LAWSUIT TO PROTECT OUR POLITICAL POWER
The Supreme Court of California has proclaimed to recognize their duty to “jealously guard” our initiative powers.
A couple of citizens of California, Dhun May and Aouie Goodnis, have filed a lawsuit against the attorney general and governor of California in the Supreme Court of California, Goodnis v. Office of the Attorney General (Harris). Plaintiffs allege that by continuing to fail to provide for the legal defense of state laws brought about by initiatives in good faith, the defendants have unconstitutionally harmed the political power of the people, breached our trust, abused discretionary powers, caused voter suppression, and violated due process protections, free speech protections, equal protection principles and the principle of separation of the judicial, legislative and executive powers.
One of two main remedies sought is to officially select an alternate defendant to defend a state law on behalf of the state in good faith. The manner of selection is to address some of the concerns expressed by the United States Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry in June 2013. This would enable the state to seek relief from the questionable federal district court ruling which restricted Article 1, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution. The other main remedy is to remove the restriction placed upon California Family Code Section 308.5 by the Supreme Court of California back in June of 2008, on the grounds that the facts have since changed. The text of that code reads as follows. “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It was introduced by Proposition 22 of 2000 and the wording is identical to that of Article 1, Sec 7.5 of the California Constitution, which was brought about by Proposition 8 of 2008.
The court has been asked to declare that the California Constitution requires the state to provide for the legal defense of state laws in good faith, especially the ones brought about by initiatives. Also, several related censures of the governor and attorney general are sought. Any continued unconstitutional course of action by the attorney general should result in the attorney general's disbarment.
We hope that, unlike the state's attorney general and governor who made a mockery of democracy and unconstitutionally undermined our political power, the court will carry out its duty in good faith by "jealously guarding" our initiative powers.
For more information on the case, including the full petition, or to contact a plaintiff, please visit [ http://ProtectInitiatives.com/