web analytics

Proposition 8 Decision

 Judge Vaughn Walker’s opinion, striking down Proposition 8 is on Westlaw at 2010 WL 3025614. The docket can be found at 3:09CV02292.

Orin Kerr (on Volokh) posed an interesting question this morning:

Should it matter to the constitutionality of Prop 8 that it was passed as part of a ballot initiative that restored preexisting law? 

The initiative process is interesting stuff for those of us from states without this process.   A 2007  Columbia Law Review article notes that 24 states permit this kind of citizen law making.  See 107 Colum. L. Rev. 1437. Footnote 1 from this article provides some interesting sources describing why the Federal Constitution rejects “direct democracy.”  For more on California’s initiative process, see CAJUR INITIATIVE § 1 et. seq.

To find an initiative, try the ‘legis’ databases.  In California, your search might look like this:

  • Database: ca-legis-old
  • Query: ci(prop! & 8)

Results tell you where the document has been codified in the statutes.  And, note that the statutrory credits at CA CONST Art. 1, § 7.5  references the relevant initiative:

(Added by Initiative Measure (Prop. 8, § 2, approved Nov. 4, 2008, eff. Nov. 5, 2008))

An appeal is likely.  To set up a docket alert to track when the appeal and briefs have been filed, click on “Alert Center” in the upper-right corner of Westlaw, choose “create” to the right of  “Docket Alert,” and follow the wizard for “Receive an alert when new cases are filed.” 




href=”http://www.statcounter.com/wordpress.org/”
target=”_blank”>wordpress visitors


4 Responses to “Proposition 8 Decision”

Leave a Reply

DISCLAIMER
DISCLAIMERS: We’re lawyers but WE ARE NOT YOUR lawyers. Nothing in this blog should be considered legal advice (because it’s NOT legal advice). Nor, is any communication within this blog intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Moreover, we make NO WARRANTIES relating to the information on this site including, but not limited to any warranty as to the correctness, currency, or accuracy of the information. While we make every effort to provide valuable, relevant information, readers should never rely only on information within this blog to make important decisions that might require advice of an attorney. Finally, we’re proud to be Reference Attorneys BUT the opinions expressed on this blog are solely the opinions of the posting author(s) and are not the opinions of the blog editors, Thomson Reuters, its affiliates, or any other related organization.
Reference Attorney Research Guides