Prognosticators Dissect Calif. Supremes’ Vote to Review Prop 8

Constitutional Law

Prognosticators Dissect Calif. Supremes’ Vote to Review Prop 8

Posted Nov 20, 2008, 06:15 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

A California Supreme Court vote yesterday to review an initiative banning gay marriage had observers dissecting the hidden meanings.

Fueling the speculation were votes by two justices who had joined the court’s 4-3 decision in May finding a constitutional right to gay marriage. Chief Justice Joyce Kennard was the only justice yesterday to vote against review of the voter-approved constitutional amendment that sought to overturn the decision, report the Los Angeles Times and the Daily Journal (sub. req.). And Justice Carlos Moreno was the only justice to vote in favor of staying the measure until the court could review the case.

The court also directed lawyers to present arguments on whether the referendum known as Proposition 8 violated the separation of powers under the state constitution.

Moreno’s vote was seen as an indication that he would vote to overturn the anti-gay marriage referendum, the Los Angeles Times story says. At issue is whether the ballot measure, approved by 52 percent of the voters last month, is a simple amendment to the state Constitution that can be approved by a voter majority or a far-reaching revision requiring either a two-thirds vote of the legislature or a constitutional convention.

Legal analysts were more puzzled by Kennard’s vote, the Times story says. Although she voted against reviewing the constitutionality of Proposition 8, she joined the other justices in voting to review the legality of gay marriages performed between the supreme court’s gay marriage decision and the approval of the referendum.

Andy Pugno, general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, told the Los Angeles Times that Kennard’s vote seemed to "seemed to indicate that she thought the lawsuits [challenging Proposition 8] had ... little merit." He was pleased the court agreed to allow his organization to present arguments.

“We see today as a grand slam,” he said. "Everything we asked for was granted."

There was also speculation that the court’s decision to grant expedited review was a hopeful sign for challengers, but others didn’t think the schedule indicated anything other than a desire for a quick resolution.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by CJT - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 17 hours, 23 minutes ago

Some things probably shouldn’t be left to voters.
Posted by KGG - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 16 hours, 47 minutes ago

So CJ, are you saying that you believe in Democracy as long as you win? Just asking.
Posted by Tara - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 15 hours ago

I’m all for democracy, as long as the voters are for the same.. Let me explain…I think that voters should be required to take a test on what they are voting on first. Its apparent most voters, across the states, are uneducated on what they are voting for, OR are there for another candidate and recklessly vote on each issue without research or forethought.
Posted by B. McLeod - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 10 hours, 35 minutes ago

This seems a bizarre “right” to try to read into a constitution. If you could go back and ask the drafters, I doubt a single one of them would claim to have intended this.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Constitutional Law