PPIC Poll Says 56% Of CA Likely Voters Support Marriage Equality

Wow! The good polling news on marriage equality just keeps on coming. As this is a presidential election year, it is not surprising that there is a lot of polling going on, and I suspect more and more polls will be including the marriage equality question. Just last week we heard from the Field Poll that 59% of Californians support marriage equality (compared to just 34% who do not), the largest lead (25 points) and highest level of support for same-sex marriage ever recorded in the state by the most trusted name in California polling.

The latest poll is from PPIC and says that 52% of registered voters support allowing same-sex marriage, compared to 41% who don't a margin of +11 for the supporters of equality, which is identical to what the PPIC poll showed last September. Of course the grain of salt here is that the margin of error of the PPIC poll is ±3.8 points, so technically we can not be sure that a majority of registered voters in California support marriage equality. We can however be sure that there are more supporters of marriage equality than people who oppose it.

PPIC also attempts to sample "likely voters," and among this group support for marriage equality is even higher, at 56% with a mere 38%expressing opposition. This is a margin of +18 for the forces for equality. The margin of error on this statistic is ±4.2 points, so this time, according to PPIC, a majority of Californians likely to vote in the June 2012 primary support marriage equality (see figure, below).

Equality California immediately sent out a statement about the new poll which included the graphic at the top of this post highlighting the improvement in the "likely voter" statistic on the question of marriage in the last 3 years.

This was a somewhat curious move, since no one in California is going to be voting on the question of marriage equality anytime soon, since there is no organized effort to put a Proposition 8 repeal measure on the November 2012 ballot due to the fact that the Perry v Brown litigation about the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban is still tied up in the federal courts and is unlikely to be resolved before June 2013 (at the earliest!)

All that being said, two polls within two weeks indicating near-majority support for marriage equality and at the very least significant, double-digit leads for the pro-equality forces are very encouraging and good news!

AFER Head Chad Griffin Named HRC Head

Chad Griffin, 38, is board president and founder of the American Foundation
 for Equal Rights, the group that organized the Proposition 8 federal lawsuit

The Advocate is reporting that 38-year-old political consultant Chad Griffin, the force behind the Los Angeles-based group which is shepherding the original Perry v Schwarzenegger federal legal challenge to Proposition 8 (American Foundation for Equal Rights or AFER) has been named the new head of the Human Rights Campaign, the most prominent LGBT advocacy position in the United States:

A major fundraiser for the Obama campaign who began his career in the early days of the Clinton White House, Griffin will replace current president Joe Solmonese at the helm of the $40 million organization on June 11, HRC announced Friday following a board of directors vote. Solmonese, who joined HRC as president in 2005 and said in August that he would leave after his contract expires at the end of this month, will continue in his role until June. Solmonese was named a national co-chair for the Obama campaign last month. 

In its pick of Griffin as president, HRC has chosen someone who was shaped from an early age by Washington political culture yet who is not defined by it, having spent the vast majority of his career outside the Beltway. Griffin, 38, is a fervent supporter of President Obama with personal ties to White House officials, but has pushed the bipartisan case for marriage equality, notably hiring former George W. Bush solicitor general Theodore Olson to co-lead the Prop. 8 suit and aligning with conservatives including gay former Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman, who has raised money for the legal effort. Griffin has been openly critical of the president’s evolving position on marriage equality, calling Obama’s indicated support for states' rights on deciding who can marry “a step backwards.” And, central to the job, Griffin has a proven ability to be a formidable fundraiser.

“While there’s no doubt that we’ve made tremendous progress on the road to equality, we must not forget that millions of LGBT Americans still lack basic legal protections and suffer the consequences of discrimination every day,” Griffin said in a statement. “Today's generation of young people, and each generation hereafter, must grow up with the full and equal protection of our laws, and finally be free to participate in the American dream. As HRC president, I’ll approach our work with a great sense of urgency because there are real life consequences to inaction.”

This is very big news and should raise the profile of marriage equality even higher in the nexus of LGBT issues that enter into the mainstream political consciousness of the 2012 political campaigns.

It will be interesting to see what impact Griffin's selection will have on the other issues which America's largest LGBT advocacy organization is also responsible for advancing, such as trans-inclusive national employment non-discrimination legislation, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, passing the Uniting All Families Act, and the multiple statewide pro-gay and anti-gay ballot measures around the country (just to name a few).

In larger terms, the question of how the movement for LGBT equality will interface with other progressive movements like comprehensive immigration reform, the pro-choice movement, the labor movement and people of color civil rights organizations when the players involved are becoming more bipartisan in nature will be important to watch. Griffin is known for defying "Gay, Inc." orthodoxy in the past and is clearly comfortable working across party lines, having personally recruited David Boies and Ted Olson to be the superlawyers leading the Perry lawsuit to strike down California's same-sex marriage ban.

Analysis of Field Poll Showing 59% Support Marriage Equality

The latest Field Poll is out and it has some encouraging news for supporters of marriage equality in California. By a margin of 25 points, 59% to 34%, California registered voters support "same-sex marriage," a jump of 7  points in support from the last Field poll taken in July 2010 which had the margin at a mere 9 points, 51% to 42%. The margin of error of these polls is ±4.5 percentage points.

Although this is very good news that the most respected polling outfit in California is showing support for marriage equality well above the majority position, it should be noted that 1) Field has a history of overstating supporting for the pro-equality side and 2) this is a poll of registered voters, which means it is essentially meaningless in predicting the outcome of a voter initiative on the measure.

First I will elaborate on my first point (Field has overestimated marriage equality support in the past). In 2008, during the fight to defeat Proposition 8 and defend California marriage equality from June 15 to November 4 (173 days) the Field poll issued 3 polls, all of which had the NO side ahead, often by significant margins. On September 19, 2008 Field said Proposition 8 was losing 55% No, 38% Yes among likely voters, On August 29, 2008 the Field Poll said Proposition 8 was losing 54% No to 40% Yes among likely voters and on its first poll on the issue on July 19, 2008 Field said that Proposition 8 was losing 51% No to 42% among likely voters. According to David Flesicher's exhaustive (and definitive) analysis of the campaign published in The Prop 8 Report, the internal polls of the No On 8 campaign NEVER had the No side above 48% of support, although their daily tracking polling did sometimes have the No side slightly ahead of the Yes side when the Undecided number would get larger. Once the "Princes" ad ran on California television for 10 days without a response Proposition 8 was ahead outside the margin of error. Field has never explained why their polling was so off on the Proposition 8 question, which ultimately passed by a margin of Yes 52.3%, No 47.7%.

My second point is to note that this is a poll of registered voters, not likely voters. It is true that it does not make sense to even speak about likely voters at this point, more than 8 months before the general election, but I want to clarify that there is always a difference between polling the set of all possible voters, and the results created when the subset of voters who actually go to the polls (or return their absentee ballots) and vote. However, the fact that we finally have one data point where majority support for marriage equality has been reached OUTSIDE the margin of error, bring us closer to the pre-conditions for when I would support an attempt to place a ballot measure to repeal Proposition 8.

I repeat those conditions here, for completeness:

1. multiple polls separated in time of weeks or months indicating clear majority support for marriage equality among registered voters;
2. at least one million dollars in the bank to begin a campaign; and 
3. a clearly delineated, consensus-driven model of a campaign structure that is responsive to and supported by all (or nearly all) the various segments of the California LGBT  and progressive activist communities.

I would also note that the two putative (and abortive) attempts by Love Honor Cherish to repeal Proposition 8 (in 2009 and in 2011) by ballot measure did not meet ANY of these above three conditions. In fact, only one of these conditions has ever been met (Condition 2), briefly by Equality California. I suspect that by November 2012 Condition 1 will have been met.

Then again, it is not clear that a campaign to repeal Proposition 8 is necessary, thanks to the federal court case of Perry v Brown, which has declared that measure as violative of the United States Constitution and has been struck down by the two courts which have examined it, on August 4, 2010 and on February 7, 2012. Proposition 8 is currently only in effect due to a stay issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on August 16, 2010 as the heterosexual supremacists who are defending it ask for an 11-member en banc panel of that court to consider their appeal, and after that they can also appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

More comment about the new Field poll. They also ask the question about what kind of legal recognition should same-sex couples have and here the response is that now 51% support marriage equality, with another 29% supporting civil unions (or comprehensive domestic partnerships, which is what California law is right now) and a mere 15% support no legal recognition for same-sex couples (See Table 3, below). Note, this 51% is not a majority position when the margin of error is considered. It's curious what the difference is between the 59% who support "allowing same- sex couples to marry and having regular marriage laws apply to them" and the 51% who think that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry  (when given the option of civil unions and no recognition whatsoever).

This is all great news for supporters of marriage equality and just more evidence that the heterosexual supremacists are fighting a battle that they will lose; it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

An interesting poll would to also ask specifically about a Proposition 8 re-do which Field last asked in March 2009 and the results were 48% Support Repeal, 47% Support Prop 8. But this was before even the California Supreme Court had upheld Prop 8 and two federal courts had struck it down. I wonder what the Proposition 8 re-do poll numbers are now? Inquiring minds want to know.

Conservative Federal Judge Strikes Down DOMA

Karen Golinksi legally married her partner Amy in 2008 and literally
 made a federal case of getting health benefits for her spouse

Wow! Clearly, the days for which the so-called Defense of Marriage Act will remain viable in the United States Code are numbered, and appears to be decreasing rapidly. Recall that two weeks ago the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Proposition 8. This week, a federal judge named Jeffrey White appointed by Republican president George W. Bush issued an opinion in Golinski v Office of Personnel Management in which he summarily strikes down Section 3 of DOMA as violating Karen Golinski's constitutional right to receive federal benefits based on her legal marriage to her wife Amy.

The case involves Karen Golinski, who married her longtime partner in California in 2008 when same-sex marriage was legal between June and November. She has been an employee of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for decades and so when she got married she asked that her employer put her spouse on her health benefits plan like her heterosexual co-workers have been able to do. As a federal employee, but of the Judicial Branch, her case raised a host of interesting constitutional issues. Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, Alex Kosinski, twice issued orders to the Office of Personnel Management (in the Executive Branch) to process Golinski's request, which were ignored.

Golinski was represented by MadProfessah friend Tara Borelli of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and pro bono by Morrison Foster. Amazingly, the judge ruled based just on the briefing on motions  for summary judgment (from the good guys) and motion for dismissal (from the bad guys represented by Paul Clement and the House Republican majority led by Speaker John Boehner).

U.S. District Court Judge White's opinion is remarkable for many things, as Ari Ezra Waldman notes at TowleRoad:

First, Judge White declared that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation merits heightened scrutiny in an equal protection analysis. 

Second, the court distinguished old and outdated precedent that Judge Randy Smith recently used in his dissent in Perry v. Brown, highlighting the doctrinal vacuum that is denial of gay rights. 

Third, in dismantling the proffered and any conceivable justification for DOMA Section 3, the court authoritatively rejected House Republican attempts to buttress DOMA with recourse to certain conceptions of morality. 

Fourth, Judge White's reliance on the other DOMA cases and Ninth Circuit precedent in other gay rights cases emphasizes the primacy of a federal litigation approach in our quest for marriage recognition.

I encourage you to read the rest of Ari's insightful analysis as well as Chris Geidner's at Poliglot. What is not becoming remarkable is the sight of federal judges ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional. Judge White of the 9th Circuit follows Judge Joseph Tauro of the 1st Circuit who struck down DOMA in July 2010. The decision in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management is still on appeal before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Prop 8 Proponents Want En Banc Re-Hearing

As expected, the heterosexual supremacists defending Proposition 8 in federal court (who have now lost twice, at the federal District Court level on August 4, 2010 and before a 3-judge panel on February 7, 2012) have applied for an en banc re-hearing by a randomly selected 11-member subset of the 29-member 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A majority of the activie judges on the Court of Appeals must vote to agree to hear the case, and then an en banc panel of 11 judges consisting of Chief Judge Alex Kosinski and 10 randomly selected other judges will hear the case, probably issuing a ruling (if no further briefs are requested!) by the end of the summer. According to Wikipedia, at 64%, the 9th Circuit has the highest proportion of judges appointed by Democratic presidents, and is thus considered the most liberal.

Whoever loses at the en banc level can appeal to the 9-member United States Supreme Court level, where it takes 4 votes to agree to hear a case, but 5 votes to decide it. A final ruling by that court would probably not happen before June 27, 2013.

Rally 5PM Today in L.A. After Prop 8 Ruling

The sponsors of the anti-Proposition 8 lawsuit American Foundation for Equal Rights and other LGBT groups like the Jordan/Rustin Coalition and Love Honor Cherish will be hosting a community gathering at Los Angeles City Hall starting around 5pm after the 9th U.S. Circuit's ruling in Perry v Brown is released 4 hours earlier.

Here's the deets:

For a Special Community Event in Response to the Ninth Circuit Court Prop. 8 RulingWithAmerican Foundation for Equal Rights,Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa,Courage Campaign, Equality California, Equal Roots Coalition, FAIR, Freedom to Marry, Jordan/Rustin Coalition, L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, Latino Equality Alliance & Marriage Equality USA, National Center for Lesbian Rights, California Faith for Equality and National Center for Lebsian Rights

Los Angeles City Hall Rotunda200 N Spring St, 3rd FloorEnter on Main St.
Tuesday, February 75 p.m.Street & Lot ParkingEasy access via the Metro Red Line's City Center stop 

Wish I could join you all  but I'm in Washington, D.C.!

ALERT: U.S. Appeals Court Prop 8 Decision TOMORROW!

At 10:00am PST, Tuesday February 7th, 2012 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will reveal their decision in Perry v. Brown, determining whether to uphold the U.S. district court decision striking down Proposition 8 as violating the United States Constitution by (now) openly gay federal judge Vaughn Walker.

Regardless of what happens tomorrow, the losing side will appeal to the United States Supreme Court, and it is also likely a stay will be issued so that even if Proposition 8 is ruled unconstitutional, marriages will not resume in California any time soon.

Hat/tip to PoliGlot

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Keeps Prop 8 Trial Tapes Sealed

Breaking News! The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed trial judge James Ware and issued a ruling which says that the videotapes of the Proposition 8 trial (a.k.a. Perry v. Schwarzenegger) should NOT be released.

A ruling on the merits of the appeal of the openly gay federal judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in the Perry v. Brown which struck down California's voter-passed ban on same-sex marriage can be released by the 9th Circuit at any time.

Cal Sup Ct Rules 7-0 Initiative Proponents Have Standing

The long-awaited decision by the California Supreme Court on the question of whether initiative proponents have the right to defend their measures in court when elected officials like the Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend them was released today.

The Court ruled unanimously that initiative proponents do have standing under state law to defend their ballot initiatives.

As usual, Chris Geidner of Metro Weekly has the best analysis:

The California Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, was very clear about its answer: 

[W]e respond to the question posed by the Ninth Circuit in the affirmative. In a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state's interest in the initiative's validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so. 

The decision came about resulting from a request by the Ninth Circuit in the ongoing challenge to Proposition 8 brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights. The case, in which the trial court judge struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional in August 2010, is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit appeals court sought to have the California Supreme Court assist it with the case by answering these questions about state law through the process of asking a certified question. The California Supreme Court accepted the invitation to answer the certified question and heard oral arguments on the question on Sept. 6.

As the California Supreme Court found the proponents to have a "particularized interest" and "the authority to assert the State's interest," the Ninth Circuit now is likely to find that the proponents do have standing under federal law to bring the appeal -- although the court need not do so. At that point, the appeal of the Perry trial court decision -- the "merits" decision from the trial court that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional -- could go forward.

It's unfortunate that the Court opened up the can of worms to allow all initiative proponents to defend their statutes under state law. Considering how many ballot measures we have in California, this is an incredibly important decision.

That being said, it is very exciting that now we basically must get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Perry v. Brown case which will give us a federal appellate court level ruling on the question of marriage equality.

Goodwin Liu Likely To Join CA Sup Ct For Perry

2008's Proposition 8 is in court twice in the next two weeks. Last Monday, oral arguments were heard about whether the extant video tapes of testimony in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case should be released to the public. The judge, federal district court judge James Ware announced afterwards that he would not "delay very long" in issuing a ruling. Which the heterosexual supremacists will almost certainly appeal anyway.

Next Tuesday, September 6 oral arguments will be held before the California Supreme Court in a very important case which will determine who exactly has "judicial standing" under California law to defend a voter-approved initiative (like Proposition 8) when the executive branch officers (Governor and Attorney General) have declined to do so.

Happily, Governor Brown recently nominated marriage-equality supporting University of California, Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the California Supreme Court. It looks very likely that Professor Liu will join the court before Tuesday and participate in the oral arguments in the Perry v Brown case. There is no Republican neanderthal filibuster to prevent Liu from joining this court, unlike his unsuccessful path to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Instead he just needs to get the approval of the 3-member Commission on Judicial Appointments, and then he will be up for election for a 12-year term at the next statewide general election.