Catherine Lhamon, the Racial Justice Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, today urged the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to file suit or join an existing lawsuit to overturn Proposition 8. Here is her statement:

Good morning. I am Catherine Lhamon, Racial Justice Director of the ACLU of Southern California. I urge this board to file suit or join an existing suit to challenge the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

The very title of Proposition 8 states its constitutional defect. Its title is, 'Eliminates the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.' Proposition 8 takes away what our constitution guarantees as a fundamental right. It works a breathtaking diminution of the value of our constitution itself: by allowing voters to completely revise core constitutional principles, Proposition 8 sets a dangerous precedent that all our constitutional protections - the right to free speech, the right to equal protection of the law, and others - exist only for so long as majorities vote yes on them. If it stands, it will suggest that any fundamental rights can be revoked on a bare majority vote, regardless of what our constitution otherwise guarantees.

Our system of checks and balances does not give the voting majority the right to write out of the constitution those core principles enshrined in it. Our system of checks and balances is based on the principle that the constitution sets the baseline for all our most fundamental rights, and a simple majority of voters cannot take those away. Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and will be overturned in court; this county should be on the right side of history, saying that we will not be part of official discrimination.

As much as I am professionally interested, as Racial Justice Director of the ACLU of Southern California, in ensuring equal opportunity for all people, this issue is also deeply personal for me. My parents married in Washington, D.C., rather than in Virginia, where my mother was raised, because in 1966 Virginia still outlawed interracial marriage. My mother, who is black, could not at that time marry my father, who is white, in her home state. The United States Supreme Court outlawed race-based marriage restrictions the following year in Loving v. Virginia. I was raised in the shadow of Supreme Court decisions like Loving, and like Brown, that held that equal protection applies to all persons, and that promised a new day of meaningful opportunity for people like me. If an electorate can, through the tyranny of the majority vote, wipe away such fundamental constitutional protections as the right to equal protection for all persons, then we as a state are returning to the bad old days of institutionalized discrimination that I never thought I would see in my lifetime. I urge this board to do what is right and to work, through a lawsuit, to protect all Californians.

Catherine Lhamon, the Racial Justice Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, today urged the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to file suit or join an existing lawsuit to overturn Proposition 8. Here is her statement:
Good morning. I am Catherine Lhamon, Racial Justice Director of the ACLU of Southern California. I urge this board to file suit or join an existing suit to challenge the constitutionality of Proposition 8.
The very title of Proposition 8 states its constitutional defect. Its title is, '''Eliminates the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.' Proposition 8 takes away what our constitution guarantees as a fundamental right. It works a breathtaking diminution of the value of our constitution itself: by allowing voters to completely revise core constitutional principles, Proposition 8 sets a dangerous precedent that all our constitutional protections ''' the right to free speech, the right to equal protection of the law, and others ''' exist only for so long as majorities vote yes on them. If it stands, it will suggest that any fundamental rights can be revoked on a bare majority vote, regardless of what our constitution otherwise guarantees.
Our system of checks and balances does not give the voting majority the right to write out of the constitution those core principles enshrined in it. Our system of checks and balances is based on the principle that the constitution sets the baseline for all our most fundamental rights, and a simple majority of voters cannot take those away. Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and will be overturned in court; this county should be on the right side of history, saying that we will not be part of official discrimination.
As much as I am professionally interested, as Racial Justice Director of the ACLU of Southern California, in ensuring equal opportunity for all people, this issue is also deeply personal for me. My parents married in Washington, D.C., rather than in Virginia, where my mother was raised, because in 1966 Virginia still outlawed interracial marriage. My mother, who is black, could not at that time marry my father, who is white, in her home state. The United States Supreme Court outlawed race-based marriage restrictions the following year in Loving v. Virginia. I was raised in the shadow of Supreme Court decisions like Loving, and like Brown, that held that equal protection applies to all persons, and that promised a new day of meaningful opportunity for people like me. If an electorate can, through the tyranny of the majority vote, wipe away such fundamental constitutional protections as the right to equal protection for all persons, then we as a state are returning to the bad old days of institutionalized discrimination that I never thought I would see in my lifetime. I urge this board to do what is right and to work, through a lawsuit, to protect all Californians.

SAN FRANCISCO - The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court on Nov. 5, 2008 urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8. The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group - lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. According to the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid.

'If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw - it removes a protected constitutional right - here, the right to marry - not from all Californians, but just from one group of us,' said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. 'That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters.'

'A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution,' added Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

The lawsuit was filed in the California Supreme Court on behalf of Equality California and six same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday's election but would like to be able to marry now.

The groups filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court before the elections presenting similar arguments because they believed the initiative should not have appeared on the ballot, but the court dismissed that petition without addressing its merits. That earlier order is not precedent here.

'Historically, courts are reluctant to get involved in disputes if they can avoid doing so,' said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of NCLR. 'It is not uncommon for the court to wait to see what happens at the polls before considering these legal arguments. However, now that Prop 8 has passed, the courts will have to weigh in and we believe they will agree that Prop 8 should never have been on the ballot in the first place.'

This would not be the first time the court has struck down an improper voter initiative. In 1990, the court stuck down an initiative that would have added a provision to the California Constitution stating that the 'Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States.' That measure was invalid because it improperly attempted to strip California's courts of their role as independent interpreters of the state's constitution.

The groups issued a statement of their conviction, which is shared by the California Attorney General, that the state will continue to honor the marriages of the 18,000 lesbian and gay couples who have already married in California. A copy of the statement as well as the writ petition filed today is available at the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, the Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

In addition to the ACLU, Lambda Legal and NCLR, the legal team bringing the writ also includes the Law Office of David C. Codell; Munger Tolles & Olson, LLP; and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP.

###

The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education.

Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work.

The American Civil Liberties Union is America's foremost advocate of individual rights. It fights discrimination and moves public opinion on LGBT rights through the courts, legislatures and public education.

Founded in 1998, Equality California celebrates its 10th anniversary in 2008, commemorating a decade of building a state of equality in California. EQCA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots-based, statewide advocacy organization whose mission is to achieve equality and civil rights of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians.