I'm really trying to understand this whole ballot initiatives thing they have in California.

[LynneSin]

I'm reading all this stuff about the recent decision from the California Supreme Court and as disappointing as it is and as much as it angers us, it may be that the court was ruling more on the concept of the ballot initiative than what the initiative was proposing. In a nutshell the court was spelling out how these Ballot Initiatives work and how they must 'uphold' the decision.

All of this breaks my heart because it's the ignorance of those who support Prop8 that have abused the Ballot Initiative system to get their way over the rest of the state of California. Honestly, I have never seen anything like this on my side of the country. Sure we have ballot initiatives, but they do seem to be few and far between. I understand that the people have some rights in making major choices for their state but the last one we had in Delaware was how to spend money for something like our sewer systems or something like that - it dealt with non-human issues. Nothing that would seriously impact a large sect of people like this Prop8 does.

What is pathetic is this all seems to be a giant waste of taxpayer money. Prop8 supports won this round but in 2 years pro-gay supporters will get their ballot initiative and (hopefully) win in 2010 but I'm guessing as soon as that happen the homophobes will be out there reversing it again. When does this fricking nightmare end.

Personally, I think the best ballot initiative you could put out there in California is that these initiatives should NOT involve any sort of discrimination of ANY law abiding citizen - END OF DISCUSSION. Because this has not been defined it seems that CASC had little choice but abide by the voice of the 'people' even if those people probably don't even come close to representing 50% of the California population (yes 50% voted for Prop 8 but not everyone votes and those under 18 have no voice in the matter). It seems these ballot initiatives were a good idea on paper but a nightmare in action.

It seems like they have a never-ending see-saw out there - what chance does Californians have to overhaul the ballot-initiatives to prevent these kinds of tragedies in the future?

[Eric J in MN]

1. California could require 60%+ instead of 50%+ for its amendments...

...if the goal were to make amendments more difficult to pass.

[1]

14. or california could not allow a ballot initiative to put amendments into the state constitution...

there is a reason that a 2/3rds majority in legislature was such a great thought...

[Eric J in MN]

16. Then the people won't be able to overrule the legislature or the courts...

...even when the legislature is wrong or the courts are wrong.

[sandnsea]

2. Oregon has ballot initiatives too

I like them, but we have made some changes. You can't pay people to gather signatures, iirc. We might have increased the number of signatures to get something on the ballot. We're a bit smaller so all we usually have to do is say "Sizemore" and everybody votes against it. He has really gotten some looloos through though, and caused well meaning people to create their own initiatives to try to offset his that ended up being nearly as bad. Many in the area of law enforcement.

The Supreme Court upheld all of the equal rights of gay couples, and specifically stated only the word marriage is to be reserved to opposite-sex couples. So that's something.

Page 7
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15825222/Prop-8-Decision-California-Supreme-Court

[anigbrowl]

3. Excellent, thoughtful post

You are quite right about what the court has done. Indeed, court members have stated in written opinions that they are personally in favor of gay marriage but their actual job is to interpret the constitution as it actually is even when it doesn't line up with their personal opinions.

For this and numerous economic reasons (also having to do with ballot initiatives and legislative rules) I'm more and more in favor of a constitutional convention. Our state constitution is, frankly, a mess. It takes a 2/3 legislative majority to approve budgets or raise any kind of tax, but only a 51% popular majority to amend the state constitution. As a result, our constitution has come to resemble a plate of legal spaghetti.

[LynneSin]

4. And that will not change unless they rehaul the whole process

It is very feasible that for every 2 years the fate of the GBLT community could be altared based on who gets the jumpstart on ballot initiatives. Is that fair for people to be forced to suffer in such a way?

[NV Whino]

5. Don't bother. No one understands it.

[LynneSin]

6. Hey - folks have every reason to be upset with this result no matter the reason behind it

I just did some really bad statistics and I found on Wiki that there were 13million people who voted and 7million supported Prop8. In a nutshell 19% of the total population of California (36million) had the right to change the constitution. Something is totally WHACKED with that.

Perhaps if they used the same percentages as it takes to pass the budget or raise taxes in California (60% of Congress), then there would be a bit of fairness to this whole madness.

But if someone is angry at those judges well I don't blame them. From what I read even some of those judges are angry at themselves and a bit heartbroken too.

[NV Whino]

7. Prop 8 was run in on a special election

19% turn out is the same turn out for our most recent special election, which cost us $28 million. The special elections must go. Not to mention prop 8 should never have been approved for a ballot measure in the first place. This is an incredible can of worms that will cost $$$$$ to undo.

[LynneSin]

8. Undo and Redo and Undo and Redo and....

I see it a neverending cycle. We could win this back in 2010 and they'll just keep coming after it.

At what point does someone step in and say this is clearly messed up!

[rvablue]

9. Prop. 8 was run in a special election?

I thought CA voters voted on Prop. 8 on Nov. 4th this past year?

[ContinentalOp]

10. Yeah, it wasn't a special election -nt-

[NV Whino]

12. Sorry, I must be thinking of some other idiot props.

[paulsby]

11. of course

california citizens have the ability via their initiative process to AMEND the constitution by a mere majority vote.

the primary issue for the SCOSOC was whether prop 8 was a revision or an amendment.

they decided it was the latter, and thus not unconstitutional.

[TheKentuckian]

13. How you get to a place where the constitution is easier to amend than to pass a budget

you have screwed the pooch. It takes a hell of an electorate to pull of direct democracy.

[Horse with no Name]

15. Isn't this the same process that got Ahnold in the Governor mansion

and Grey Davis ousted?
I totally agree--it is a bully pulpit and seems as if it should be unconstitutional and I agree with your synopsis of one year something being legal and the next year being illegal, etc.
Personally, I think it should be amended to outlaw ALL marriages. That way, those christofascistfucks can have their cake and stick it up their ass, too.

[Cleita]

21. I couldn't help notice the irony, that the process that stuck us with

Arnold, might be the process that leads to his downfall.

[KamaAina]

17. A century ago, initiatives were thought to be progressive and populist

they gave the people a countervailing force against state legislatures that, as often as not, were in the pocket of vested corporate interests.

But that was before mass media and ethics laws. Today, legislators are far les likely to be on the take (well, except for Ill. and La. :P ) -- and voters are far more easily manipulated by a big-money mass media blitz such as the one the Mormons and Catholics organized religion put on on behalf of Prop H8.

edit: header

[Bucky]

18. It's a democracy, rule by the people. This is what it means, for good or ill.

It would be fairly arbitary to say the popular will should count when it comes to ending the occupation in Iraq, but is flawed and senseless when it comes to the legal definition of marriage. In the long run, marriage equality will be the law of the land, but democracy is a slow painful process.

The abolition movement started when Ben Franklin endorsed the first manumission petition to Congress in the 1790s--yet the 13th Amendment didn't get passed until 1865. Full civil rights for African Americans weren't rigorously enforced for another hundred years after that. Compared to that, the arc toward equal marriage rights for gay Americans is proceeding rather speedily. We have to keep pressing, but the struggle goes well. People are being won over gradually, so it won't happen without set backs. That's how democracies work.

Ballot initiatives began as a progressive reform in the late 1800s, part of cleaning up corrupt governments. We don't win them all, but they do force both sides to take the argument to the sovereign people. This is how it should be cause it's the only way to ensure that progressive reforms last with the imprint of public approval. Trust the process, twenty years from now states that don't recognize marriage equality will be a geographically isolated minority.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

19. Thank you for getting it!

I was kind of upset yesterday, with everyone screaming "bigots!" when the court ruling really was about the ability of the people to amend the State's Constitution via the initiative process. As ugly as the outcome was, the court came to the correct legal conclusion. :(

Now, we know what must be done -- we need a new ballot initiative to legalize gay marriage -- because the legislature is not going to do it on their own. And we have to get it done before some Assemblyperson decides to put forth a new measure outlawing the changing of the Constituion via the initive process.

There's a whole lotta work that needs doing -- we need to get on it!

[Cleita]

20. So are most Californians. The ballot was so unintelligible that most

stayed home and didn't vote.