[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Brian Leubitz
Founder and Publisher
Calitics

On June 20, Equality California, NCLR, and a whole host of groups filed suit in the Supreme Court of California against our Secretary of State, Debra Bowen. (Note that Debra Bowen is an amazing Secretary of State; she's getting sued in her Secretary of State capacity.) To grossly oversimplify, EQCA alleges that the signature gathering process was flawed for a few reasons:

• "The proposed initiative is invalid because it is a proposed constitutional revision, not a proposed constitutional amendment and, as such, the California Constitution provides that it may not be enacted by initiative"

• "The description of the proposed initiative in the petitions that were circulated for signature was materially misleading and materially misstated the effect of the proposed initiative to the electors signing the petitions to qualify the measure for the ballot.

Ultimately, this is a long shot. For a number of reasons, the Supreme Court is unlikely to pull the measure off the ballot in November. First the general process questions:

Why go to the Supreme Court directly?

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

On June 20, Equality California, NCLR, and a whole host of groups filed suit in the Supreme Court of California against our Secretary of State, Debra Bowen. (Note that Debra Bowen is an amazing SoS; she's getting sued in her SoS capacity.) To grossly oversimplify, EQCA alleges that the signature gathering process was flawed for a few reasons:

Ultimately, this is a long shot. For a number of reasons, the Supreme Court is unlikely to pull the measure off the ballot in November. Let's go over those over the flip.  

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Frank D. Russo

It appears from reports of the numbers of signatures collected that there will be a ballot initiative coincident with the presidential election in November to place in the Califonria Constitution a ban on same sex marriages and to overrule the California Supreme Court decision that has made front page nationwide news in the last week. If the numbers of comments—over 3100 as of last count—made to the Los Angeles Times article, “Californians narrowly reject gay marriage: Voters also back a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions, a new Times/KTLA survey shows” is any indication, this will be a much talked about issue. There already are pledges by those on both sides of the electoral fight that will take place on a ballot initiative to spend multiple millions of dollars on a major effort.

The Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll is the first of what will be many to come on how Californians think about this issue—and by the time the election rolls around, we will have been polled, spun, and motivated to vote one way or the other on this issue. The California Field Poll has two questions on this issue and will be releasing findings later this month.

[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 Lloyd Levine
Member
California State Assembly

It’s becoming predictable every election season. California’s anti-gay groups are attempting to put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. They presume Californians will agree with them and flock to the polls, erasing years of progress.

My hope is this November California voters will be galvanized and electrified by a sense of hope for the future, not limiting it. That’s why I am STRONGLY supporting the “Decline to Sign” campaign fighting to keep the same-sex marriage initiative off the ballot. Whether or not they succeed, California voters will be put on notice that this potential ban would write discrimination into the state’s Constitution.

It’s certainly not lost on most voters that the anti-gay marriage initiative is also a shameless tactic used by Republicans before to get voters to the polls. Recently, Arizona voters saw they were being played for fools by the Republicans and defeated a similar same-sex marriage ban.

The proposed constitutional amendment specifies that only marriage between a man and a woman be valid or recognized in California. The arguments by anti-gay groups are glaringly weak.

by Kevin Sharkey [courtesy of Blog for America]

STATE SENATOR TONY HILL TO TALK IN BREVARD ABOUT PROPERTY TAX AMENDMENT