5 comments on “Prop 8 still California Law!

  1. Not so fast. That article applies to administrative agencies. It also on its face, and legislative history (see Witkin; etc.), applies to state courts and state administrative agencies. County clerks are not state administrative agencies, nor are cities or counties. You could argue that state admin agencies would be bound by Prop. 8. Except that the loose language of section 3.5 referring to appelate courts, in context , does not refer to federal courts at all. It means to distinguish between state Superior Courts, which do not issue rulings with statewide significance, and state district Courts of Appeal (and Supreme Court), which do. Federal District Court rulings are not limited in this way; they do not apply only to, say, the Northern District of California. Unless you’ve got some specific holdings to the contrary, I think you are engaging in wishful thinking. Time will tell.

    Like

    • I wouldn’t call it wishful thinking, more a point of order. It is going to be latched on to eventually by someone and then will have to be sorted out….that process will not be quick. Now, I would think that the language implies any statewide or federal court of appeals would be good enough to overturn any piece of the constitution, but a vacation of a higher courts ruling probably doesn’t fulfill that. I await the interesting legal ramifications.

      Like

  2. Well, BQ, the 9th Circuit lifted its stay this afternoon. State officials had already issued statewide instructions to clerks, so weddings started happening at least in SF and LA — the main plaintiffs in the case — marriages performed by the Attorney General in SF and the Mayor in LA. So, it didn’t take time very long to tell, as it turns out. Your section 3.5 argument was sort of a fantasy, but I’m glad to know from your follow-up that you were not being wishful. As for future litigation, we can both watch with great interest, and I happily join you in that!

    Like

Leave a comment