Interestingly, it does not appear that California has a way to avoid proceeding with a ballot initiative that advocates the murder of homosexuals. The ballot measure was initiated by a lawyer from Huntington Beach named Matt McLaughlin:
For less than the cost of an Apple iPad, Matt McLaughlin started a statewide legal conversation.
An attorney from Huntington Beach, McLaughlin in late February spent $200 to propose a ballot measure that authorizes the killing of gays and lesbians by “bullets to the head,” or “any other convenient method.”
McLaughlin’s “Sodomite Suppression Act” now is testing the limits of free speech and raising the question: Why can’t the state’s initiative process screen out blatantly illegal ideas?
Simply by paying the $200 fee, McLaughlin has apparently compelled state Attorney General Kamala Harris to take formal action.
Yet the measure is likely to proceed to the signature-gathering stage. At the moment, its fate rests with state Attorney General Kamala Harris, who is charged with writing a title and summary for the proposal. Legal experts say she has little choice but to let the process continue and that McLaughlin is unlikely to face professional repercussions.
Naturally, Ms. Harris would rather not write up a title and summary of this initiative, but it appears that her hands are tied by the law and prior court rulings. And a lot of experts think giving her the discretion to blow off this submission as clearly illegal would be the more dangerous precedent.
Then there’s the issue of Mr. McLaughlin and his law license. It doesn’t appear that anything can be done about that either.
“It’s offensive to anybody with a rational mind, but I don’t know that it necessarily rises to the level of an ethics violation,” said Jonathan Arons, a legal ethics attorney in San Francisco.
David Cameron Carr of San Diego spent a dozen years at the State Bar disciplining lawyers and the last 14 defending them. He said while attorneys could be disciplined for acts of “moral turpitude,” that requirement relates to the ability to perform their work.
“This is not obviously the kind of act of moral turpitude that calls into question his fitness to practice law,” Carr said.
I guess we can quibble about what the word “obviously” means in this context, but it’s probably true that it’s not the kind of thing that normally costs someone their law license. I think an argument can be made that advocating murder and hate crimes calls into question his mental stability, but that doesn’t mean he has unhappy legal clients or is incapable of offering sound legal advice.
To get this initiative on the ballot, McLaughlin will need 365,880 signatures, which seems like an impossible number to me. So, while it’s highly offensive, it really only matters as an opportunity to revisit the ballot initiative process. Should the fees be higher than $200? What kind of discretion should there be about which initiatives should be allowed and who should have that discretion?
I’m no fan of ballot initiatives, but it does seem that there’s always someone who is intent on ruining things for the rest of us. Don’t you think?
Well, let’s just say that the names of those who are willing to put their John Hancock on this petition will make for an interesting database. My guess is that it will be nothing more than a mish-mash of psychopathic religious zealots, ultra-far right nut jobs and a smattering of delusional homophobes.
In other words, a middling sized portion of the Republican base.
Harris should title it the “Allow Terrorists to Commit Mass Murder Act” (entirely truthful, actually) and write a withering summary of how the act is unconstitutional and immoral (easy, and also truthful.)
Nice idea. This not rising to the level necessary to jeopardize a law license must be a California thing. Here on Planet Earth, I would most certainly risk my law license by advocating illegal activities.
Can I start a ballot initiative that authorizes the killing of any lawyer from Huntington Beach named Matt McLaughlin by “bullets to the head,” or “any other convenient method?”
Bill of Attainder, but it appears you might be able to.
You’d be better off advertising in the personals in New Jersey.
could create an interesting discussion for the senate campaign
All the signatures on this one should be listed everywhere.
As odious as this effort is, it is more in line with the original intent of the initiative process than the special business interests and corporate funded and promulgated initiatives have been. It was progressive legislation intended for the use of the people when state officials refused to act in their interests. IOW democracy with very little constraint of it in the initiative process.
Not likely that those progressives considered how such a seemingly good law could be used by corporations and anti-democratic forces for ill. In fact, it was hardly used by anyone for decades. The CA lottery was passed by initiative in 1984 but earlier attempts had failed — and it wasn’t “the people” demanding a lottery, but the gambling industry.
Are 1% of Californians unhinged enough to sign a petition legalizing the murder of non-heterosexual people? It would be difficult to come up with anything that 1% of some population wouldn’t support. So, yes, there probably are enough unhinged Californians. Doesn’t have a chance of passing, but it would be interesting to know how large that unhinged population is.
Even if this POS initiative passed at the ballot box, it would, like a high percentage of successful initiatives, end up in the courts before implementation and be struck down. So, all those racists hearing about this effort should forget about a copycat effort.
This ballot initiative is designed to make it legal for anyone to kill people who are gay, or even suspected of being gay.
A ballot initiative can go forward stating that it is fine to deprive gay people of their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness without any due process at all?
How is this not unconstitutional and blatantly so? What if it were to pass? Outright murder is then legal and nothing can be done about it?
Is the next ballot initiative one that will make it legal to grab any person of color off the street and enslave them and be entitled to total ownership and the right to do anything at all to that person, including rape and murder and selling their children to anyone you like?
I guess it is just difficult for me to see how something like this, asking for the right of some people to put a bullet in the head of other people and killing them dead can in any way move be permitted to move forward.
If you want to declare open season on [insert group of your choice here], there is a much simpler way to do it. All you have to do is elect one prosecutor.
No worries… it is helpful for us all to be reminded of just how utterly despicable americans really are. Tell me again why I should give a crap what happens to the good ol’ USA? The progressive agenda is dead until the enemy is exterminated. It’s not going to be pretty.
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to
subscribe to your newsletterjoin your guerrilla in the Sierra Maestre….Very good, DavisX
I’m just extending the benefit of the doubt and assuming all of this ‘exterminating the enemy’ stuff isn’t just smoke being blown fundament-wards.
What do you do about people who think like this? What do you do about the politicians who enable it?
“Why is the Congress rolling over and letting this Communist dictator destroy my country? Y’all know what he is and I know what he is. I want him out of the White House; he’s not a citizen; he could have been removed a long time ago…
“Ted [Cruz?] told me I’ve got to wait for the next election. I don’t think the country will be around for the next election. Obama tried to blow up a nuke in Charleston a few months ago! And the three admirals, and generals. He has totally destroyed our military. He’s fired all the generals and all the admirals that said they wouldn’t fire on the American people.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/santorum-backer-obama-tried-nuke-charleston
A.) Bullet
B.) Ballot
I don’t remember Malcomn offering a tertium quid.
Of course… you and I shall patiently wait for option A to bear fruit. In the meantime. Let’s talk about something else.
Oops… of course I meant option B. We will wait for option B.
Since neither you nor I are inclined to fight the radical GOP crazy people in any sort of meaningful way, there is little chance they will change. (How would that even work?) Fox News will continue to spread it’s message. The right will continue to consolidate its political power in the States and in the federal government. There is little prospect, make that no prospect, of the right moderating their views on subjects near and dear to the hearts of progressives. If anything, they are becoming more radical than before.
So we are stuck. They aren’t going away, they cannot be reasoned with, they won’t be “exterminated” and so the progressive agenda is dead.
I’ve simply stopped pretending progress is even possible anymore. On the other hand, aside from these silly dust-ups, life in America really isn’t all that bad so it is difficult to argue this nonsense even matters. Why does BooMan give it prominence by writing about it?
MikeinOhio called them (in this very thread) “a mish-mash of psychopathic religious zealots, ultra-far right nut jobs and a smattering of delusional homophobes.”
Steggles wrote (in this very thread) that he/she wanted to “authorizes the killing of any lawyer from Huntington Beach…”
What does this mean for America’s future? We all know the answer… nothing good.
In Washington state, the Attorney General has the authority to spike any proposed initiative that s/he believes to be illegal or unconstitutional. This happens with some regularity, and then the sponsors are free to appeal that ruling in the courts if they disagree. Why California doesn’t seem to have this simple safeguard is beyond me.
It’s obvious, isn’t it?
Places the expression of the will of the people at the mercy of the courts, which are the tool of the powerful.
Thereby defeating the very purpose of initiative petition and referendum…
So does anybody know enough California law to address this scenario:
A. Sponsors submit 500,000 blatantly falsified signatures.
B. Petition thrown out because of A.
C. Sponsors appeal B, in such a manner as to run out the clock.
D. Deadline for printing ballots arrives; must the thing then appear on the ballots, because it is still being appealed?
It’s my understanding that the sponsors have to submit an adequate number of verifiable signatures by the filing deadline. It’s why they collect far more than needed to qualify. If enough are tossed as invalid to drop the petition below the required number, it doesn’t make it to the ballot. To qualify for a subsequent election, the signature gathering process has to begin anew.
Can’t imagine “C” and “D” in your scenario happening.
California long ago traded in our ship of state for a bus.
Everybody on the bus has his/her own steering wheel, horn, directional turn signal and windshield wiper and washer. Also an accelerator, brake pedal, clutch and gearshift.
Licensing is automatic, and no driver training is required. Collective wisdom makes it all run smoothly.
How can a proposal to change the law be illegal?
If anything was ever in conflict with the equal protection clause, this would have to be it.
Not the California AG’s job to make that call, though.
Seems like proof that as bad as a representative republic can be, direct democracy can be worse. Also, California’s ballot initiative process seems like a total clown show.