986′s Prop 63 (followed by 1988′s Prop 227) or 1994′s Prop 187 be the official caretakers of the interests of the state? While the people who voted for those initiatives did not do so out of malice, I think that some of the proponents of those initiatives were unrepentantly racist.

For me the issue is pretty straight forward. Initiative drafters answer to no one – statewide elected officials answer to the electorate.

And while gerrymandering may have made it impossible to recall a legislator, we still can remove a governor. And if we are willing to recall Davis over DMV rates, it’s hard to see how Brown’s refusal to appeal the court decision was thwarting the people’s will when we went on to friggin vote him in as Governor.

You can do better than that. LaRouche was rebuffed at the polls and would have no standing since his initiatives never passed. FAIL.

In any case, the courts still retain the power to declare things unconstitutional.

The court was correct in its decision.

However, I think that does not serve the People of California well. We have an initiative process because the People don’t believe their government will always enact the will of the People. That is the crux of the entire question of standing. We already take things out of the government’s purview because we don’t trust it. How is this really any different?

In the end I think it’s better for our community if the case goes forward and is answered by the courts. That is what the court is there for: to determine constitutionality of laws.

The original mariage decision was courageous. The state trial decision on overturning prop. 8, with its language about it being perfectly ok to “carve out” of equality a narrow slice of inequality was cowardly in the extreme, in my eye pretty much invalidating their reasoning and their credentials and credibility in their original decision FOR marriage equality.

I suspect– but cannot prove– that the recent Judicial elections in Iowa also played a part in this decision.

The issue is whether the decision for appeal should be made by the Governor and Attorney General (elected representatives) or by an advocacy organization who answers to no one but their particular deity.

(Let me also note that “Executive Branch” in CA consists of Gov and Atty Gen., which may be of different political factions or ever different party – as was the case with Perry).

Jerry Brown refused to appeal and the people of the State had an opportunity to react and respond. They immediately promoted him from Attorney General to Governor.

On the other hand, if you are a long-time Californian, let me just say one word about who the Supremes have turned over our political appeal process: LaRouche