by Julia Rosen [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Vivian Kahn

Much of the recent press coverage on Proposition 98 has focused on the effect this proposed constitutional amendment would have on renters. Homeowners who ignore this ballot measure because they think it has nothing to do with them do so at their own peril because this devious initiative would amend the California Constitution in ways that could, in fact, have sweeping impacts on all Californians.

The proponents of Proposition 98 advertise the measure as an effort to control public agency use of eminent domain because they know that California voters would likely support a measure to protect homeowners from having government take their property to use it for private development. They also acknowledge that passage of Prop 98 would end rent control (although they dismiss concerns about immediate impacts on renters claiming that nothing happens until tenants vacate their units). In fact, the same section of Prop. 98 that could undermine renter protections such as “just cause eviction” regulations would also threaten a wide range of land use and environmental regulations and programs.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Frank D. Russo

As an attorney, my practice upon receiving a ruling from a court, in particular an appellate or reviewing court, has been to take the decision and read from the first page and not immediately go to the concluding paragraphs indicating how the court had ruled and who “won” the case. I have finished reading the court’s decision and the concurring and dissenting opinions and I’m glad I kept up my practice.

In a 4-3 ruling, the California Supreme Court ruled that, even though domestic partnership laws in our state give substantially the same rights and impose substantially the same responsibilities on those who choose to enter into same sex unions, that calling them by a different name—and not marriage—is discriminatory and violates the equal protection and privacy clauses of the California Constitution. My copy of the decision is full of yellow highlights.

When I got to the end of the Court’s decision, I came to the conclusion that, unlike the thousands of cases I have handled, no one really “lost” in this case. The Court explained in great detail how this decision takes away nothing from those, such as myself, who are married to a person of the opposite sex and who take pride in describing ourselves—and our son—as a family.

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

by Lucas O'Connor [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

You gotta be kidding me. <> <>Here's script of a new ad from Senator Jeff Denham entitled: "Just Plain Wrong":<> <>"When a public official is guilty of malfeasance or criminal conduct in office, the California Constitution provides for the right to recall. But no such accusations have been made against Senator Jeff Denham.  His only crime? Refusing to vote for a budget he said was billions out of balance -- and he was right. And that's why Senate Leader Don Perata's vindictive recall campaign against Senator Denham has been so widely condemned by throughout the district by elected Democrats and Republicans alike."<> <>Huh?<> <>Where was the hue and cry for the Davis recall? What was the "malfeasance or criminal conduct" then?

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]