|
Sorry, Alex, that's not the way it works. California is indeed bound by Judge Walker's decision.
Measures don't get on the ballot by themselves. The attorney general has to approve measures, and it costs around $3 million dollars to get the necessary signatures. Technically, you are correct that a new measure would have to be enjoined by a new judge - but since that would now be done in a heartbeat, I doubt anyone's going to throw around the money needed, nor would an attorney general be likely to go along.
What I'm wondering is whether the language of prop 8 (marriage in California is between a man and a woman) remains in the Constitution, while Walker's order "merely" prevents enforcement of it.
Another curiosity is that Judge Walker's stay merely delays the Clerk from entering judgment. The decision remains, and nothing prevents the state from voluntarily obeying it. They are not forced to, but they may stop enforcing prop 8 right now if they want to, and would in no way be violating the law.
Interesting technicalities that ... as a law junkie ... I'm following with deep curiosity.
Edited to add: Apparently Alabama kept their state constitutional ban on interracial marriage on the books for 33 years after the U.S. Supreme Court rules such laws unconstitutional. Even then, the repeal got only 60% of the votes. (Perhaps the other 40% were hoping slavery would come back in vogue at some point.)
|