POLL: NC Majority Opposes Anti-Gay Amendment

Well, well! There's a new poll from Elon University which indicates fairly substantial (and growing!) opposition to North Carolina's Amendment One, a measure which would likely ban state recognition of same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships if were to pass and be added to the state constitution on the May 8 primary election.
As depicted above, a total of 29.6% of respondents strongly oppose, and another 27.3% oppose the measure, giving a total of 56.9% which oppose denying state recognition of same-sex relationships. On the other side only 14.3% strongly support the measure, with another 20.7% supporting, for a total of 35.0% supporting it. These are very encouraging numbers for the forces promoting equality, and frankly somewhat surprising. The margin of error is ± 3.98 percentage points.
The umbrella organization fighting Amendment One is Protect All NC Families. Won't you support them by donating now? I did!

Initiative To Abolish Death Penalty On CA Ballot

Interesting news! For the third time in 40 years, Californians will vote on whether they would like to abolish the state's death penalty, converting all capital sentences to life in prison without parole. Thanks to a new law signed by Governor Brown, all ballot measures must appear on November statewide general elections, not primary elections.

This will be the first time in over 20 years that Californians will be able to vote on the death penalty, which is has not been in effect since 2006 due to a court order.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

Opponents of capital punishment said Thursday they were submitting 800,000 signatures on petitions for an initiative to close the nation's largest Death Row, which has 725 condemned prisoners. The measure needs 504,760 valid signatures to make the ballot.

"California voters are ready to replace the death penalty with life in prison with no chance of parole," declared Jeanne Woodford, who oversaw four executions as warden of San Quentin State Prison. She now heads the anti-capital-punishment group Death Penalty Focus.

It was an unusually optimistic statement in a state whose residents have consistently supported the death penalty. The most recent Field Poll, in September, showed 68 percent support - although respondents in the same survey, when asked their preferred sentence for murder, backed life without parole over death, 48 to 40 percent.

MadProfessah has long been an opponent of capital punishment, not only because of its racially discriminatory application (Black people who kill white people are much more likely to get the death penalty than white people who kill black people) but due to the principle that the legal system can never be 100% accurate and the state should not kill people to show that killing people is wrong. I have been a member of Amnesty International since college, and it works to eliminate the death penalty around the world.

Looking forward to vote YES to eliminate the death penalty and replace it with a much more cost-effective life without parole. I hope all MadProfessah.com readers will join me in voting YES on this ballot measure!

Initiative Filed To Repeal LGBT Parts of SB48

Here we go again! Not happy with failing to obtain enough signatures to force a referendum to overturn the FAIR Education Act at the ballot box next year, the heterosexual supremacists have now filed a ballot measure (an initiative statute) to remove the section of the law which applies to the LGBT community.

The San Francisco Chronicle's Politics blog reports:

Opponents of the state law that mandates the inclusion of the contributions of  lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in social science instruction in public schools have filed two initiatives with the attorney general to eliminate the law and to give parents the ability to opt out of classroom teaching on the topic.

The initiatives come from two groups that are not affiliated with the organization that failed to qualify a referendum on the law, SB48, last month. The leader of that effort said they will also file an initiative with the attorney general on the law in the near future.

[...]

One of the proposals would simply strip out the inclusion of LGBT people in the section of law that mandates teaching about other minority groups. SB48 also included a new mandate for instruction about people with disabilities, and that would stand under the initiative.

The second proposal adds the ability of parents to pull their kids from instruction in “social science and family life” if it conflicts “with the religious training and beliefs of a parent or guardian.”

If one of these initiatives qualifies it means that there will be an anti-gay ballot fight in November 2012 after all.

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.