California Proposition 8 (2008)

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on marriage
2008
Arizona Marriage Act
Arkansas Adoption Ban
California Proposition 8
Florida Marriage Amendment
2006
Arizona Prop 107
Colorado Prop 43
Alabama Marriage Act
Idaho Amendment 2
South Carolina
South Dakota Amendment C
Tennessee Marriage Act
Virginia Marriage Act
Wisconsin Question One

Proposition 8 will appear on the November 2008 ballot in California. It is variously known as the Protect Marriage Act, the Same-Sex Marriage Ban or the Limit on Marriage Amendment. If it passes, it will add a new constitutional amendment to the California Constitution that will have the following text: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The ballot title for the measure says that Prop. 8 "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry".

The electoral contest over Prop. 8 has attracted both national attention and dollars. By mid-August, supporters of Prop. 8 had raised about $8.4 million, while its opponents had raised $8.5 million. Money is not expected to be short on either side as the campaigns gear up for the fall battle, with consultants saying they expect about $30 million to be spent altogether. The initiative has attracted national dollars from both sides, with opponents raising 44% of their money from out-of-state donors, with supporters raising 34% of theirs from out-of-state.[1],[2]

According to its supporters, the Protect Marriage Amendment strengthens the process started when Proposition 22 passed with 61% of the vote in 2000, because, they believe, it is less susceptible to a legal challenge[3],[4] This goal took on added weight when the California Supreme Court invalidated Prop 22 on May 15, 2008.[5]

Contents

Unsuccessful lawsuit over ballot title

On July 29, supporters of Proposition filed a lawsuit, Jansen v. Bowen, against California's AG, Jerry Brown. The lawsuit sought to have the Sacramento County Superior Court order a different ballot title for Prop. 8 than the title chosen by Brown. Prop. 8 supporters asked for an expedited hearing on their lawsuit, since ballot booklets go to the printers on August 11. On Friday, August 8, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley ruled against Prop. 8 supporters in a 8-page ruling that said the ballot title is an accurate representation of what Prop. 8 will do.[6],[7],[8]

Prop. 8 supporters argued in the lawsuit that the new title chosen by Brown is "inherently argumentative and highly likely to create prejudice". The two specific requests in the lawsuit were that the ballot title be changed to:

  • Use the wording, "Limit on Marriage," because that is the language used on the initiative petitions that were circulated and signed by 1.2 million registered voters.
  • Or, use the title, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

When the initiative wording for what eventually became Prop. 8 was filed many months ago, the title that Brown conferred on it at that time was consistent with what supporters of Prop. 8 are asking for. However, Brown changed the ballot title on July 3, 2008 to a short description and summary that Prop. 8 supporters, as well as a number of political pundits in California, believe is adverse to the pro-8 cause. The July 3 ballot title describes the measure as "Eliminates the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry". Voters in California, according to ballot pundit Thomas Elias, historically "rarely opt to take away rights" and the revised ballot title frames Prop. 8 as taking away a right.[9],[10]

The new ballot summary also says that the measure will cost local governments "tens of millions of dollars" of "potential revenue loss", mainly in lost sales taxes.

Brown criticized, defended for change

Brown was criticized for changing the ballot title. Tony Quinn, a political pundit and consultant generally for Republican causes, said, Brown "is delivering something . . . that is very important to the gay community, and that is a title and summary that is more likely to lead you to vote 'No,'"[11],[12],[13]

Brown defended the new ballot title, saying:

  • The petitions bearing the "Limit on Marriage" title were circulated before the California Supreme Court ruled in May that gay and lesbian couples have the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples in California.
  • Brown says that therefore, "What has happened is the Supreme Court found that the right to marriage includes same-sex couples. This happened after the original title was approved. ... Now same-sex couples have a right that's recognized and supporters of the proposition want to eliminate that right."
  • Brown said that supporters of Prop. 8 "can't say with a straight face that this isn't about eliminating the right to gay marriage, so what's their problem with this? This is a political lawsuit, not one about serious legal issues."

In its lawsuit, Protect Marriage, supporters of Prop. 8, say that research they conducted "found that never in the 50-year history of statewide ballot measures has the attorney general used an active verb like 'eliminates' in the title of a ballot measure."[14]

Lawsuit over pro-8 argument in ballot booklet

Opponents of Proposition 8 filed a lawsuit, Jenkins v. Bowen, in late July asking that a pro-8 argument set to appear in the official ballot booklet that will be printed on August 11 and made available both on state websites and at polling places be removed.[15]

The pro-8 arguments that anti-8 groups want removed from the booklet say:

  • "It [Prop 8] protects our children from being taught in public schools that 'same-sex marriage' is the same as traditional marriage".
  • "In health education classes, state law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage. (Education Code 51890). If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS WILL BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage." (Emphases and capitalization from original text.)[16]

Change ordered in wording

On August 8, 2008, in response to the lawsuit, Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley found that supporters of Prop. 8, in the ballot arguments they wrote for inclusion in the state's voter guide, did overstate the extent to which Prop. 8 would have an impact on what is taught in public schools, because public schools are not required to provide instruction on marriage and parents can withdraw their children.

Frawley's ruling requests that the ballot argument be re-worded to state that teachers "may" or "could" be required to tell children there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage, rather than "will be".[17]

Supporters of the amendment

Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, and Mark A. Jansson filed the wording for the initiative with the Secretary of State. The National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family are national organizations that support the initiative and are helping to fund it.[18]

The petition drive to qualify the measure for the ballot was conducted by Bader & Associates at a cost of $882,900.[19]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "Mormons") supports efforts to pass the measure.[20] The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the largest Orthodox umbrella group nationally, said in late August it would support the passage of Prop. 8.[21]

Donors who support Prop. 8

As of August 1, about 39% of the $3.3 million raised in support of Prop. 8 come from out-of-state donors. Some of the larget donors are:

  • Fieldstead & Company, $400,000.
  • William Bolthouse, $100,000.[23]
  • Doug Manchester, $125,000.[24]

The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group, announced in mid-August that they'd donate $1,000,000 to the "Yes on 8" campaign.[25]

Opposition to Proposition 8

Eight different organizations have formally filed as opposition groups with the California Secretary of State. [26],[27],[28],[29], [30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35]

Notable opposition groups include Let California Ring, Equality for All, Equality California, the Equality California Issues PAC, and the Human Rights Campaign.[36] Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger believes that the amendment is "a waste of time". In an April 11 appearance before the Log Cabin Republicans, Schwarzenegger said, "I think we need a constitutional amendment so that foreign-born citizens can run for president, but not about gay marriage."[37]

Donors who oppose Prop. 8

As of August 1, 2008, opponents to Proposition 8 have raised 52% of their $5.7 million from outside the state. Some of the larger donors are:

  • Brad Pitt, $100,000.[38]
  • David Bohnett, $600,000.
  • Human Rights Campaign, $2,057,981.
  • Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Service Center, $225,000.
  • Center Advocacy Project Issues PAC, $234,000.
  • David Maltz, $500,000 ($750K including his donation to HRC).
  • National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, about $215,200.
  • James Hormel, $150,000.
  • Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), $250,000.[40]
  • No on 8 - Equality California, $1,250,000
  • Tim Gill, (Gill Action Fund), $350,000.
  • GLAAD, $100,000.
  • Horizons Foundation, $100,000.[41],[42]

Role of Prop 8 in presidential race

Shortly after Prop. 8 qualified for the fall ballot, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain aligned themselves on opposite sides of the issue, with Obama opposing and McCain supporting it. A reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle described this as "a move that puts gay rights front and center in the 2008 presidential campaign".[43],[44]

Obama's statement on the matter said that he opposes "the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution", while McCain told the group that worked to put the measure on the ballot that he agrees with their idea of recognizing "marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman."

Does it matter?

A burst of punditry in late July speculated that getting Proposition 8 on the ballot was part of an organized effort on the part of conservatives to give presidential candidate John McCain a leg up in November voting. A ballot initiative on which people have pronounced, strong opinions can have an effect on other races on the ballot, it is said, because:

  • Some people who come to the polls to vote for a ballot initiative on which they have a strong opinion, and who otherwise would not have bothered to come out to vote, will stay and pull the lever in some other races.
  • Candidates can tap into public sentiment that coalesces around much-talked-of ballot propositions in order to support their own campaign themes and messages.
  • Supporters of a candidate who have maxed out on their legally-allowable campaign contribution limits to a candidate committee can donate much higher dollar amounts to ballot campaign committees, to the extent that they think this will help their favored candidate for one of the above two reasons, who would not otherwise particularly care about the ballot proposition itself.[45],[46],[47],[48]

Path to the ballot

694,354 valid signatures were required to qualify the measure for the ballot. The initiative's supporters announced on April 24 that they had collected and turned in for verification about 1.1 million signatures. In June, the California Secretary of State announced that the measure was qualified and would appear on the November ballot.[49]

Lawsuit filed to strike from ballot

On June 20, Equality California in a 55-page petition asked the California Supreme Court to strike the initiative from the November ballot. In the brief presented to the court, the reasons given for striking it are:

  • The measure would be a state constitutional revision, not an amendment, and would therefore require more elaborate procedures for passage.
  • The initiative petitions circulated to voters before the court ruling were misleading because they declared that the measure would make no change in the marriage laws and would have no fiscal impact.[50]
  • While a constitutional amendment can be enacted by a voter initiative alone, a proposed revision must be approved by two-thirds of each house of the Legislature before being submitted to state voters.
  • Attorneys who filed the lawsuit said the initiative is a revision because it would "alter the underlying principles on which the California Constitution is based."
  • Also, the measure would have the effect of "severely compromising the core constitutional principle of equal citizenship (and) depriving a vulnerable minority of fundamental rights";
  • And, "We filed this lawsuit because the sponsors of the initiative haven’t followed the very constitution they’re trying to change. For good reason, there’s a strict process for making revisions to our constitution and it’s more involved than simply collecting petition signatures"[51]

A pro-initiative attorney, Glen Lavy who works with the Alliance Defense Fund, who was quoted in the press about the lawsuit said, "Equality California and its allies are desperate to evade democracy."[52] Five proponents of Prop. 8 filed a brief with the court asking it to reject the attempt to remove the initiative from the ballot, saying that removal would be an "inexcusable incursion into the right of the people to amend their constitution."[53]

The California Supreme Court had three options with respect to the lawsuit:

  • Hold a hearing on the lawsuit
  • Act on the petition without holding a hearing
  • Send the case to a lower court.

Lawsuit fails

On July 16, the California Supreme Court announced that is was declining to consider the request for a hearing. The decision was unanimous. The court did not announce a reason for its decision.[54],[55]

Boycott of donors to Prop 8

A group called Californians Against Hate was started in July by Fred Karger to organize a boycott of three hotels (two in San Diego and one in Idaho) owned by Douglas Manchester, a sizeable donor to the pro-8 forces. Karger told the New York Times, "Our main beef is the exhaustive amount of money he contributed with glee to take away this brand-new right and to write discrimination into the California Constitution for the very first time."[56]

Supporters of Prop. 8 say that the boycott amounts to intimidation of political opponents. Douglas Manchester has said, "This really is a free-speech, First Amendment issue. While I respect everyone’s choice of partner, my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church leads me to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Planned actions in the boycott include:

  • Boycotting business owners across the country who supported Proposition 8.
  • Publicizing the names of business owners through letters and e-mail messages to customers.
  • Listing the names of pro-8 donors on a Facebook page.

Expansion of boycott

On July 30, boycott organizers expanded the scope of the boycott to include Terry Caster. Caster owns a self-storage company headquartered in San Diego that has 40 locations throughout California. Boycott organizers are asking opponents of Prop. 8 to "Call Terry Caster", asking him why he and his family members have contributed approximately $300,000 to the pro-8 campaign.

  • Karger of Californians Against Hate said of the campaign, "We are curious as to why Mr. Caster saw fit to contribute so much money to this campaign of fear and hate. To find out, we are asking our millions of friends and supporters all over the United States to help us by calling Terry Caster and asking him why he and his family are so strongly against marriage equality."
  • Karger added, "Mr. Caster and many of his eight sons and daughters and their spouses have given a combined total of $293,000 to the Protect Marriage campaign between January and July of 2008."[57]

Groups supporting boycott

  • San Diego County pension board.[58]


Will the boycott work?

Supporters of Prop. 8 say that the boycott has led to renewed donations to their campaign. "The stunt they pulled against Doug Manchester ended up raising $100,000 for the amendment in 24 hours."[59]

Tony Quinn, a California political consultant, says the boycott tactic may have staying power because it could have the effect of "getting business owners that are hesitant to avoid giving".[60]

Polling information

A poll released in mid-July 2008 by Field Poll showed that Proposition 8 is opposed by 51 percent of likely voters with 42 percent in favor.

Month of Poll In Favor Opposed Undecided
May 2008 40 percent 54 percent 6 percent
July 2008 42 percent 51 percent 7 percent
August 2008 40 percent 54 percent 6 percent[61]
Sept. 2008 38 percent 55 percent 7 percent[62],[63]

Mark DiCamillo, director of the nonpartisan Field Poll, said, "Starting out behind is usually an ominous sign for a proposition. Over 90 percent of propositions that start out behind get taken down."[64]

Frank Schubert, Prop 8's campaign manager, contested the relevance of the July Field Poll, saying that it understates support and is "an outlier" among published polls on the initiative. Schubert also said that in 2000, during the electoral battle for Proposition 22, "...the Field Poll reported that support for that initiative was approximately 50% in the months leading up to the election, while the measure received more than 61% of votes at the ballot box. In May when Field was reporting that support for the initiative was at 40%, the Los Angeles Times survey found support at 54%. Over the years Field has consistently understated support for the initiative by a minimum of 10 percent. The current findings continue to substantially understate the true support for the initiative."[65]

External links

References

  1. ↑ Boston Globe, Money pours into Calif. gay marriage campaigns, June 30, 2008
  2. ↑ Contributions to Yes on 8 pouring in
  3. ↑ Groups jousting over gay rights in California, SignOnSanDiego.com, Nov. 12, 2007
  4. ↑ Protect Marriage, Why do we now need to amend the state constitution?
  5. ↑ Text of decision invalidating Prop. 22
  6. ↑ Judge upholds summary of gay marriage ban
  7. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Prop. 8 backers sue to change ballot wording", July 30, 2008
  8. ↑ Judge puts off ruling on marriage measure, August 8, 2008
  9. ↑ Thomas Elias: A ballot of words describing Prop. 8, August 7, 2008
  10. ↑ July 3 ballot title for Proposition 8
  11. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Opponents of gay marriage say they'll sue over changed wording", July 29, 2008
  12. ↑ Jerry Brown's cynical ploy on gay rights, Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee, July 30, 2008
  13. ↑ Experts expound: Is Jerry Brown playing politics?
  14. ↑ Mercury News, "Gay marriage opponents decry new Prop. 8 language as 'inflammatory'", July 30, 2008
  15. ↑ Hearings Set In California's Proposition 8 Same Gender Marriage Battle
  16. ↑ Arguments in favor of Prop 8 proposed for official ballot book
  17. ↑ Judge refuses to order change in Prop. 8 title, August 9, 2008
  18. ↑ Protect Marriage, List of initiative supporters
  19. ↑ Campaign expenditure details
  20. ↑ LDS Church taking position on gay marriage
  21. ↑ The Jewish Daily Forward, "Orthodox Join Fight Against Gay Nuptials", August 28, 2008
  22. ↑ Donatons to NOM-California
  23. ↑ Record of $5,000 and over donors to California Proposition 8
  24. ↑ Hyatt Hotel Owner Donated $125,000 to Stop Gay Marriage
  25. ↑ Catholics united for California marriage vote, Knights give $1M
  26. ↑ Equality for All campaign information
  27. ↑ Equality California Marriage PAC
  28. ↑ [Equality California Marriage PAC]
  29. ↑ No on Prop 8, ACLU
  30. ↑ Human Rights Campaign, No on Prop 8
  31. ↑ Human Rights Campaign, No on Prop 8
  32. ↑ No on 8, National Center for Lesbian Rights
  33. ↑ Californians against discrimination
  34. ↑ GLBT alliance of Santa Cruz County
  35. ↑ Task Force California, Sponsored by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation/Action Fund
  36. ↑ Bay Area Report, Big bucks seen in amendment battle, May 1, 2008
  37. ↑ Christian Examiner, Signature drive meets goal as Gov. Schwarzenegger chides effort for marriage amendment, May 2008
  38. ↑ Brad Pitt donates $100,000 to fight gay marriage ban
  39. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Funding for California ballot initiatives flows in from out of state", August 1, 2008
  40. ↑ PG&E joins fight against Prop 8
  41. ↑ List of donors to Equality California Marriage PAC
  42. ↑ List of donors to Equality for All
  43. ↑ FOX News, Obama opposes California ballot measure seeking constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, July 1, 2008
  44. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, Obama opposes California same-sex marriage ban, which McCain supports, July 1, 2008
  45. ↑ GOP suffering from lack of (ballot) initiative, Los Angeles Times, July 29, 2008
  46. ↑ This year's ballot initiatives
  47. ↑ Social issues crowd state ballots
  48. ↑ To defeat Obama, conservatives take the initiative
  49. ↑ Protect Marriage, Marriage amendment heads to the ballot, April 24, 2008
  50. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, Gay marriage backers want ban issue off ballot, June 21, 2008
  51. ↑ Bay City News, Marriage Equality Group Asks California Supreme Court to remove November Same-Sex Marriage Ban Initiative
  52. ↑ Mercury News, Civil rights groups seek to block California gay marriage ballot initiative, June 20, 2008
  53. ↑ KTVU-TV, Proponents Urge Court To Leave Marriage Initiative On Nov. Ballot, July 1, 2008
  54. ↑ Associated Press, "Calif. court rejects gay-marriage-initiative case", July 16, 2008
  55. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Challenge tossed, gay marriage ban on ballot", July 17, 2008
  56. ↑ Californians Against Hate, website
  57. ↑ Gay and Lesbian Times, "San Diego A-1 Self Storage Company owner targeted for donating to Prop. 8", July 31, 2008
  58. ↑ San Diego Union Tribune, "Pension board won't hold conference at Manchester Grand Hyatt", August 21, 2008
  59. ↑ New York Times, "Donation to Same-Sex Marriage Foes Brings Boycott Calls", July 17, 2008
  60. ↑ San Diego Union Tribune, "Groups target Manchester with conservatives' tactic", July 28, 2008
  61. ↑ Poll: California voters oppose ban on gay marriage, August 28, 2008
  62. ↑ San Diego Tribune, "Opposition to Prop. 8 up to 55%, poll shows", September 18, 2008
  63. ↑ The September 2008 Field Poll on Proposition 8
  64. ↑ San Diego Union-Tribune, "Measure to prohibit gay unions is trailing", July 18, 2008
  65. ↑ Foxbusiness, "Field Poll Understates Support for Proposition 8", July 18, 2008

Additional reading

To connect to everything on Ballotpedia about California and its ballot—laws, history, statewide ballot measures, ballot access, and more, visit:

Retrieved from "http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29"