9 responses

  1. Steve
    June 26, 2013

    CA’s fucked up initiative system hasn’t helped democracy in that state one bit. At least not in the last few decades where it has only been abused. Initially it served a purpose and helped reduce the power of an oligarchy, but then like so many things it was corrupted.

  2. Andrew
    June 26, 2013

    The CA Prop system has been taken over by moneyed interestes who write confusing Propositions intended to swell the coffers of specific industries… mostly.

    Every once in a while you get a pure piece of social legislation.

    Even so, as were the Founding Fathers, I’m highly suspect of the passions of the electorate, which is why we prefer a Republic over a Democracy at the Federal level. (Seriously – which branch of gov’t is the most fked up? The House, of course).

    For those who believe that Harris and Brown erred by not providing standing against which to fight Prop 8, re-read Kennedy’s opening paragraphs in which he speaks of Loving v Virginia in a parenthetical clause (which suggests to me that he’s not grouping them together). Although the overturn of DOMA at the Federal level was a no-brainer, there’s real question as to whether he’d have waded into the jurisdiction of states – traditionally the arena in which marriage is defined – to overturn a Prop 8 case with standing.

    The next time you wonder whether local elections matter…

    The next time you wonder whether off-cycle elections matter…

    Kamela Harris (CA Atty Gen.) won in 2010 by 0.8% of the vote, and promptly vowed not to defend Prop 8, which led to it’s down fall today.

    That’s potentially the difference for tens of thousands of gay couples right there.

    So, just a reminder: always know who’s running, even for whacky jobs like AG. And never, ever miss an election. Your life may depend on it.

  3. Timothy Kincaid
    June 26, 2013

    Andrew,

    actually the state declined to appeal when Arnold Schwarzenegger was Governor and Jerry Brown was Attorney General.

  4. Andrew
    June 26, 2013

    That’s only partially true – I know because I live here and it became an election issue. The case was still proceeding and the AG could have stepped in to defend it. Harris pointedly did not. Her opponent vowed to do so.

  5. Andrew
    June 26, 2013
  6. Timothy Kincaid
    June 26, 2013

    Andrew,

    I am also a Californian and recall the election. Harris was, indeed, supportive.

    And I recall that threats of appeal were a part of the campaign for Harris.

    However, I think that if you go back and look at the timing you’ll see that the deadline for the state to appeal was before the election. Even though I received a lot of campaign emails that pretended otherwise.

  7. Timothy Kincaid
    June 26, 2013

    Yes, she submitted an amicus brief

  8. Charles
    June 26, 2013

    I cringe every time someone uses the phrase Reverts Back ………….. please change the title fo this thread. Sorry, it is my one pet peeve.

  9. Andrew
    June 26, 2013

    They were also part of the campaign against Harris, and it was the subject of scholarly discussion at that time as well. An Intervenor can join a case as a 3rd party not originally in the suit, and in so doing, she would have provided a party with standing before the court, which could have been done all the way up to the SCOTUS appeal, which had not been filed prior to the election.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop