Understanding the Prop 8 Litigation: The Scope of Direct Democracy and Role of Judicial Scrutiny

NeXus: Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2009

16 Pages Posted: 6 Feb 2009

See all articles by Ronald L. Steiner

Ronald L. Steiner

Chapman University, The Dale E. Fowler School of Law

Date Written: February 6, 2009

Abstract

Once the California Supreme Court decision is handed down, the precise contours of the battle over Proposition 8 and marriage equality will change, but nothing on the political horizon will make moot many of the fundamental issues direct democracy raises for California and the nation. A special and enduring element of the Prop 8 controversy is the role of judicial review in the scrutiny of the results of ballot propositions. A slice of conventional wisdom seems to suggest that the results of plebiscites should be nearly immune from judicial review. On the other hand, many political and legal scholars are more skeptical, and some even argue that judicial review of direct democracy should be more searching, given that the usual vetting and deliberation has not occurred. This article seeks to place the debate over Prop 8 into the broader context of an ongoing discussion about the place of direct democracy in legal and constitutional change.

Keywords: ballot proposition, initiative, judicial review, equal protection, same-sex marriage, marriage equality

Suggested Citation

Steiner, Ronald L., Understanding the Prop 8 Litigation: The Scope of Direct Democracy and Role of Judicial Scrutiny (February 6, 2009). NeXus: Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2009, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1339022

Ronald L. Steiner (Contact Author)

Chapman University, The Dale E. Fowler School of Law ( email )

One University Drive
Orange, CA 92866-1099
United States
(714)628-7356 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www.chapman.edu/our-faculty/ronald-steiner

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
140
Abstract Views
1,019
rank
298,776
PlumX Metrics