CA S. Court's Deference to Voters

Many agree that it's easy for voters to amend the California constitution.

I used to think that a lack of clarity in the legislative process on what was a revision and what was an amendment was the problem, but now I think it's the CA S. Court's own fault.

This LA Times article outlines how the Court defines it, saying that

UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar agreed, saying the court defined an illegal revision as a measure that changes the structure of government, not one that takes away individual rights.

In her separate concurring opinion, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said that the ruling's definition of revision was too inflexible.

And get this, from Bruce Cain at UC Berkeley

While there is in principle an important legal distinction between a revision and an amendment with respect to the quantity and quality of proposed changes, the reality is that the California courts have not been very concerned about enforcing the line between them.

Cain also pointed out that even Prop 140, which imposed term limits on the state legislature, was not considered a major change.

In the May 27, 2009 ruling upholding Prop 8, Chief Justice wrote:

"If the process for amending the constitution is to be restricted, this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake."

This seems ludicrous. Will the voters really vote to give themselves less power?

Conclusion: While the Court acted boldly in May's decision allowing same-sex marriages, let's not expect much more from them in terms of protections of minority rights; they will defer to the voters every time. And as such, they are not an adequate check or balance against the tyranny of the majority.