Legal Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8, Should It Pass (11/5/2008)
(Updated 11/7/2008)
Legal Papers Claim Initiative Procedure Cannot Be Used To Undermine the
Constitution's Core Commitment To Equality For Everyone
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: media@aclu.org
SAN FRANCISCO – The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the
National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California
Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes.
The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative
process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core
commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just
one group – lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts
to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of
protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. According to the
California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of
state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative
process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature
first.
The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Proposition 8 was put on the ballot through the initiative process. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid.
"If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away
from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts
with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8
suffers from the same flaw – it removes a protected constitutional right – here,
the right to marry – not from all Californians, but just from one group of us,"
said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. "That's too big a change
in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of
voters."
"A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from
majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the
organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can
initiate such revisions to the constitution," added Elizabeth Gill, a staff
attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.
The groups filed the lawsuit today in the California Supreme Court on behalf
of Equality California and 6 same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday's
election but would like to be able to marry now.
The groups filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court before the
elections presenting similar arguments because they believed the initiative
should not have appeared on the ballot, but the court dismissed that petition
without addressing its merits. That earlier order is not precedent here.
"Historically, courts are reluctant to get involved in disputes if they can
avoid doing so," said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of NCLR. "It is not
uncommon for the court to wait to see what happens at the polls before
considering these legal arguments. However, now that Proposition 8 may pass, the
courts will have to weigh in and we believe they will agree that Proposition 8
should never have been on the ballot in the first place."
This would not be the first time the court has struck down an improper voter
initiative. In 1990, the court stuck down an initiative that would have
added a provision to the California Constitution stating that the "Constitution
shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal
defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States." That
measure was invalid because it improperly attempted to strip California's courts
of their role as independent interpreters of the state's constitution.
In a statement issued earlier today, the groups stated their conviction,
which is shared by the California Attorney General, that the state must continue
to honor the marriages of the 18,000 lesbian and gay couples who have already
married in California. A copy of the statement is available at: www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37701prs20081105.html.
A copy of the writ petition filed today is available at: www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37709lgl20081105.html.
In addition to the ACLU, Lambda Legal and NCLR, the legal team bringing the
writ also includes the Law Office of David C. Codell; Munger Tolles & Olson,
LLP; and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP.
|