Civil Rights

Sacramento -- Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today renewed his call for the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because it deprives people of the right to marry—an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution.

“The amendment process cannot be used by a bare majority to strip away the fundamental and inalienable rights of a protected minority without a compelling justification,” Attorney General Brown said. “Since there is no compelling justification, Proposition 8 must be stricken.”

Attorney General Brown today responded to the 63 “Friend of the Court” briefs that were filed last week with the California Supreme Court. Brown contends that the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights enshrined in article I, section 1 of the California Constitution without compelling justification. The court found in the In re Marriage Cases that no such compelling justification exists. Accordingly, Proposition 8 must be stricken.

Brown also takes on the arguments of supporters of Proposition 8 head on.

Brown argues that Proposition 8 supporters are wrong to suggest that the people’s right to amend the Constitution through the initiative process is unlimited and that the Court does not have the authority to invalidate Proposition 8. The Court, in fact, has exercised judicial review previously to invalidate a constitutional amendment that was deemed substantively improper.

He also argues Proposition 8 does not invalidate the same-sex marriages entered into between June 16 and November 4, 2008, as some Proposition 8 supporters contend. To invalidate those marriages, Brown argues, would violate the due process rights of those same-sex couples who entered into marriage based on the Court’s ruling in In re: Marriage Cases.

(Sacramento) -- Attorney General Jerry Brown was today awarded the “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Legacy Award” by the Legislative Black Caucus for his work in making Dr. King’s birthday an official day of remembrance in California.

“Today we recognize the unparalleled legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr, who continues to inspire hope and action in the struggle for equal rights,” Attorney General Brown said. “We must follow his lead and address the problems that we continue to face today.’

Also honored were former Senate President Pro Tempore David Roberti, who served as the leader of the Senate, Chancellor Harris, who as a Member of the Assembly authored the legislation, former Speaker Willie L. Brown, Jr., who was Speaker of the Assembly at the time, the California State Conference NAACP, which marshaled grass roots support for the bill, and Oakland Technical High School, which sponsored the bill.

The day began with a special breakfast reception, where honorees received commemorative plaques, and spoke briefly on the work they did. The state Assembly also held a special ceremony on the Assembly Floor, with honorees receiving resolutions of recognition.

The bill officially honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was Assembly Bill 312, which was signed by then-Governor Jerry Brown on September 3, 1981.

Sacramento – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today called upon the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because it deprives people of the right to marry—an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution.

“Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Attorney General Brown said.

In this case, Attorney General Brown concludes that existing case-law precedents of the Court do not invalidate Proposition 8 either as a revision or as a violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine. But this does not resolve the matter.

In the In re Marriages Cases, the Court held that article I, section 1 of the California Constitution provides a right to marry that cannot be denied to same-sex couples. Attorney General Brown argues that in order to invalidate such a fundamental right, the Court must determine that there is a compelling justification to do so. But in the In re Marriage Cases, the court found that no such compelling justification exists. Accordingly, Proposition 8 must be stricken.

Attorney General Brown believes that same-sex marriages entered into between June 16 and November 4, 2008 are valid and recognized in California regardless of whether Proposition 8 is upheld.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 17, 2008
Contact: Christine Gasparac (916) 324-5500

Attorney General Brown Urges California Supreme Court to Review Constitutionality of Proposition 8

SACRAMENTO—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today urged the California Supreme Court to accept review of the legal challenges to Proposition 8 and for this matter of widespread concern to be “promptly resolved.”

“The profound importance of the issues raised by Proposition 8 warrants that this matter be reviewed and promptly resolved by the California Supreme Court.” Attorney General Brown said.

In a set of briefs filed with the Court today, Attorney General Brown wrote that: “review by this Court is necessary to ensure uniformity of decision, finality and certainty for the citizens of California. The constitutionality of the change created by Proposition 8 impacts whether same-sex marriages may issue in California and whether same-sex marriages from other states will be recognized here. There is significant public interest in prompt resolution of the legality of Proposition 8. The Court can provide certainty and finality in this matter.”

Typically, matters are brought before lower courts before the Supreme Court hears the case. However, petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to accept the review directly to bring an early resolution to the matter.

Attorney General Brown opposes a stay on Proposition 8, arguing that it would increase uncertainty related to marriages performed in California. The Attorney General’s brief states that “the public interest would be best served not by issuing a temporary stay, but by an expedited resolution of the important issues raised by the petitions.”

Attorney General Brown continues to believe that same-sex marriages performed between June 17 and November 4, 2008 remain valid and will be upheld by the Court.

Attached are the briefs that were filed today with the Court.

SACRAMENTO--In response to today’s Sacramento Superior Court decision to deny a lawsuit challenging the title and summary and ballot label for Proposition 8, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued the following statement:

“This lawsuit was more about politics than the law. The court properly dismissed it.”

One of the many responsibilities of the attorney general is to prepare a title and summary for initiative measures. For more information visit: http://ag.ca.gov/initiatives/index.php

The court’s order, issued today, is attached.

SACRAMENTO - Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today released the details of a settlement that requires Kern and Santa Cruz counties to improve accessibility to polling places. Each settlement requires the counties to upgrade polling facilities, employ an architectural consultant, and provide additional training to employees who select and setup accessible polling sites on election days.

These settlements resolve complaints filed by the Attorney General’s Office in 2005, after the state discovered that polling sites surveyed in Kern County and Santa Cruz County had barriers that could make access to the polling site difficult, hazardous or impossible for voters with disabilities.

Such barriers include: polling sites that had excessively steep slopes or other obstacles in the path of travel to the polling site, abrupt level changes in the walkways leading to the polling sites, accessible parking spaces that were not wide enough to accommodate vans and access ramps leading to polling sites that lacked handrails.

The settlement, which remains in effect until March 31, 2011, ensures polling sites in Kern and Santa Cruz will comply with state and federal architectural accessibility standards. Under the settlement, the counties must:

• Hire an architectural accessibility consultant who will inspect polling sites to ensure they conform to federal and state law.
• Hire experts to further educate the elections personnel who select polling sites.
• Create a committee to involve community members in the selection and location of accessible polling places and to encourage businesses to offer facilities for use as polling sites.

Counties will remedy any violations by either selecting more accessible polling sites or purchasing temporary accessibility measures such as temporary ramps.

During the 2002 March and November statewide elections, the attorney general, in conjunction with several independent living centers, found the polling site accessibility violations. The attorney general attempted to resolve these architectural accessibility violations, but follow-up surveys during the 2004 March and November statewide elections exposed more violations.

During the 2004 elections, the attorney general’s office surveyed 83 of Kern’s 146 polling sites and found at least one accessibility violation in 94 percent of the sites surveyed. A similar survey in Santa Cruz County, found that the 72 percent of the sites contained at least one significant accessibility violation.

The state alleged that these barriers violated the federal American with Disabilities Act (ADA) that requires polling sites to be accessible for voters with disabilities. California law requires that local governments select polling sites that comply with state and federal laws requiring easy access for voters with disabilities.

The settlement agreements are attached.