Calif. AG Ordered to Fix 'Misleading' Summary of Marriage Protection Initiative
by Allie Martin and Jenni Parker
August 23, 2005
(AgapePress) - A court has ordered California's Attorney General Bill Lockyer to rewrite a ballot initiative that would recognize as marriage only unions between a man and a woman. The Florida-based legal advocacy group Liberty Counsel requested changes in the Lockyer's initial wording, claiming the summary prepared by the attorney general was misleading, and a judge agreed. VoteYesMarriage.com, a statewide marriage protection coalition in California, is sponsoring the Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative and has vowed to pursue judicial remedies as far as possible to ensure a fair and impartial Title and Summary of the measure is placed on petitions to be signed by the state's voters. Lockyer, who opposes the ballot measure, submitted a Title and Summary referring to the proposal as the "Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights" constitutional amendment initiative. Lockyer's summary of the ballot initiative also added wording specifying that the amendment would ban not only same-sex marriage but also domestic partner benefits.
Randy Thomasson | |
One VoteYesMarriage.com coalition leader, Randy Thomasson of Campaign for Children and Families, described the Attorney General's actions as being "true to his liberal bias, but untrue to his constitutional duty." Thomasson went on to state that Lockyer had dumped on Californians "an inaccurate and prejudicial paragraph" that was "anything but impartial as the law requires."
The Attorney General's office argued conversely that it had prepared a technically accurate title and summary for the proposed state constitutional amendment. However, a Sacramento Superior Court judge found that "technically accurate" was not good enough.
On August 18, Judge Raymond Cadei ruled that the summary written by Lockyer was "overly broad" and "misleading." Cadei ordered the Attorney General's office to rewrite it and to appear back in court on September 1 if VoteYesMarriage.com does not agree with the revised version.
Thomasson says it is gratifying to see the judge agree with at least part of the coalition's claim against Lockyer's "false, misleading, and inconsistent" naming and summarizing of the ballot initiative. The VoteYesMarriage.com organizer says people are "waking up to the fact that Lockyer is prejudiced" against traditional marriage and "can't be trusted to write a fair title and summary to go at the top of our marriage petitions."
Liberty Counsel President Applauds Judge's Ruling
The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative has been endorsed by leading pro-family constitutional attorneys. Among them is Liberty Counsel president Mat Staver, who believes Judge Cadei's willingness to step in and order Lockyer to rewrite the summary is particularly significant in light of the normally broad discretion allowed to the state Attorney General's office.
Mat Staver | |
Generally, in California a great deal of deference is given to the Attorney General to carry out the job of drafting the title and the summary of ballot initiatives, Staver explains. Most of the time courts will not disturb those duties, he says, even if the elected official's wording of the proposed measure "doesn't seem to be quite on point."
But in the case of this ballot initiative proposing a marriage protection amendment, Staver notes, "The attorney general, who is politically opposed to marriage as one man and one woman and who is favorable toward same-sex unions, had his political objectives interfering with his constitutional duty to prepare an accurate and fair and non-prejudicial title and summary."
The Liberty Counsel spokesman says, "Obviously, the Attorney General's summary and title were so off point that the judge agreed with us and has now ordered the attorney general to comply with drafting a fair, unbiased summary." He says if an agreement over the proper wording of the ballot measure cannot be reached in the interim, the parties involved will be back in court in two weeks to try to resolve the matter.
Meanwhile, Staver feels that, thanks to the court, the integrity of the State of California's constitutional amendment process has been upheld. "This is great news," he says, "because this marriage amendment is about preserving marriage and prohibiting copycat marriages under a different name." California citizens will vote on the proposed marriage amendment next year.
