CA LGBT Legislative Caucus Increasing to ≥ 7

Back in May 2008 I predicted that the next California LGBT legislative caucus (January 2009) would have five members. I was correct on the numbers (5), but not on the names (Assemblymembers Perez, Ammiano, Senators Kehoe, Leno and Ashburn). And the last of these was not out until a scandal this year.

The LGBT legislative caucus of the 2011-2013 session should have at least 7 openly LGBT members, 5 in the Assembly and 2 in the Senate.

June 2010   (FIVE)         January 2011 (SEVEN)
ASSEMBLY                     
Tom Ammiano (AD-13)        Tom Ammiano (AD-13)
John Perez (AD-46)         John Perez (AD-46)                                    

                           Ricardo Lara (AD-50)                                    

                           Toni Atkins (AD-76)                                    

                           Richard Gordon (AD-21)

SENATE
Christine Kehoe (SD-39)    Christine Kehoe (SD-39)
Mark Leno (SD-3)           Mark Leno (SD-3)
Roy Ashburn (SD-18)

Ashburn is not running for re-election, but makes history as the first openly gay Republican member of the California Legislature (who was out wile still serving).

Additionally, there is a good chance that former Assembyman John Laird may re-join the caucus as its 8th member if he wins a special election in the 15th Senate District in August.

SD-26: Vote for Price in Tue Mar 24 Special Election

On Tuesday March 24th there is a special election to fill the vacancy in the 26th State Senate district caused by Mark Ridley-Thomas becoming a Los Angeles County Supervisor last December.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Eight candidates are running to replace Mark Ridley-Thomas, who was elected to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in November, in the district, which is politically liberal and ethnically and economically diverse. Six Democrats, one Republican and one Peace and Freedom Party member are on the ballot in the district, which includes several Westside communities, parts of South Los Angeles, Baldwin Hills, Ladera Heights, Culver City, West Hollywood, Silver Lake and Larchmont, among others.


The district's registration -- 66% Democratic -- and voting history virtually ensure the seat will again go to a Democrat. But if no candidate musters a majority of the ballots Tuesday, another special election will be held May 19, with the top vote-getter from each of the three political parties with candidates in the race.

That means whichever Democrat comes out on top Tuesday will be the next representative of the district, said Allan Hoffenblum, publisher of the California Target Book, which provides nonpartisan, detailed analyses of the state's political districts.

"The only question is can it be won outright, or will the Democratic winner have to go to a runoff," said Hoffenblum, who, like other political experts watching the race, sees Assemblyman Curren Price Jr. as the front-runner.

MadProfessah has endorsed Curren Price, who is also endorsed by Equality California, Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas and State Senate Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg and openly LGBT Senators Mark Leno and Christine Kehoe. Curiously, Speaker Karen Bass has not endorsed Curren Price, and I believe part of her assembly district overlaps SD-26.

If you live in the 26th district (see the map above), I encourage you to vote for Assemblymember Price, and help him to avoid the May 19th run-off election.

On Sunday, there is an event which Equality California PAC is sponsoring and MadProfessah will be attending:

Curren Price for LGBT Equality

EQCA PAC Fundraiser
Hosted by Sheryl Lee Ralph & Pennsylvania State Senator Vincent Hughes

Special Guest
Assemblymember Curren Price (D-Los Angeles)

Sunday, March 22
5 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Mid-City/Country Club Park
Los Angeles

For event address, to become an event host or RSVP, email or call 323.461.100

CA Joint Legislative Resolution Opposing Prop 8 Introduced

On the second day of the new California legislative term two openly gay lawmakers (State Senator Mark Leno and Assemblymember Tom Ammiano) have introduced resolutions in their respective legislative chambers opposing the enactment of Proposition 8:

Both resolutions are sponsored by Equality California and were drafted by EQCA and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, plaintiff and lead counsel, respectively, in the marriage case brought before the California Supreme Court.

Leno’s Senate Resolution 7 and Ammiano’s Assembly Resolution (number to be assigned) specify that significant revisions to the Constitution mandate distinct procedures and require a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature before going to voters. The resolutions are co-authored by Sen. Christine Kehoe and Assemblymember John A. Perez, both members of the LGBT Legislative Caucus, and Senate Pro Tem Speaker Darrell Steinberg.

[...]

“Proposition 8’s revision to the California Constitution violates key structural checks and balances built into our legal system,” said Sen. Leno. “Overnight, the constitutional protections of thousands of tax paying, law abiding California citizens were stripped from them by a simple majority vote, without a prior two-thirds vote by both houses of the legislature, thereby trampling on their fundamental right to equal protection.”

"Any major revision to the state Constitution should not be allowed to circumvent the legal system,” said Assemblymember Ammiano. “The fact is, Proposition 8 was improperly instituted through the ballot process without legislative involvement. I am proud to author this crucial resolution urging the courts to right the social travesty of Proposition 8 and ensure any similar future measures are approached in an appropriate and legal manner."

If it stands, Prop 8 would be the only California initiative to successfully change the California Constitution to take away a right from a targeted minority group.

Here is the text of the resolution:

WHEREAS, Article XVIII of the California Constitution mandates
distinct procedures for revision and amendment of the California
Constitution; and
WHEREAS, Article XVIII provides that, while a proposed amendment
to the California Constitution can be accomplished through the
initiative process, a proposed revision of the California
Constitution must originate in the Legislature and must be approved
by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature before being
submitted to the electors; and
WHEREAS, The California Supreme Court, in Livermore v. Waite
(1894) 102 Cal. 113 and subsequent decisions, has held that a
revision is a substantial change to the "underlying principles" of
the California Constitution or to the structure of our "basic
governmental plan"; and
WHEREAS, Subdivision (a) of Section 8 of Article II of the
California Constitution defines the initiative power as the ability
to propose and pass statutory laws and constitutional amendments, but
not constitutional revisions; and
WHEREAS, Article III of the California Constitution establishes a
separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial
branches of California's government; and
WHEREAS, Under the separation of powers doctrine established by
Article III of the California Constitution, the courts have the
ultimate authority to interpret and enforce the principle of equal
protection, particularly where government discrimination on a suspect
basis or the selective denial of a fundamental right on a suspect
basis is at issue; and
WHEREAS, The distinct procedures mandated for revision and
amendment of the California Constitution, and the crucial
deliberative role of the Legislature in any proposed revision of our
Constitution, constitute key structural checks in the system of
checks and balances mandated by Article III of the California
Constitution; and
WHEREAS, The distinction between revision and amendment, and the
distinct procedures assigned to each, in Article XVIII of the
California Constitution, as well as the separation of powers mandated
by Article III, are entitled to the highest respect as the
expression of the people's will; and
WHEREAS, The principle of equal protection, which prohibits
unequal government treatment of historically targeted minority groups
and ensures that laws enacted by a majority must apply equally to
all people, is a foundational principle underlying our Constitution
and our democratic system of government; and
WHEREAS, The requirement of equal protection of the laws plays an
essential structural role in our basic governmental plan by providing
a necessary check on the exercise of majority power and, in
particular, by prohibiting the enactment of measures that facially
single out a historically targeted minority group for adverse
treatment and selective exclusion from an important right; and
WHEREAS, The Legislature is specially suited to examine and debate
significant changes to the principles and structure that underlie
the California Constitution, and is structured for precisely such a
task; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 8, which was titled "Eliminates the right of
same-sex couples to marry," was put forward as an initiative measure
and enacted by the electors by a bare majority of the vote in the
November 4, 2008, general election; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 8 purports to amend the California
Constitution to eliminate a fundamental right only for a particular
minority group on the basis of a suspect classification, while
permitting the majority to retain that fundamental right; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 8 would severely undermine the foundational
principle of equal protection by establishing that any disfavored
minority can be targeted to have its fundamental rights stripped away
by a simple majority vote; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 8 would substantially alter our basic
governmental plan by eliminating equal protection as a structural
check on the exercise of majority power and by permitting majorities
to force groups defined by suspect classifications to fight to
protect their fundamental rights under the California Constitution at
every election; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 8 would violate the separation of powers
doctrine by stripping the courts of their core, constitutionally
mandated function and traditional authority to enforce equal
protection to prevent government discrimination against minority
groups and the selective denial of fundamental rights on suspect
bases; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 8 would also violate the separation of powers
doctrine by intruding on the vital role of the Legislature in
vetting revisions to the California Constitution and by sidestepping
the constitutionally required rigors of the legislative process; now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, That the Senate
opposes Proposition 8 because it is an improper revision, not an
amendment, of the California Constitution and was not enacted
according to the procedures required by Article XVIII of the
California Constitution; and be it further
Resolved, that the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this
resolution to the author for appropriate distribution

CA Openly Gay Candidates Win Primaries

Openly gay Assemblymember Mark Leno easily won the hotly contested Democratic primary in State Senate District 3 last night with 43% of the vote, while openly lesbian incumbent Carole Migden placed 3rd with 27.7% behind Joe Nation at 29.3%.

Openly gay John "Tony's Cousin" Perez won his primary in the State Assembly District 46 race with more than 54% of the vote.

San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano won his uncontested primary to replace Mark Leno in the California Assembly in District 13.

Sadly, Greg Pettis and Chris Cabaldon lost their primaries by just over 1000 votes each, in Assembly District 80 (Palm Springs) and Assembly Distrist 8 (West Sacramento), respectively.

So, as Mad Professah predicted many weeks ago the new LGBT Legislative Caucus in 2009 will be: State Senators Christine Kehoe and Mark Leno, and Assemblymembers John A. Perez and Tom Ammiano, a reduction to 4 members from last session's 5 and down from a high of 6 in 2005.

In the last three years term limits have forced John Laird, Sheila Kuehl and Jackie Goldberg out of the Legislature.

Mad Professah had endorsed Perez and Leno in their contested primaries.