Kennard Conundrum?

Meaning of California Supreme Court Justice's Vote Not to Hear Prop 8 Challenges

The Los Angeles Times has reported here that "legal experts" are puzzled by California Supreme Court Associate Justice Joyce Kennard's statement when the court decided to hear the challenges to Prop 8. The court's order noted that Justice Kennard "would deny these petitions without prejudice to the filing in this court of an appropriate answer to determine Proposition 8's effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before Proposition 8's adoption."

The Times notes that Justice Kennard's "vote against hearing the legal challenges [might have been] procedural -- for example, she might have wanted them to be filed in lower courts first . . . ." But the paper then curiously claims that "a close reading of the court's one-page order suggests that gay-rights advocates may have lost a usually predictable ally in their effort to overturn Proposition 8." Perhaps Kennard has already decided she doesn't accept the interpretation of constitutional "revision" advanced by Prop 8's challengers.

To support this interpretation, which I shall call the pessimistic reading of Justice Kennard's statement, the Times reasons as follows:

The order said Kennard would hear a new case to resolve the validity of the 18,000 same-sex marriages "without prejudice" -- a phrase that indicates she was open to arguments on the issue. But she declined to modify her denial of the Proposition 8 challenges with those same words.

But this reading is flawed.

What Justice Kennard said was that she would deny these petitions challenging Prop 8 without prejudice to -- without harming -- the Prop 8 challengers' ability to file new suits about Prop 8's meaning in the California Supreme Court. A denial of the petition without qualifying language is non-precedential and would leave the parties free to file a new suit making precisely the same arguments in state trial court. (Legal beagles can find confirmation of this claim in the California Supreme Court's decision in Funeral Directors Association of Los Angeles & Southern California v. Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers of California, 22 Cal. 2d 104, 136 P.2d 785 (1943).) So, even if the Times is reading the scope of the "without prejudice" caveat correctly, it does not mean that Justice Kennard said she would have voted against the constitutional challenge to Proposition 8 on the merits. Rather, she just didn't vote now to hear the case in the state supreme court originally.

So, while we cannot know what was in Justice Kennard's mind unless she tells us, there is less to support the pessimistic reading than the Times suggested.

On the other hand, there is more to support an optimistic reading than the Times article includes. As I just explained, Justice Kennard's preferred vote to deny the petition for a writ of mandamus (the technical term for the lawsuit filed in the California Supreme Court by by those challenging Proposition 8) is not a vote on the merits of that argument. It would not count as an adverse decision against the challengers even if she had a majority to go along with her. The challengers would be free to re-start a legal challenge to Prop 8 by filing a complaint in the trial court. Whoever lost would certainly appeal, and whoever lost in the Court of Appeal would ask the state supreme court to hear a further appeal, which it would be free to do even having earlier denied the Prop 8 challengers' petitions.

And it is plausible to think that Justice Kennard had exactly that in mind, rather than a belief that the challengers' argument was wrong. In a 1999 decision in Senate of the State of California v. Jones (988 P.2d 1089, 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 810), a majority of the court considered a case arguing that a proposed Proposition 24 should be struck from the ballot for various constitutional reasons, including a claim that it violated the rule limiting initiatives to a single subject and a claim that it would amount to a "revision" of the state constitution , not a minor "amendment" of it, and so must start in the legislature. (That is the same sort of revision claim at the heart of the current challenges to Proposition 8.) The majority ruled that proposed Prop 24 violated the single-subject rule, and it never went before the voters.

Justice Kennard dissented (joined by Justice Janice Rogers Brown), but she did not reach the merits of the single-subject or revision arguments. She objected to what she called the majority's "hasty decision to declare invalid" that measure. She thought there would be plenty of time to decide the issue later if need be.

So, on the optimistic reading, Justice Kennard would deny the petitions challenging Prop 8 because she saw no need to "rush to decision" (to quote her Jones dissent again) about whether Prop 8 was an invalid revision or a valid amendment to the state constitution. The "without prejudice" qualification could have reflected a view that for the already married same-sex couples, there was an important reason for the California Supreme Court to decide whether they were affected without waiting for litigation to work its way up through the state court system – to remove any uncertainty about the validity of those marriages. (On this view, Kennard's statement could also be evidence that she's leaning toward holding that Prop 8 would, if valid, operate purely prospectively and not touch the existing marriages.)

Granted, Jones was a pre-election review case where the court set itself an even tighter schedule than it did when it decided to hear the challenges to Prop 8. But the reasons Kennard wanted the court to delay there could also be applicable here: "this challenge to Proposition [8] presents issues that are close and difficult, and because there has been inadequate time to give these issues the thoughtful attention and deliberation they deserve."

So, we really are left trying to read tea leaves, but the leaves don't tilt against the challenges to Proposition 8 the way the LA Times suggested.

Marriage & Equality Rights to Return to California Supreme Court

Court grants review in challenges to Prop 8

As widely expected, the California Supreme Court issued an order (here) indicating that it would decide whether Prop 8 is invalid as a revision of the state constitution. In addition, the court will determine whether it is invalid as a violation of separation of powers principles (an argument made in the petition filed by Gloria Allred) and whether or not Prop 8 has any effect on same-sex couples married before the election. Also no huge surprise, the court denied the requests for a preliminary stay of Prop 8. The court has set an expedited schedule for briefing, which will be completed in January.

Californians Enshrine Discrimination in Constitution

Prop 8 passage ensures questions

The Los Angeles Times has reported that Proposition 8, which eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry in California, is ahead, 52% to 48%. Almost 95% of California's voting precincts have been counted, and the counties with significant measures of votes outstanding voted heavily in favor of Prop 8.

This assures that a new round of legal questions will have to be confronted. Was the measure merely an amendment to the constitution, or was it a qualitatively deeper "revision,"? If it amounts to a revision, then the measure was procedurally irregular and void, for revisions must originate in the state legislature with a 2/3 vote of each house before going to the voters. Prop 8, in contrasts, got on the ballot via initiative (registered voters signing petitions).

What is the fate in California of existing marriages? Does Proposition 8 operate prospectively only, effectively "grandfathering" in the estimated 16,000 same-sex couples who married between mid-June and the passage of Prop 8 last night? Even if it bars, California from continuing to treat those couples as married, it probably (though this remains to be worked out) would not stop other states from recognizing the pre-Prop 8 marriages. States such as Massachusetts, which allows same-sex couples to marry civilly, or New York, which doesn't itself marry same-sex couples but recognizes their validly entered marriages from other jurisdictions, are likely free to continue recognizing these marriages. I have sometimes described the quasi-retroactive view of Prop 8 as akin to a forced divorce, but it is probably more like a legal blind spot on the part of California; these marriages were validly entered, the parties have not divorced, so even though California will no longer treat them as marriages, others states most likely will be able to.

Latest Field Poll Shows Prop 8 Trailing

A new Field poll released on Halloween shows likely voters opposing Proposition 8 by 5 percentage points. The poll, taken of 996 randomly selected likely voters surveyed from October 18 to 28 ,shows 49% opposing Prop 8 to 44% supporting it, with 7% reporting undecided. The poll notes that the gap between the two sides is down from a month earlier, when a higher proportion of survey respondents reported opposition to Prop 8. What it doesn't note is that even this narrow lead is a dramatic improvement for the supporters of marriage equality/opponents of Prop 8 compared to the Survey U.S.A. poll taken early this month, which showed Prop 8 actually leading by a large margin. It seems that the No on 8 campaign's tracking polls accurately reported that the ads produced to counter the deceptive ads of the Prop 8 supporters are working.

Senator Feinstein Condemns Proposition 8

"You have lighted the road leading home"

With one week left until election day, Senator Diane Feinstein has released a TV ad for the No on Prop 8 campaign. A YouTube version of the ad can be viewed here. Next week we will learn whether a majority of voters agree with her that Proposition 8 "would be a terrible mistake for California."

Oct. 22 Poll Shows Prop 8 Losing Among Likely Voters

"Don't Stop the Love"

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), a highly regarded polling outfit, just released a new poll on October 22 showing that likely voters oppose Proposition 8 by a margin of 52% to 44%. The PPIC poll is based on telephone interviews conducted October 12-19, and has a margin of error of ± 3%. These numbers, taken after the No on 8 campaign started running its ads, is a reversion to numbers closer to what were seen all summer long, before the Yes on 8 ads started running. The full study can be found here.

Connecticut Constitution Protects Same-Sex Couples' Right to Marry

"Ding dong! the bells are gonna chime"

The Connecticut Supreme Court held today that it violated the equal protection rights of gay and lesbian persons under the Connecticut constitution to deny them the freedom to marry civilly. The Court's opinion in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health rejected the state's argument that the marriage exclusion was constitutional because Connecticut offers same-sex couples "civil unions" with the same state-controlled legal incidents of marriage. At least when such an exclusion "singles out a group that has historically been the object of scorn, intolerance, ridicule or worse," even "symbolic or intangible" differential treatment is a constitutional harm Connecticut courts may address. And because marriage "is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance," whereas the new vintage status of civil unions (created by the Connecticut legislature during this lawsuit) most surely is not," the two legal regimes are not equal in a way insulating them from judicial review, the 4-3 majority ruled.

The Connecticut majority held that the marriage exclusion was a "quasi-suspect classification," which means that the state had to produce "an exceedingly persuasive justification" for its discrimination, not one that is barely rational. (This intermediate scrutiny standard is more deferential than the strict scrutiny used by the California Supreme Court in In Re Marriage Cases this past May.) The court rejected the state's claim that promoting uniformity and consistency with other states' and countries' marriage laws was a sufficiently important purpose to satisfy intermediate scrutiny. And it also rejected the argument that preserving the "traditional" definition of marriage as limited to relationships between one man and one woman could justify the statute.

And so the court ordered the case be sent back down to grant the plaintiffs a declaration that the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage violated the Connecticut constitution and an injunction requiring state officials to let them marry.

Now, the question remains whether California will remain with Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only states in the union to allow same-sex couples to marry, or whether the voters will approve Proposition 8 on November 4 and eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

Supreme Court Reaffirms Ban on Death Penalty for Child Rape

Military context matters less to constitutionality of state criminal laws

Today the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a petition for rehearing in Kennedy v. Louisiana (blogged here), its decision from June 2008 holding that the death penalty for raping a child is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Reserving the question whether unique considerations might allow the military to impose punishments that would be unconstitutional in the civilian context, the majority's Statement respecting the denial of rehearing reiterated the Court's emphasis on the non-military criminal rape laws of the states and the federal government as reflecting a consensus on the impermissibility of executing someone for a crime (such as raping a child) not resulting in death.

AALS to move meetings from Manchester Grand Hyatt due to owner's Prop 8 support

"I won't play with you not me"

The Executive Committee of the Association of American Law Schools has issued a statement here (dated August 15) that, in order to ensure maximum participation by its members, all programs at its January 2009 Annual Meeting will be held at the San Diego Marriott rather than the Manchester Grand Hyatt, of which some have called for a boycott due to owner Doug Manchester's extensive support of the effort to change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. The measure that would do this if passed, Prop 8, will appear on the California ballot in November.

Prop 8 Title & Description Upheld

"Eliminate the negative"?

As reported in the Mercury News here, a California Superior Court judge today rejected the challenge to the re-titling and re-description of Proposition 8 (see Prop 8 Retitled & Redescribed, 26 July 2008, below), the ballot initiative that would change the California constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. No big surprise here. The trial judge was clearly correct that the new descriptive language was neither false nor misleading. Unless the Prop 8 supporters who challenged the language appeal and win, an extremely unlikely prospect, the ballot should go to the printer Monday, August 11 with language that will transparently convey the real impact of Prop 8 were the voters to approve it.

Prop 8 Foes & Fans Raking in Big Bucks

"Money Makes the World Go 'Round"

The fight over whether to adopt Proposition 8 on the November ballot to amend the California constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry seems to be picking up steam financially. On Tuesday, July 29, No on 8-Equality California announced that Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is donating $250,000 to help fight the proposed amendment, reports the LA times. But the American Family Association has donated $500,000 to help support it. The Political Blotter blogs about the AFA's and other significant contributions here.

Prop 8 retitled & redescribed

"What's my name again?"

Although grammatically unusual – I would have expected most initiative titles to be noun phrases rather than verb phrases – there's a new name as well as a new summary description for Proposition 8, the proposed marriage-restricting amendment to the California constitution that will be on the ballot on November 4. Seemingly agreeing with some of the second argument in the writ that sought and failed to get the measure removed from the ballot, the state Attorney General announced this week that the measure will be listed as follows on the ballot (barring successful legal challenge):

Proposition 8
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.