A LAT story discusses Attorney General Jerry Brown (remember him?) making an argument that Prop 8 is unconstitutional under the state's constitution because it tries to override inalienable rights by majority vote. This decision by an official usually given the responsibility to defend the law to legally challenge a popularly passed measure has precedent, including during the Reagan Administration. [see LAT editorial linked by the story.] It is better than, let's say, just using some sort of "signing statement" that declares something unconstitutional.
For good or ill, this hits to a key issue -- constitutions set forth certain rights, at times determined by judicial review, that cannot be overridden by mere majority vote. The constitution might be amended, but this tends to require a supermajority process that is of some difficulty, though in respect to state constitutions, it is much easier than for the federal one. This makes sense. We can honor "democracy" all we want, but it has its problems, including the flaws of any one election. In fact, we live in a "republic," see the Pledge of Allegiance. Ballot measure votes are sometimes particularly problematic, putting aside this one in particular.
So, it seems to me a good idea -- putting aside if it is required -- that "Prop 8" would go through a more difficult route, especially when we know that the state legislature (democratically elected) and even the governor was not in favor of it. This adds democratic weight. And, yes, if the matter was let's say a gun's right matter or whatnot, I would say the same thing. A dubious proposition vote should not be how fundamental rights rise and fall. Certain things should "depend on the outcome of no elections," surely not such a thin reed as this one.
Anyhow, the article also notes an old friend is back:
The Supreme Court justices have indicated they will hear arguments in the case as early as March, with a ruling expected later in the spring. Kenneth W. Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor and U.S. solicitor general, plans to argue on behalf of Protect Marriage, the group said Friday.
Will he also include sexually explicit details in his report, I mean, brief? Snark.