The Roundup

Nov 18, 2008

"The likelihood of a final California Supreme Court showdown over same-sex marriage increased dramatically Monday when Attorney General Jerry Brown and the pro-Proposition 8 campaign urged the justices to decide whether the voter-approved ballot measure is constitutional," reports Bob Egelko in the Chron.

"Both Brown, the state government's top lawyer, and the Protect Marriage campaign organization plan to defend Prop. 8, which would write a ban on same-sex marriage into the state Constitution. In separate filings Monday, the liberal attorney general and the conservative sponsors of the initiative gave similar reasons for asking the court to review lawsuits filed by the measure's opponents.

"'There is significant public interest in prompt resolution of the legality of Proposition 8. This court can provide certainty and finality in this matter,' Deputy Attorney General Mark Benington said in court papers.

"Andrew Pugno, lawyer for Protect Marriage, said, "The people have a right to know as quickly as possible the status of marriage under the California Constitution." He said he was confident that the court will uphold Prop. 8.

"However, the Campaign for California Families, another conservative religious organization that supported the measure, asked the court to dismiss the suits without a hearing. The group's lawyer said overturning Prop. 8 'would wreak havoc on the democratic process.'"

 

Dan Walters writes:  "Gay rights groups clearly hope the Supreme Court will take an opportunity to issue another decision that tilts their way, but to do so, Chief Justice Ron George and his colleagues would have to make quite a legal stretch, and if they did so, they'd be accused a second time of substituting their personal philosophies for the will of voters. Their first decision earlier this year overturned a statutory ballot measure that only marriages between men and women would be recognized, even as gay marriage opponents were offering it to voters again as a constitutional amendment.

"The situation is somewhat reminiscent of what happened a quarter-century ago when a state Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Rose Bird routinely overturned death verdicts in murder cases even though voters had strongly voted for capital punishment. Bird and two other justices were later ousted by voters.

"No matter which way the court rules on Proposition 8, it will add fuel to an already raging fire." 

 

Our apologies to our readers in Montecito for the metaphor... 

 

In other Proposition 8 news, Focus on the Family, which gave $500,000 in support for the measure, is laying off 202 people because of cash-strapped donors.

 

Also yesterday, "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an executive order calling on utilities to provide one-third of their power from renewable resources by 2020," reports Jim Sanders in the Bee.

 

"'This will be the most aggressive target in the nation,' he said.

"Increased reliance on renewable energy conceivably could hike future rates, however, because of higher production costs and the need to upgrade transmission facilities.

"Schwarzenegger's order came on the eve of today's international summit on global climate change in Los Angeles.

"California law currently requires utilities to produce 20 percent of their power from renewable resources by 2010."

 

"The California State University system for the first time in its history is proposing to turn away qualified students due to a worsening state budget crisis," reports Gale Holland in the Times.

"As part of a plan to slash its 450,000 enrollment by 10,000 students for the 2009-2010 academic year, the 23-campus system, the nation's largest, will push up application deadlines and raise the academic bar for freshmen at its most popular campuses, Chancellor Charles B. Reed said Monday.

"The university has never tried this type of enrollment cap, and Cal State officials said they cannot be sure how it will work. While sophomore transfers and out-of-state and international students will be squeezed, California high school graduates probably will bear the brunt of the downsizing, officials said. The university typically admits 45,000 to 50,000 freshmen each year; if even half the reductions land on them, it would mean a 10% drop in first-year admissions."

 

Sounds like a budget bargaining ploy to us...

 

The Chron's Matthew Yi writes about the concerns over the gov's tax proposal.

 

"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's tax package, the largest in California in nearly two decades, would affect everyone who buys goods, drives automobiles, plays golf, attends commercial sporting events or has a drink at the local watering hole.

 

The governor has called his plan - billions of dollars in spending cuts along with $4.7 billion in new taxes during the current fiscal year and an additional $9.5 billion in taxes next year - a drastic measure that's desperately needed to address an estimated $24 billion revenue shortfall over the next two years.

 

While most experts agree that raising taxes in a struggling economy is a difficult proposition, many lawmakers and legislative aides who will continue meetings this week in a special budget session at the state Capitol say the state's fiscal crisis is so dire that California needs to figure out new revenue sources quickly, even if that means new taxes.

 

But those who would feel the impact of Schwarzenegger's tax proposals, including operators of golf courses, bar owners and auto mechanics, say the proposed levies would devastate their already struggling businesses.

 

"It's a rape of small businesses," said Beverly Swanson, 58, owner of One Double Oh Seven Club & Smoking Parlour in Santa Cruz. "This is going to cost jobs. The first thing that people cut in tough economic times is eating out and things like that; to force a new tax will just make it even more difficult."

 

What we want to know is, how did Matthew get the Chron to pay for him to hang in Santa Cruz for this story? 

 

And by the way, both houses are expected to convene a Sunday session this weekend, though it remains unclear just what, if anything they're going to be voting on.  Which is more likely, Congress acting on the Big 3 bailout or a California budget deal?

 

Yi also writes about the governor's global photo op down in LA today. 

 

"Hundreds of dignitaries, industry representatives and scientists are expected to gather today in Southern California for an international summit on global warming hosted by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

The two-day conference in Beverly Hills places Schwarzenegger and California under the international limelight as he tries to engage leaders of other states, provinces and nations to work collaboratively to limit greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

 

The summit is expected to attract nearly 800 participants from as close as Canada and Mexico to as far away as China, Indonesia and Poland. They are expected to discuss greenhouse gas emissions from various sectors of the economy such as energy, transportation, manufacturing, construction, forestry and agriculture."

 

Maybe he is lobbying for that Obama czar gig after all. 

 

And a professional plaintiff has lost his right to sue, reports the LAT's Carol Williams.

 

"Whether Jarek Molski is a crusader for the disabled or an extortionist who abused the law for personal gain, the vexatious litigant has filed his last lawsuit.

"In a highly unusual action in 2004, U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie, who has since died, branded Molski a "hit-and-run plaintiff," accusing him of systematic extortion of businesses across California.

"Molski, who has used a wheelchair since a motorcycle accident two decades ago, sued restaurants, bowling alleys, wineries and other retail outlets for insufficient handicapped parking, misplaced handrails and other violations of the disabilities act, demanding that business owners be fined $4,000 for every day their facilities failed to meet exacting federal standards.

"Fear of adverse judgments compelled many to settle out of court, earning the Polish-born plaintiff hundreds of thousands of dollars in less than two years."

 

And finally, from our Clueless Bureaucrat files, A 74-year-old blind woman was shocked when her daughter found a letter from the city saying a lien would be placed on her home unless she paid an overdue water bill.

 

"The amount? 1 cent.

 

"Eileen Wilbur told The Sun Chronicle of Attleboro the letter sent her blood pressure soaring, and pointed out that stamps cost 42 cents.

 

"City Collector Debora Marcoccio said the letter was among 2,000 sent out. A computer automatically prints letters for accounts with an overdue balance, and they are not reviewed by staff before being mailed, she said.

 

"The letter warned of a lien and a $48 penalty if the overdue bill is not paid by Dec. 10. The charge was from the previous fiscal year, which ran from July 2007 to July 2008.

 

"'My question is, how come it wasn't paid when the (original) bills went out?' Marcoccio said."

Get the daily Roundup
free in your e-mail