Skelton Calls Out Schwarzenegger, Brown

Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton, who covers California state politics, is probably getting all sorts of hate mail. Just check the comments on the website. And the editorial board is probably frowning. In today's column related to Proposition 8, he starts off his column with:

The will of the California electorate is being undermined by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The voters' rights are being denied.

Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman struck a blow for good government - maybe even scored a political point or two - at a Republican state convention last weekend when she announced that, if elected, she'll defend Proposition 8 in the courts.

It is important to note that Whitman's opponent is Jerry Brown. Should the next Governor have a chance to defend the state constitution (as amended via Proposition 8), we know Jerry Brown will not only not defend the constitution and the voters; he will try to undermine us. Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley is running to replace Brown as Attorney General. Cooley’s opponent is San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who refused to answer a simple question about a principle at at heart of the case. Cooley has said he would defend Proposition 8, and we know Harris will undermine it if given the chance.

Brown and Schwarzenegger both have refused to defend the ballot measure that bans same-sex marriage.

It's... not... a... ban.

Moot or not - and regardless of Prop. 8's merits - there's a principle at stake here. The pertinent issue is whether voters should be hung out to dry and ignored by the state after they pass a ballot measure.

[Much more after the jump.]

Yes. Still, Skelton makes it clear he opposed the proposition and opposes the amendment:

This isn't the same as courts thwarting the people's will. Many Prop. 8 supporters whine annoyingly that when a court throws out a measure passed by the voters, it is an affront to democracy. Nonsense. It's central to democracy.

I agree that courts should be able to block laws that are unconstitutional. However, Proposition 8 is not unconstitional.

And...

For the record, I voted against Prop. 8 and still don't like it.

The haters will ignore that part of his column, because he writes things like this:

But I think the will of the majority should be supported by the state.

And...

But whether a law is unconstitutional is a court's job to decide. The attorney general's job is to defend and enforce state laws. People didn't elect him chief judge. They elected him chief law officer.

Same with the governor. He can appoint judges. But he can't become one unless he resigns his office.

Good points.

Now the governor is arguing that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry immediately, even before Prop. 8 runs its course in the courts - if, indeed, there's any running room left with both Schwarzenegger and Brown refusing to defend the measure.

Again, gays and lesbians have the same access to state marriage licensing as straights. Most apparently don't have the same desire for a state marriage license, however, becaue they don't like the requirements.

He questions whether or not Brown, if elected Governor again, will refuse to enforce other laws, then goes on to:

Well, yes, a governor or attorney general may refuse to defend a ballot measure. But it's very rare. The normal procedure then is to authorize an independent counsel to represent the state and electorate. That didn't happen with Prop. 8.

Skelton then quotes a deputy to two former attorneys general, who points out that Schwarzenegger and Brown's failure to provide a serious defense for the amendment undermines public confidence in the ultimate court decision. I think that's a good point. Are marriage neutering proponents willing to sacrifice public confidence in the judiciary itself?

Skelton concludes:

Democracy involves an electorate and three branches of government, each with separate, distinct roles. It works best when one institution doesn't confuse its role with another's - such as an executive playing judge.

Agreed, though I would also point out that means judges should not usurp the legislative role.