Setting aside for the moment the same-sex marriage issue, this ruling is significant:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...-right-to-veto-voter-approved-initiative.html
Recently we've seen branches of government instruct their attorneys to decline to prosecute or defend various piece of legislation. This is the first time that a court has held that they may not have that right, in some narrow cases.
In this case, the proposition was enacted by the people, and the state cannot both refuse to defend it and bar others from defending it.
So now if the state refuses to uphold laws enacted by the people, supporters of an enacted proposition can go to court in behalf of the people.
Which, overall, is a good thing. The governor and DA should not be given power to ignore what the voters voted for - imagine what would happen if they decided not to uphold the results of a recall vote.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...-right-to-veto-voter-approved-initiative.html
Recently we've seen branches of government instruct their attorneys to decline to prosecute or defend various piece of legislation. This is the first time that a court has held that they may not have that right, in some narrow cases.
In this case, the proposition was enacted by the people, and the state cannot both refuse to defend it and bar others from defending it.
So now if the state refuses to uphold laws enacted by the people, supporters of an enacted proposition can go to court in behalf of the people.
Which, overall, is a good thing. The governor and DA should not be given power to ignore what the voters voted for - imagine what would happen if they decided not to uphold the results of a recall vote.