Proposition 19 Looking Less Likely To Pass

Nate Silver has analyzed the polls on  California's marijuana legalization initiative, Proposition 19, and it is looking less and less likely to pass. A new Los Angeles Times/USC poll confirms that a majority of likely voters say they will vote against the measure.

The poll indicated that opposition has surged since September, when 52% of likely voters backed Proposition 19, which would allow Californians to grow and possess pot, and they split evenly over Proposition 23.

The earlier poll's Proposition 19 result had encouraged supporters and attracted some high-dollar donations. The measure would allow Californians who are 21 and older to grow and possess marijuana, while cities and counties could authorize commercial cultivation, sales and taxation.

The latest poll found support had eroded significantly across all demographic groups, but most steeply among Latino voters. In September, 63% backed it. Now, 51% oppose it.

[...]

Much of the reversal appears to be driven by evaporating support in Southern California. In September, 56% of likely voters in Los Angeles County and 52% in other Southern California counties supported the measure. This month, those percentages slipped to 41% and 42%.

Interview With Dave Fleischer: Prop 8 Report Author

Dave Fleischer is the author of the 509-page Prop 8 Report which was released publicly on Tuesday. I have known Dave for years and he agreed to this on the record interview with MadProfessah.com.

MadProfessah: What are the main results or ideas you want people to gain from this report?

Dave Fleischer:
* The No on 8 campaign made a smart decision to invest in research. As a result, for the first time ever, in any campaign, the LGBT community has daily tracking polling that measures increases and decreases in our support as voters were being exposed to the anti-gay opposition campaign. This is far superior to episodic polls taken when voters are considering the question out of context and have not recently been exposed to the vile but effective opposition campaign. The No on 8 tracking polling by Lake allows us to correlate voter movement to significant changes in the political environment including but not limited to strategic decisions made by the competing campaigns. That's why this report is the first report ever to seriously evaluate why we struggle to compete in these campaigns. It provides evidence that allows us to consider and evaluate the wide range of competing hypotheses offered by a wide variety of observers. Up until now, we just had the hypotheses, not the data. Now, we have significant data. With the data, we are able to reject some hypotheses, confirm others, and notice areas where we need more information. We are on our way to learning more about the electoral reality in which we are operating.

* Based on the data, we know why we lost. We lost because in the final six weeks, when TV ads from both campaigns saturated the airwaves, almost 700,000 votes switched sides and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. It seems fair to me to conclude that Yes on 8 outcampaigned us in the final six weeks. We went from even to losing in the final six weeks. And it's fair to give Yes on 8 credit for what they accomplished, because we lost the most ground by far among the exact group of voters they targeted: parents.

* No on 8 regained some of the ground we lost, but only when we directly rebutted the opposition fear-mongering. "O'Connell" was No on 8's belated rebuttal of the pernicious Yes on 8 ads that exploited and stimulated anti-gay prejudice by making people fear that kids were in danger. The effectiveness of the "O'Connell" ad, while limited, suggests that we can successfully rebut the longstanding lies, at least among some voters. And the fact that it improved the situation compared to how we were doing when we were avoiding the issue makes it clear that avoidance serves us poorly. When the opposition attacks the character of LGBT people, we have to rebut immediately, directly, and clearly.

* As we prepare to go back to the ballot, we have to commit ourselves to gaining insight into how to rebut those attacks effectively. We still have so much to learn; after all, does "O'Connell" represent the best we can do? We simply don't yet know. We need to try out, in real world circumstances that simulate the campaign, what rebuttals help us most with most of the voters who are susceptible to the opposition fear-mongering. Luckily, we have a great immediate opportunity to enlarge our learning, when we canvass. From my point of view, when we are canvassing, this leads to a practical imperative: we should talk about kids to as many voters as we can; test different messages to see what works; and consider the canvass an investment in qualitative research, the largest, longest focus group in social science history. My concern is that if we don't do this -- if we don't talk about kids now, when the stakes are low -- we will be tempted once again to avoid the issue in an campaign, when the stakes are so high. Then history will repeat itself, to our detriment.

MP: How long did the report take to research and write and who paid for it?

DF: 18 months. Paid for by the LGBT Mentoring Project. No money solicited from nor did any come from CA individuals or organizations or the No on 8 campaign on anyone evaluated in the report.

MP: When do you think we should return to the ballot to overturn Proposition 8?

DF: We should return to the ballot when we have a decent chance to win. So we have homework to do. Should only choose the year when we have finished the homework. That could be 2012, or a different year. To me, what's relevant is: have we done our homework?

MP: One of the key findings is in wrong-way voting. Apparently there were 6% of voters who voted No who opposed marriage equality as opposed to 4% of Yes voters who supported marriage equality. Thus there's a net gain of 2 percentage points for the No side. Can you explain how confident you are of this result?

DF: Very confident. The Lake polling data and our methodology to interpret it are all laid in out detail in the report in a special appendix. [Appendix K]

We acknowledge all of the limitations of the data. But here's what we calculate:

* approx 1.525 million people were wrong-way voters

* of those, 875,000 voted No and opposed same-sex marriage

* and 650,000 voted Yes though they favored same-sex marriage

* the difference, 225,000 voters, made the margin closer by approx. 450,000 votes

FYI, David Binder's polling during the No on 8 campaign, commissioned by the No on 8 campaign, corroborated Lake. In the one poll where he asked questions you could use to gauge wrong-way voting, conducted Sept. 2-4, he found that

* 13% of the voters who found same-sex marriage acceptable said they'd vote Yes, and

* 19% of the voters who found same-sex marriage unacceptable said they'd vote No.

This is a less reliable measure of wrong-way voting than because a) it was further in advance of election day, and some voters self-correct; and b) Binder's question gave three options to respondents, so the middle group is sizeable and there's no way to tell if any of them were likely to wrong-way vote. But Binder's finding here is consistent with the idea that our side was the likely net beneficiary of wrong-way voting.

And of course Binder's May 2009 attempt to gauge wrong-way voting is very unlikely to be of any value. Polls are best at detecting wrong-way voting as or before people vote, not afterwards, especially not six months afterwards, when accurate recollection of their confusion is unlikely.

You will also enjoy looking at Lewis & Gossett, cited in the Prop 8 Report. Their excellent paper analyzing the Field and PPIC data uses regression analysis to compare the plausibility of four competing hypotheses to explain the failure of the two polls to gauge what was happening. They make a compelling case for wrong-way voting as the most probable explanation.

MP: What do you say to people that your source of daily tracking poll data by Celinda Lake ends 5 days before the election and the election could have been decided in that time frame?

DF: The Lake data is the best data we have on Prop 8, and the best data set our community has ever had on any of these ballot measures. That said, it is imperfect in a variety of ways, including the one you mention. There could have been significant changes in voter opinion in those final days. The Lake data would of necessity not reveal that. However, to the extent that the Binder tracking polling data in the final days tell us anything, they do not suggest massive voter movement or anything other than trivial voter movement. See the charts in the report with Binder data and Lake data side by side and you'll see what I mean. Binder tracked until election day (but he didn't start until much much later than Lake, when most of the big movement had long occurred).

Thanks, Dave!

POLL: 29% to 22% Think Prop 8 Was Bad For State

There's a new poll out from the Public Religion Research Institute that confirms that a majority of Californians support marriage equality right now. Additionally, the poll of 3,351 adults (including 350 African Americans and 200 Latino Protestants) asked about the 2008 ballot initiative Proposition 8. A stunning 45% of respondents said that it had no impact on the sate, while 29% said the measure's passage was bad for the state while 22% said it was good for the state.

Some other key findings of the report:

• One-in-four Californians report that their views on rights for gay and lesbian people has become more supportive over the last five years, compared to only 8% who say they have become more opposed. Among religious groups, ethnic minority groups showed slightly more overall movement than white religious groups. Among black Protestants, twice as many report becoming more supportive as report becoming more opposed (27% vs. 13%); among Latino Catholics, that ratio is 3-to-1 (31% more supportive vs. 9% more opposed) over this period.

• If another vote similar to Proposition 8 were held tomorrow, a majority (51%) say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, compared to 45% who say they would vote to keep same-sex marriage illegal.

• There are major religious groups on both sides of the debate over same-sex marriage in California. Solid majorities of Latino Catholics and white mainline Protestants say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, while solid majorities of white evangelical Protestants, Latino Protestants, and African American Protestants say they would vote to keep same-sex marriage illegal.

The PPRI poll joins other major polls which also show majority support for marriage equality in the state of California.

DC High Court Rejects Marriage Referendum By 5-4 Vote

The nation's capital's highest court, the D.C. Court of Appeals rejected (by a frighteningly close) 5-4 vote an effort by the National Organization for Marriage and other heterosexual supremacists to force a vote on that jurisdiction's recently enacted marriage law.

Law Dork Chris Geidner has the best coverage:

The D.C. Court of Appeals issued its awaited decision in Bishop Harry Jackson's appeal of the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics's decision that his proposed marriage initiative was an improper subject of an initiative. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that the Human Rights Act limitation in District law, which prohibits initiatives or referendums that would violation the Human Rights Act, is permissible. In light of that ruling, all 9 judges agreed that the proposed marriage initiative would violate the Human Rights Act and is, thus, not permitted.

In the absence of a successful appeal, then, D.C. marriage equality, which went into effect earlier this year, cannot be subject to an iniative.

He also quotes from the decision itself (Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics):

In the most important conclusion to be made by the court, it held:

The Charter amendment that established the right to initiative must be read in conjunction with the Home Rule Act, which, although conferring on the Council broad legislative authority, makes clear that the legislative authority is subject to limits implied by the United States Constitution and to the enumerated limits [set out by Congress.] Since [the section defining the initiative right in the District] obviously could not and did not remove those limits, it cannot be read as expressing the entire scope of restrictions on the initiative right. Rather, [the section] does not purport to address, and is ambiguous as to, whether there are other limitations on the right to initiative (and referendum). The Human Rights Act safeguard[, which prohibits initiatives that would violate the Human Rights Act] is not inconsistent with that ambiguous language.

Id. at 21. Four of the judges of the court disagreed with this conclusion, in an opinion written by Judge John Fisher. He was joined by Chief Judge Eric Washington and Judges Stephen Glickman and Kathryn Oberly.

It should be noted that all 9 judges agreed that the proposed marriage referendum (limiting marriage to between one man and one woman), like Proposition 8, would violate the D.C. Human Rights Act.

Suck it, NOM!

Saturday Politics: Ballot Measure Polling

Saturday Politics: Ballot Measures Preview

There are often numerous ballot initiatives on California statewide election ballots and this November will be no exception. So far there are expected to be ten ballot measures that voters will consider:

WATER BOND -- Authorizes $11.14 billion in bonds for state water projects, including storage, conservation, groundwater protection, and recycling.

MARIJUANA -- Allows people 21 or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use, subject to regulation and taxation. Prohibits use in public or when minors are present. Prohibits providing marijuana to anyone under 21.

CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING -- Transfers redistricting authority for congressional districts from the state legislature to the Citizens Redistricting Commission that was established by Proposition 11 (2008).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT -- Prohibits state from shifting, taking, borrowing, or restricting use of revenues dedicated to local government services, community redevelopment projects, and transportation projects and services. Prohibits the state from delaying distribution of tax revenues for these purposes.

SURCHARGE FOR PARKS -- Establishes $18 annual state vehicle license surcharge to be used solely to operate, maintain, and repair the state park system, and protect wildlife and natural resources. Grants free admission to all state parks to vehicles paying the surcharge. Exempts commercial vehicles, trailers, and trailer coaches.

SUSPENSION OF GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION LAW -- Suspends the state's greenhouse gas reduction law until California's unemployment rate has been 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. Suspends requirements for increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel, as well as mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries.

CORPORATE TAXES -- Repeals recent legislation which lowered corporate taxes by allowing businesses to shift operating losses to prior tax years; expanding the time in which losses can be shifted; allowing businesses to share tax credits with affiliated corporations; and allowing multi-state companies to use a sales-based income calculation rather than one based on property, payroll, and sales.

2/3 VOTE FOR LEVIES AND CHARGES -- Increases to two-thirds, from a simple majority, the vote required for the legislature to adopt state levies and charges, with limited exceptions. Requires two-thirds vote of the public for local levies and charges, with limited exceptions.

MAJORITY VOTE FOR STATE BUDGET -- Lowers the legislative vote required for adopting a state budget from two-thirds to a simple majority.

REPEAL OF REDISTRICTING COMMISSION -- Eliminates the Citizens Redistricting Commission that was established by Proposition 11 (2008), and returns the job of drawing state legislative and board of equalization districts to the Legislature

.

SCOTUS Rules 8-1 To Support R-71 Names Disclosure

The Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 in the case of Doe v. Reed that heterosexual supremacist petition signers in Washington who placed Referendum 71 (which would have repealed a comprehensive domestic partnership statute) on the ballot have no implicit First Amendment expectation of privacy, affirming last year's excellent 9th Circuit appellate decision.

Washington Families Standing Together, the organization that managed the campaign to defend the domestic partnership law by approving Referendum 71 issued a statement:

The Court has made clear today that public disclosure requirements are an important means of making sure measures are not put on the ballot by fraudulent means or mistake.

“Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures. Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot. In light of the foregoing, we reject plaintiffs’ argument and conclude that public disclosure of referendum petitions in general is substantially related to the important interest of preserving the integrity of the electoral process.”

This 8- 1 ruling by the highest court in the land is a significant defeat for those who have sought to enshrine discrimination into law at the ballot box. Nowhere is the integrity and transparency of elections more important than where the ballot box is being used in an attempt to take away fundamental rights. Nowhere is it more important for the public to know that attempts to affect the lives of their fellow citizens by promoting ballot measures are free from fraud and error. Perhaps no other group has witnessed its rights put up for public vote more than LGBT Americans. Social conservatives have used ballot measures in state after state, over more than 30 years, to keep LGBT Americans from being able to adopt children, to marry and even to be protected from discrimination in housing and employment.

This is the third loss for these groups in our state over the past year as they tried to repeal legislation ensuring that all families are treated equally under Washington State law. First the State PDC said no when these same groups tried to hide their donors. Then voters approved Referendum 71, retaining the law, by more than 53%. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the proponents’ attempt to undermine disclosure laws.

With regard to the assertion by the anti-gay groups that they would be harmed if petition signatures were subject to public disclosure, as Justice Stevens said in his concurring opinion,

“Any burden on speech that petitioners posit is speculative as well as indirect. For an as-applied challenge to a law such as the PRA to succeed, there would have to be a significant threat of harassment directed at those who sign the petition that cannot be mitigated by law enforcement measures.”

The Supreme Court has in the past allowed narrow exemptions to public disclosure where there’s a clear minority party that has suffered both official and societal retaliation by the majority and where there is strong evidence that such disclosure presents a serious threat. With regard to Referendum 71, however, the groups making this claim were not the minority, but to the contrary, were the ones trying to diminish the rights of the minority. They will be hard pressed to convince a judge the record here is otherwise.

In an amicus brief provided to the Supreme Court in Doe v. Reed, a group of political scientists reported that not only was the assertion of alleged harassment unsubstantiated in Washington State, but the plaintiffs did not present a single verified threat to any signer of a ballot measure petition in any state in any election. As their brief said, “More than a million names of signers of petitions for referenda and initiatives opposing gay marriage have been posted on the Internet, yet there is no evidence that any of these signers has faced any threat of retaliation or harassment by reason of that disclosure.”

WAFST applauds today’s decision and thanks all those who filed briefs and supported our collective efforts as we fought over the last year to protect the rights of all Washingtonians.

Congratulations to Washington State, this is a big loss for the heterosexual supremacist haters like National Organization for Marriage.

Judge Walker Issues Questions In Prop 8 Trial

Judge Vaughn Walker has issued questions for the litigants in Perry v. Schwazenegger to answer during closing arguments which are scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday June 16th. Some of the questions are fascinating:

What empirical data, if any, supports a finding that legal recognition of same-sex marriage reduces discrimination against gays and lesbians?

What are the consequences of a permanent injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8? What remedies do plaintiffs propose?

If the evidence of the involvement of the LDS and Roman Catholic churches and evangelical ministers supports a finding that Proposition 8 was an attempt to enforce private morality, what is the import of that finding?

The court has reserved ruling on plaintiffs' motion to exclude Mr Blankenhorn's testimony. If the motion is granted, is there any other evidence to support a finding that Proposition 8 advances a legitimate governmental interest?

Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination? See Doc #605 at 11 ("But sincerely held moral or religious views that require acceptance and love of gay people, while disapproving certain aspects of their conduct, are not tantamount to discrimination."). What evidence in the record shows that a belief based in morality cannot also be discriminatory? If that moral point of view is not held and is disputed by a small but significant minority of the community, should not an effort to enact that moral point of view into a state constitution be deemed a violation of equal protection?

What does it mean to have a "choice" in one's sexual orientation? See e g Tr 2032:17-22; PX 928 at 37

Very interesting questions, eh? I believe the Williams Institute could provide data which answers the first question. The answer to #2 should be very, very important. If the judge wants to know the answer to #3, he should watch 8: The Mormon Proposition, the documentary on the LDS church's involvement in the Proposition 8 electoral battle. I believe it's irrelevant whether some people claim to have a choice in their sexual orientation. Most people clearly do NOT choose their sexual orientation, and obviously constitutional rights do not go away because the issue in question is a choice, since most people's religion is a choice.

A full list of the Judge's questions can be seen here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32724803/Doc-677

SCOTUS Hears Doe v. Reed Argument Today

Today is the final oral argument of the 2009-10 Supreme Court term, and the last one of John Paul Stevens long career. The case in question is Doe v. Reed, which involves whether petition signers of Washington state's Referendum 71 can have their identities shielded, in violation of that state's robust open records law. Referendum 71 asked voters whether they approved of Washington state's comprehensive domestic partnership law, commonly known as the "everything but marriage" law.

SCOTUSblog covers the issues in today's oral arguments:

The Court, perhaps, has tipped its hand in the case, not only by its order in October, temporarily protecting the Washington signers’ privacy, but also by its 5-4 ruling in January in the Proposition 8 TV trial coverage ruling. But both of those actions tend largely to exhibit sympathy for the argument that opponents of gay marriage do face threats and other forms of harassment or outright violence. That sentiment, perhaps, cannot be translated directly into a conclusion that signing a petition is a form of protected political speech.

The Court has never before analyzed, as it must in this case, just exactly what occurs – in a constitutional sense – when a citizen writes a signature, and enters personal information, on a political petition. The Referendum 71 case presents that issue very directly, with the signers making a vigorous argument that it is a purely expressive form of political speech, while those favoring public disclosure of petitions make an equally vigorous argument that the role of citizen as legislative sponsor is no different from that of an elected lawmaker. To side with the former and against the latter, the Court would have to make a sizeable constitutional leap from past rulings on electoral anonymity. Perhaps some of the Justices voted to grant review of the case precisely anticipating that they might well do just that. The briefing, though, has sharpened the issue, far more than did the content submitted to the Court prior to the October order and that presented before review was granted.

For a Court that has recently shown, especially in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in January, that it reads the First Amendment expansively in the context of election campaigns, there may be little hesitancy now in deciding the Referendum 71 case by lengthening that trend, to elevate the constitutional significance of signing a political petition. Much may be revealed on this score at oral argument.

Whether the Court will see this case as a test of the Constitution’s role in mediating the heavy political controversy, being waged across the country, over gay rights, is unclear at this point. That controversy, to be sure, has a bearing on the intimidation issue that is so central to the Referendum 71 signers’ case.

However, just as central to the other side’s argument is a plea for open government, coupled with a plea for state control of their own initiative and referendum processes. Choosing between those two conflicting approaches to the case may be difficult, indeed.

More than 24 states allow citizen-initiated ballot measures, so a ruling in Doe v. Reed could have a wide impact, especially in California where another Proposition 8-like battle over marriage equality will happen in the future, probably sooner rather than later.

UPDATE: 04/28/2010 11:51AM PDT
It should be noted that LGBT groups have filed a very strong amicus brief in support of the respondents (Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed) and today issued a press release where they basically mock the arguments of the homophobes who want the right to legislate their position from the ballot box while wearing a shroud of First Amendment non-disclosure.

From the release:

Some of the instances of supposed "intimidation" cited by opponents and noted in the amicus brief include:

- A country club member in California, a supporter of Proposition 8, noted that "the openly gay members of the country club have changed their attitudes toward me. They used to greet me warmly; now, they give me looks of disdain and do not greet me as I pass."

- A person with a yard sign supporting Proposition 8 was disturbed on Halloween that some people "pointed and whispered to one another in disapproval" during trick-or-treating.

- A woman was upset that her brother, who is gay, would no longer speak to her after she told him she might vote for Proposition 8.

As the amicus brief says, these complaints "are not only trivial, they reflect a fundamental refusal to accept the legitimacy of speech that disagrees with the complainants' viewpoints, deeming it 'hateful' or 'harassing' simply because they do not like hearing it."

"There's nothing to see here, folks," said Jon Davidson, Legal Director of Lambda Legal. "There's no comparison between a few scattered instances of whispers and disapproving glares and the very real discrimination, harassment and even violence LGBT people experience every day all over the country. After all, more hate crimes are reported against gay people than any other group per capita in the United States."

"The Petitioners are attempting to create a through-the-looking-glass world in which the aggressors are the victims and the victims the aggressors," said Gary Buseck, Legal Director of GLAD.

"This is an outrageous attempt by anti-gay groups to use false claims of persecution to undermine laws that protect the integrity of the democratic process," said Shannon Price Minter, NCLR Legal Director.

We'll see what the Supremes say about that. As always, they have the last word.

SCOTUS Oral Argument in Doe v. Reed: April 28

The Supreme Court has set the oral argument date of April 28th in the closely watched case of Doe v. Reed, which is the case in which proponents of the anti-gay ballot measure Referendum 71 (which, if rejected by voters would have prevented Washington's comprehensive domestic partnership statute from going into effect) won an emergency injunction from the US Supreme Court prior to the November 2009 election barring the release of the information of those who had signed to get the question on the ballot. Referendum 71 was approved so that the anti-gay side lost their bid to use the ballot box to write their homophobic views into state law, but the question of whether Washington State's public disclosure law trumps the right of heterosexual supremacists who sign petitions to eliminate the rights of others is still a matter of judicial dispute.

Specifically, the questions to be considered on April 28th will be:

1. Whether the First Amendment right to privacy in political speech, association, and belief requires strict scrutiny when a state compels public release of identifying information about petition signers.

2. Whether compelled public disclosure of identifying information about petition signers is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, and whether Petitioners met all the elements required for a preliminary injunction.

I believe that both the answers to these questions could be Yes (though, actually there are two questions in Question #2, the second of which is moot at this point) and Petitioners should lose their case. Respondent (the State of Washington being represented by Secretary of State Sam Reed) should rely heavily on the excellent 9th Circuit Court appellate opinion in this case.

Even conservative UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh believes that "you don't have a constitutional right to essentially engage in a legally significant action anonymously" and election law expert Rick Hasen is similarly dubious about petitioner's chances of prevailing. This is on appeal from the 9tyh Circuit, the Circuit the conservative majority loves to slap down.

Also, even though the issues are different from the Proposition 8 injunction case, it is clear which side if the "pro-gay" side (Respondent) and which is the "anti-gay" side (Petitioner) so it should be very interesting to see the final ruling in this case by the end of June.

DC Superior Court Rejects Referendum On Marriage

Hater heterosexual supremacist lose another one! Last Thursday, a D.C. Superior Court judge ruled that opponents of same-sex marriage do not have the right to force a popular vote which could repeal the fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples in the nation's capital.

The Washington Post summarizes:

The decision, a major victory for gay rights activists, makes it more likely that the District will begin allowing same-sex couples to marry in March.

In the 23-page ruling, Judge Judith N. Macaluso affirmed a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision that city law disallows the ballot proposal because it would promote discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Macaluso also concluded that previous court decisions outlawing same-sex marriage in the District are no longer valid.

[..]

The election board has twice ruled that a referendum on same-sex marriage would violate a city election law prohibiting such a vote on a matter covered by the Human Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination against gays and other minority groups.

MadProfessah has been closely following the status of the fight for marriage equality in the District of Columbia, which would become the first majority-Black jurisdiction in the United States to allow same-sex couples to marry, as well as the first state in the Southern United States to do so. Thus the vote to enact marriage equality by the DC Council made by list of the Top 10 Most Significant LGBT Events of 2009.

LawDork has uploaded the full text of the judicial decision here.

Hat/tip to Rod 2.0.

David Savage Thinks SCOTUS Will Uphold Prop 8

Today's Los Angeles Times contains analysis of the Supreme Court's intervention in the federal Proposition 8 trial which concludes that things do not look good for advocates of marriage equality at the nation's highest court. David Savage is the Los Angeles Times Supreme Court reporter and his piece today has these important paragraphs:

Legal experts on the left and right gleaned three insights from the high court intervention:

First, the justices are following this case closely. They typically rule on appeals after cases are decided. It is rare for them to intervene in a pending trial.

Second, the court's conservatives do not trust Walker to set fair rules for proceedings. Their opinion described how he had given shifting explanations of his plans. This suggests Walker's ruling on Proposition 8 may be viewed with some skepticism.

And third, the majority has a distinct sympathy for the foes of same-sex marriage. The justices cited a series of newspaper stories reporting on the threats and harassment faced by those who have publicly opposed gay unions.

"The ideological split was stunning," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a liberal law professor and dean of the UC Irvine Law School. "It made me think of Bush vs. Gore" -- when, after the 2000 presidential election, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 emergency order to halt the recount of Florida's paper ballots and three days later ended the recount.

Last week's intervention in the San Francisco case "suggests the majority has a very strong sympathy for Prop. 8's supporters," USC law professor David Cruz added.

M. Edward Whelan, a conservative former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, called the high court decision "a stinging rebuke" of Walker that "strongly signals that at least five justices have serious questions about his impartiality and judgment in this matter."

Chemerinsky, Cruz and Whelan all cautioned against predicting the outcome in the high court, but said the justices' ruling was an early sign that the advocates of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage may face an uphill fight.

I think there's almost no chance of the Supreme Court upholding a ruling from the 9th Circuit which goes as far as California's 2008 landmark gay marriage decision In Re Marriage Cases but I do think it is possible there could be 5 votes on the court to rule that it violates the federal constitution when a minority is granted rights through a judicial proceeding and then the majority electorate votes to take those rights away. That should be a legal principle that Justice Anthony Kennedy should be able to agree with, even if it would only apply to striking down Proposition 8 and legalizing marriage in California, and not the 45 states where it is currently not legal already.

SCOTUS To Hear WA's Referendum 71 Case Doe v Reed

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the now high-profile case of Doe v. Reed on Friday, just like I had hoped for in late October.

This was the second time this week the nation's highest court has intervened in the controversy over whether heterosexual supremacists will be able to shield themselves from public oversight while advocating for public policy changes which would harm the LGBT community. The first action was in their ruling upholding a stay preventing the broadcast of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger federal trial.

The second action is summarized by the Washington Post:

The court agreed to decide whether it was unconstitutional for the state of Washington to make public the names of 138,500 voters who signed a petition for a referendum on whether to overturn a state "everything-but-marriage" law. The statute expanded rights for those who entered into domestic partnerships, both homosexual and heterosexual.

The group that championed the referendum said rival organizations planned to make the petitioners' names available on the Internet and subject them to "threats, harassment and reprisals." Those groups denied such intentions, and the state said its public-records law required disclosure of the names as part of the transparency that comes with democratic participation.

Protect Marriage Washington was successful in getting the issue to referendum last fall, but not at the ballot box. Washington voters endorsed the law by a margin of 53 percent to 47 percent.

But the petition-signers' names have not been disclosed. The Supreme Court blocked the release in October while considering whether the case presented a significant question about political speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said Washington's public-records law did not violate constitutional protections.

It should be interesting to see if the Supreme Court will really decide to strike down Washington State's public disclosure law because of an alleged right of people to participate in enacting (and abolishing) laws through the electoral process anonymously.
This claim makes a mockery of the notion that democracy occurs in an open exchange of ideas and I hope the Supreme Court realizes that and rules for the defendant-appellants, the State of Washington, and upholds the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

(It should be noted tat the Supreme Court under Chief Justices Roberts and Rehnquist has taken great delight in overturning the 9th Circuit on multiple occasions.)

UPDATED 11:59 01/17/2010:

The specific questions the Supreme Court has asked both sides to consider are:

1. Whether the First Amendment right to privacy in political speech, association, and belief requires strict scrutiny when a state compels public release of identifying information about petition signers.

2. Whether compelled public disclosure of identifying information about petition signers is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, and whether Petitioners met all the elements required for a preliminary injunction.

I would say the answer to both questions is "Yes." Let's hope the SCOTUS agrees.

Top 10 Most Significant LGBT Events of the Decade

Following up on my recent post detailing the most significant LGBT-related events of 2009, I have decided to try and compile a list for the entire decade of the "aughts," from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009.

By most significant, I mean the events that either had the most impact on the lives of the most number of LGBT people or that are likely to be remembered as the most significant by historians in the future.

Here we go:

10. The Vermont legislature enacts nation's first civil unions law, signed by Governor Howard Dean, in response to the Vermont Supreme Court's Baker v. Vermont ruling, 2000.

In late December 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court issued its unanimous ruling in Baker v. Vermont, deciding that there was discrimination in the differing ways that the state's laws treated same-sex couples relative to opposite-sex couples, and although it also ruled that under Vermont law the legislature had intended to have marriage be a union between a man and a woman only (and could legally do so), the Court compelled the State to come up with a statutory remedy to address the disparate treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The Vermont Civil Unions bill, modeled after European civil partnership legislation, attempted to provide "civilly united" same-sex couples all the rights and responsibilities that married couples had under Vermont law. It was signed by Governor Howard Dean on April 26, 2000 and went into effect on July 1, 2000. (Me and my other half got a civil union on August 8, 2000 in Burlington, VT.) Thus Vermont became the first state to attempt to end state-sanction discrimination in relationship recognition in the United States, leading to full marriage equality on September 1, 2009.

9. California legislature passes Assemblymember Jackie Goldberg's AB 205, the first comprehensive domestic partner statute granting almost all the rights and responsibilities of marriage in state law (signed by Governor Gray Davis, went into effect January 1, 2005), 2003.

In summer of 2003, California became the second state (after Vermont) to enact legislation that tried to provide same-sex couples with as much of the rights and responsibilities of marriage while still reserving the word marriage to the exclusive domain of heterosexuals. In April 2000, California voters had passed Proposition 22 by 61%-39% which re-affirmed that state law banned recognition of same-sex marriages. Unlike in Vermont, the California legislature was not reacting in response to a state Supreme Court ruling. Instead, the state legislature was specifically expanding a bundle of rights to an existing statutory entity, the registered domestic partnership, instead of creating something new from whole cloth, like the Vermont civil union. California's comprehensive domestic partnership law would become the model that other (mostly Western) states would follow later in the decade: Oregon, Washington and Nevada. At the time there was much heated debate in the LGBT community about "settling" for domestic partnership in the midst of a pitched battle for equal marriage rights that would be repeated time and again with echoes present even today. Domestic partnerships and civil unions (commonly lumped together as "everything but the word marriage" laws) became overwhelmingly popular with the general public so that even during the backlash against marriage in the middle of the decade voters repeatedly defended such measures in elections (Arizona, 2006 and Washington, 2009).

8. Democrats retake congressional majorities in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, 2006.

After losing control of both Houses of Congress in 1994, fueled by the energy and organizational skills of the progressive blogosphere and under the leadership of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Rahm Emmanuel and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee head Charles Shumer the Democrats were able to shock political observers by wresting back control of the entire legislative branch of the federal government in 2006 despite losing two consecutive national Presidential elections. The return of the Democrats to the helm of the federal legislature meant that draconian measures like the Federal Marriage Amendment that would have banned legalization of marriages for same-sex couples in all the 50 states would now be unable to advance. However, with Republicans in control of the executive and judicial branches of government, there was very little positive change the Democrats would be able to enact until a change was made in the occupancy of the White House. The 2006 election were an augur of progressive change to come in the country.

7. Voters pass ballot measures amending 11 state constitutions to ban recognition and validation of same sex marriages while re-electing President Bush, 2004.

In 2004, George W. Bush chief political strategist Karl Rove together with the (closeted) head of the Republican National Committee Ken Mehlman instigated the most coordinated attack on the LGBT community in history in an attempt to boost conservative evangelical turnout for Republican candidates (especially the top of the ticket) nationwide. Their evil strategy worked, although if a mere 60,000 voters in Ohio had voted for Senator John Kerry instead of the incumbent, there would have been another historical discrepancy between the winner of the presidential popular vote and the electoral college vote. The eleven states that voted to amend their state constitution to ban marriage for same-sex couples were: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. In all the states but Oregon the measures were supported by more than 60% of voters and resulted in harsh anti-gay language being constantly repeated during state and local electoral campaigns. 2004 was the political nadir for progressive election results in the decade, with LGBT issues caught in the downturn.

6. U.S. House of Representatives passes Employment Non-Discrimination Act prohibiting discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation nationwide after gender identity protections are dropped, 2007.

Federal gay civil rights legislation was introduced for the first time in May 1974 by New York City-based U.S. Representatives Bella Abzug and Ed Koch as a bill that would add "sexual orientation" to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, it was not until November 7, 2007 (a full generation later) that a version of a federal gay civil rights bill passed a single chamber of Congress. Unfortunately, the version passed in the U.S. House by a vote of 235-184 was not only watered-down to an extent that it only covered discrimination in employment (and not public accommodations and housing like the corresponding landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s) but it also was stripped of the gender identity protections. The passage of the trans-exclusive version of ENDA in the U.S. House of Representatives was significant for the historical precedent it set as well as the internal community it sparked over transgender issues in the LGBT civil rights movement. Even among openly gay Congressmembers Tammy Baldwin and Barney Frank there was disagreement about whether it was better to pass ENDA with sexual orientation and gender identity protections or not. Frank was in favor, Baldwin opposed. For practical purposes, the issue of which measure should be law became moot because the measure died in the United States Senate after President Bush issued a veto threat. However, the passage of ENDA by the House augured well for the passage of other LGBT civil rights legislation in the future.

5. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules marriage for same-sex couples is a fundamental right that can not be constitutionally denied, 2003.

In November 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health became the first high court in the United States to rule that opposite-sex only marriage laws were unconstitutional and that the remedy required was to allow same-sex couples full marriage equality. The Court deemed that the state did not even have a rational basis for denying such an important fundamental right to a class of its citizens on both equal protection and due process grounds. On May 17, 2004, the 50th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Goodridge decision went into effect and the first legal marriages between same-sex couples occurred on U.S. soil. Although the marriage of the lead plaintiffs Julie and Hilary Goodridge did not survive the decade, Massachusetts marriage equality did, and the 4-3 Goodridge decision was the harbinger of positive marriage equality decisions in California (In Re Marriage Cases, 2008; 4-3) Connecticut (Kerrigan v. Department of Public Health, 2008; 4-3) and Iowa (Varnum v. Brien, 2009; 7-0). Through intensive political organizing, the LGBT community and its allies were able to prevent the state legislature from allowing a constitutional amendment from going to the voters and by the end of the decade Massachusetts marriages were considered safe and the state was suing the federal government for discriminating against its legally married same-sex couples in the disbursal of federal recognition and benefits.

4. United States Supreme Court overturns the homophobic Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) precedent, ruling that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, in Lawrence v. Texas, strengthening privacy rights for all Americans, 2003.

For nearly two decades the Bowers v. Hardwick ruling of the United State Supreme Court was used as a legal club to eliminate any claims for civil rights for gay men and lesbians in a number of different contexts. In a 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice Byron White, the court contemptuously dismissed the notion of "a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy" and affirmed the state of Georgia's law criminalizing oral or anal sex between consenting adults--even in the privacy of their own house. The indisputable fact that the highest court in the country had decided that the act which defines homosexuals makes them criminals was used over and over again to refute the concept of equal rights for gay men and lesbians. This all changed on June 26, 2003 when Justice Anthony Kennedy read part of the majority decision in Lawrence v. Texas before assembled court reporters and teary-eyed LGBT legal advocates which declared that the Court's previous sodomy decision in 1986 "was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled." The Court's action struck down sodomy laws in 13 states including four states (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri) that had restricted their laws to homosexuals only. The court ruled that the sodomy laws violated due process and equal protection laws. By decriminalizing homosexuality nationwide, the decision in Lawrence dramatically reduced stigma against gay men and lesbians and was a significant legal and cultural advance in the movement for full LGBT equality.

3. Proposition 8 is passed by California voters, stripping the recently-granted right to marry after an $83 million electoral campaign filled with lies and deception, 2008.

In May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling In Re Marriage Cases which not only ruled that California's marriage laws discriminated against same-sex couples but also declared that sexual orientation was a suspect classification deserving of strict judicial scrutiny on par with race and sex and ordering civil marriage licenses to be issued to gay and lesbian couples in 30 days, on June 15th. 173 days after that, on November 5, 2008, California voters passed a ballot measure 52.3% to 47.7% to amend their constitution to strip away the recently granted right and banned gay marriage. The electoral battle to pass Proposition 8 became the most expensive ballot measure over a social issue in the nation's history with an estimated $83 million ($40 million by Yes on 8, $43 million by No on 8). Many LGBT activists felt that the No on 8 campaign squandered what public polls said were double-digit leads through an overly safe television campaign which did not feature images of gay or lesbian people. However, internal polls never showed the campaign ahead and no public poll ever showed majority support for the concept of marriage equality in the state. The battle over Proposition 8 was a political coming of age for an entire generation of LGBT activists. After Proposition 8 passed an incredible outpouring of rage and disappointment resulted in demonstrations (primarily organized online) in dozens of cities around the country which were estimated to have been attended by over 1 million people. In California, several brand-new grassroots organizations were formed and statewide gatherings of LGBT activists were held in Los Angeles, Fresno and San Bernardino to organize, inform and strengthen the community activists who attended. The lessons of Proposition 8's passage (that majorities would vote to strip away the right to marry from their fellow citizens even in a presumably progressive state like California) were repeated in 2009 when Question 1 in Maine was passed by an even larger margin. Currently Proposition 8's constitutionality is being challenged under Federal law by the legal dream team of super-litigators David Boies and Ted Olson after the California Supreme Court refused to strike down the measure under the state constitution with a full trial on the merits set for the beginning of the next decade, on January 11, 2010.

2. President Barack Obama signs the federal hate crimes bill, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr Hate Crimes Prevention Act, into law, 2009.

Despite the carping from some corners that the legislation only gives rights to LGBT people only after they are victimized or dead, the historic echoes of the President's signature on H.R. 1913 should not be under-estimated. The federal hate crimes bill became the first piece of federally enacted legislation to ever include the words "gender identity" and only the second to expand rights based on sexual orientation. Yes, the measure was attached to a "must-pass" piece of legislation, the Defense Reauthorization Act of 2009, instead of a stand-alone bill. But this did not make Republican opposition any less fierce or morally questionable. After the federal hate-crimes act was enacted it could never be said again that there were no protections in federal law for the LGBT community. The binding precedent of the legislative action meant that it would not be unthinkable to pass other LGBT civil rights laws in the future.

1. George W. Bush is (s)elected president after U.S. Supreme Court intervention in Florida recount results in defeat of Vice-President Al Gore, 2000.

The presidential election of 2000 was the most pivotal political moment of the decade as a 2-term Democratic president was going to be replaced by either his Vice President who would maintain and mainly continue Bill Clinton's relatively pro-gay policies or by Texas Governor George W. Bush, the "compassionate conservative" attempting to restore the Bush family name to the highest echelons of power in the country. That Al Gore would get more than half a million more votes than George W. Bush but the presidency of the United States would come down to a few hundred votes in Florida (a state where the candidate's brother was the Governor) was something a Hollywood screenwriter would have been discouraged from including in a political thriller as too far-fetched and simply unbelievable. But, thanks to intervention from the United States Supreme Court in the case of Bush v. Gore where David Boies and Ted Olson were on opposite sides, Bush was declared the winner. Instead of governing like he had just won the closest presidential election in U.S. history, Bush proceeded to dismantle as much of the Clinton legacy as he could as rapidly as possible. Thanks to Bush's election (and re-election) we now have two relatively young arch-conservative jurists on the United States Supreme Court (Chief Justice John Roberts, 54 and Samuel Alito, Jr., 59) along with hundreds of other conservative federal judges in lifetime appointments on District and Appellate Courts throughout the country. Additionally, Bush being president for most of the decade meant that federal progress on enacting LGBT civil rights was stymied at every level, with attention moving to state-based legislative, judicial and administrative action. The low point came in 2004 when President Bush endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have explicitly stripped the fundamental right to marry from same-sex couples, an unprecedented and maximalist attack on a particular minority group that would have incorporated discrimination in to the founding document of the country which has been only amended 27 times in 222 years. The main impact of having a Republican in the White House was the aid and comfort the Bush Administration gave to virulent homophobes and the political cover it provided for other Republican politicians to express and implement counterfactual and prejudiced views and policies towards LGBT citizens.

Courage Campaign Finally 'Comes Out' Against 2010 Prop 8 Repeal

Rumors that had been swirling for weeks about a schism between the only significant organizations that were supporting a 2010 repeal of Proposition 8 were confirmed by the Bay Area Reporter this weekend:

The chair of the statewide Courage Campaign told the Bay Area Reporter this week that he doesn’t see the governing structure and other necessary elements in place to win marriage equality.

[...]

As to whether his group’s stance on 2010 has changed, Jacobs said, “Courage Campaign has never changed our attitude or the basis on which we’re operating, which is that we have to have research that informs a path to victory, a governance structure that the progressive community and LGBT community respects, a campaign manager that is empowered to make decisions reporting to that structure, and funding, so we’ve been very, very consistent on that and remain so.”

Asked if he sees those elements in place at all, Jacobs said, “I don’t see them.”

[...]

Courage Campaign has been doing research on repealing Prop 8 for months.

Jacobs said that some summaries of the research will be available “I would think sometime in December.”

After the B.A.R story, Rick Jacobs posted a lengthy statement on Facebook clarifying Courage Campaign's position on a 2010 repeal of Proposition 8:

First, I hope everyone had a happy Thanksgiving. Second, I invite those interested here to read the blog post that the BAR put up. No where in it does it mesh with their controversy-grabbing headline: neither I nor Courage criticized the leadership of the 2010 effort. Read the story. What I do say is what we have been saying since late July. Nothing we have said has changed.

Second, I would be very interested in knowing more about the supposed meeting we had with EQCA. I will tell you that since June, Courage has sought such a meeting, has sought to improve relations in the community and we hope and expect to meet and talk soon. We look forward to working with everyone so that we stop duplicating efforts and better coordinate/share information.

Courage has a specific view of the means by which training and organizing should occur. That's why we have so many Equality Teams, all of which are led by volunteers who are, in turn, led by Deputy Field Organizers (all volunteers) with the professional leadership of a small, smart and highly motivated field staff (Hope, Arisha, Anthony and Caitlin) who in turn benefit from the leadership and experience of Sarah Callahan. ... See More

We are learning from our research and applying lessons at every turn. We try to integrate online and offline and we try as hard as we can to build on ideas and leadership of our members and volunteers. We have had some remarkable results from the ideas and work of many, many of those teams and others. The recent meeting Derrick and others held at Lucy Florence Coffee House about homophobia in the Black community is just one such example. No one person or organization can think of or do everything. We are all made more powerful by the manifold talents and ideas of others. Our job at Courage is to magnify those where we can.

Our model is to build a permanent volunteer infrastructure using the Obama Campaign as the jumping off point. We believe firmly that LGBT rights are part of the larger progressive movement. All of our work is informed by that.

In that context, it's important to look around. Last week, for the first time in years, we saw major demonstrations and non-violent civil disobedience on multiple UC campuses. Why? "Fees" (which is California French for tuition) increased 32% at UCs, resulting in a three-fold increase in ten years. Cal States are set to reject 50,000 or more eligible students because of budget cutbacks. Community colleges and Cal States are the traditional routes for advancement for those in our society least able financially to afford higher education. They are the backbone of California's once upwardly mobile workforce, the only mechanism by which we as a state can grow our way out of this economic mess. The once model California education system that took every Californian from kindergarten to post-doctoral work, is in shambles--unless you are white and rich (or in some cases just rich).

And in 2010, next month, the state's $70 billion general fund budget faces a $25 billion shortfall, plus a further debt to special funds which could effectively mean we have a $40 billion deficit. Forty billion out of $70 billion. And you thought 2009 was bad.
Think about it: our state cannot print money to get out of deficit (as can a sovereign nation) and the right wing has convinced the entire country that all government is bad. We have Meg Whitman, a billionaire who has not voted for "twenty or thirty years" saying that we have to lower taxes and spend more on higher ed. Maybe she can do that kind of voodoo math on E-Bay, but it does not work in government. If that's the ethos for 2010, we are in a whole heap of trouble. Well, we're in trouble anyway, but I and Courage are not about to sit around and wait for candidates to talk nonsense, get elected and just make things worse. We're done with that.

Now is the time for the LGBT community to stand up together and rebuild our state. Now is the time for us to stand together to lead. More about this in coming weeks and months, but clearly LGBT people, along with everyone else, are hurt when colleges are unaffordable or entrance closed, healthcare is decimated, unemployment (and underemployment) rise to over 20%. We're all in this together. As Derrick has pointed out so eloquently in what he and RENEWL do, we win equality by lending a hand, leading in a fight for all of us and showing that together we are all stronger.

As to the current effort to put an initiative on the ballot, while organizationally we will not participate for the reasons above, we do not now, nor have we ever, attempted in any way to interfere with the efforts of others to win equality as they see fit. I and Courage greatly respect that there are different paths to victory. As we have seen all too well, no one path is "correct." What we do know from Maine and our research to date is that we have a lot more to learn.

I look forward to working with everyone to win equality--economic and social--for our state and nation. And clearly it is going to take all of us.

Welcome to the Prepare to Prevail team, Mr. Jacobs!

Arnold Picks Rep. Senator To Replace Dem. Lt. Gov.

Photo Credit: Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times

It's all about Lieutenant Governors today! Since California Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi won the 10th Congressional District race on November 3rd and was sworn in a few days later, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has the opportunity to choose a replacement, which he announced yesterday will be Republican State Senator Abel Maldonado.

Yesterday, MadProfessah attended a forum where the two leading Democratic contenders for Lieutenant Govenor in the June 2010 primary, Los Angeles City Councilperson (15th District) Janice Hahn and State Senator Dean Florez appeared at the monthly Stonewall Democratic Club meeting.

Before they spoke, SDC President John Cleary asked both candidates their view about the Maldonado appointment. Florez said that as someone who will be voting on the matter in the State Legislature within 90 days, he opposed the nomination, primarily because he didn't see why they should allow a Republican governor to replace a Democratic state constitutional officeholder with a Republican. Janice Hahn gave a non-commital response, but both Hahn and Florez thought that either of them could defeat State Senator Jeff Denham, the only Republican who has announced he is running for Lieutenant Governor.

At Calitics, progressive activists received the Governor's creation of State Senate vacancy in a Republican held but Democratic leaning seat with glee:

I am one happy camper. This is perhaps the best news progressives AND Democrats have gotten in this state all year long. I live in SD-15, and Abel Maldonado is, sadly, my State Senator. He is a joke of a Senator, a "moderate" politician when it is convenient for him, a conservative one generally speaking. He only won re-election last year because he and Don Perata cut a terrible deal in 2007, where Perata promised to stop a Democratic primary challenge in exchange for his vote on that budget deal.

But more importantly, this seat - SD-15 - is one of the two seats we need to reach 2/3rds in the State Senate. And like SD-12, it is a majority Democratic seat. The current registration numbers are 41% Dem, 34.5% Rep, and 23% DTS. Arnold Schwarzenegger has just created a huge and invaluable opening for us to break the Zombie Death Cult grip on the State Senate.

Florez referenced the debate on Calitics during his remarks at the SDC forum. It would really be great to have a 2/3rds Democratic majority in the State Senate, but we would still be four seats shy in the 80 seat State Assembly from a 2/3rds Democratic majority in the lower house.

The correct solution is to change the insane 2/3rds requirement for passage of a budget and taxes by enacting the California Democracy Act: "All legislative actions on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote."

I signed a petition to have these fourteen words appear on the November 2010 ballot, and I hope you will too.

2010 Absolutists Select Repeal Prop 8 Language

The cadre of activists who are determined to force the people California to vote on restoring marriage equality ("whether they like it or not!") have selected which of the five approved ballot measures they will circulate in order to collect approximately one million signatures in 150 days. It's 09-0042, the fifth one.

Here is the full text:

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.

I will not be signing the petition, and I urge you not to sign it either! Although I am a strong supporter of marriage equality, this measure is very unlikely to be successful, and when it fails it will have a detrimental effect on more organized and well-thought out strategies to win back marriage equality in such a way that the win is permanent.