6 ms·

This really isn't a very surprising outcome -- and not just because there was a similar ruling on the other "diverse boards" law. U.S. const. amend. XIV: No St

This really isn't a very surprising outcome -- and not just because there was a similar ruling on the other "diverse boards" law. U.S. const. amend. XIV: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. C.A. const. article I §7(b): A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked. C.A. const. article I §31(a): The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. Reading through the verdict and the references to testimony and other evidence submitted, that this law was discriminatory in nature was barely at issue. The was as close to an open-and-shut anti-discrimination case as you're likely to find. In particular, the California constitution explicitly states something that is only implied at the federal level which all but guarantees this outcome in anything remotely resembling an impartial court: It specifies explicitly not just that the State can't discriminate against, but also explicitly that the State can't grant preferential treatment to any group on the basis of [the protected characteristics which include sex]. This law explicitly is about granting preferential treatment (in this case, dedicated board seats at every public company) to a group (women) on the basis of sex.

vmception 4y ago
We need a way to the governor/head of state to immediately punt something up for judicial review, as an additional option aside from signing or vetoing. The most inspired things I've seen from activists in the US is "line item veto", but I'm thinking of direct constitutional court review without waiting for someone with deep pockets/connections to be hurt by the law. Some developed countries have this. Seems like a better check and balance than the one from 1792. Passing a law can potentially involve all three branches of the government.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  In this instance, the governor was the one advocating for the law, and everybody else pretty much admitted that it wasn't going to fly
  - vmception 4y ago
    in that case, I would want another additional path for judicial review without waiting for someone to be hurt. I wonder how other countries do this efficiently (without reviewing the same law a bunch of times from all angles)
    - codefreeordie 4y ago
      You'll have to find some Brits to tell you how effective it is, but the UK has the House of Lords whose basic role at this point is to review and offer legal commentary on bills that come out of the Commons before they get Royal Assent and become law. The Commons generally can overrule the Lords, but in theory it produces a version of this result.
      - MrJohz 4y ago
        It's reasonably effective, at least in my opinion. The HoL is definitely constitutionally weaker than the HoC, but because of (a) their influence (many are former politicians or other important figures) and (b) the delaying effect that repeatedly ping-ponging legislation between the houses has, if the House of Lords blocks something, then it often had a good chance of being amended at least partially to find a compromise. In addition, the HoL gives people a place to criticize Government decisions with some authority - a lord complaining about a decision generally has more political influence than many other people (although in practice less political power). There are some "loopholes" as it were - if a particular piece of legislation was part of the governing party's manifesto when they were elected (say, a government gets elected promising four day work weeks), then by convention, that legislation is passed through the HoL unchanged, on the basis that it has a clear democratic mandate. (It will still get discussed in both houses, and in the House of Commons, it'll get sent through a couple of rounds of cross-party committees to scrutinise the wording, so there are still some checks in place there.) There are some flaws with the system. Firstly and most prominently, I suspect, in the eyes of the American observer: the House of Lords are unelected representatives. The word "Lords" in the name literally means what it says on the tin, and historically, many of the people sitting there were nobility who inherited their titles, and therefore were granted the right to sit there simply by birth. The New Labour reforms decreased the number of these peers to 92 (about an eighth of the around 750 peers currently active) and also added rules as to which people with hereditary titles would be able to claim those seats. In addition, the "Lords Spiritual" are a group of 25 seats set aside for bishops of the Church of England. The rest of the HoL operates more like the Supreme Court in the US, where someone will be given a lifetime peerage, generally as a reward for services to the country in some way. Many major former politicians therefore end up in the HoL, as do some campaigners or community organisers, as well as significant business leaders. Generally the government is and to choose who gets made a lord, although other parties are traditionally able to make suggestions to ensure that the makeup of the HoL stays reasonably fair, and isn't weighted too heavily to one party or another. (As an aside, the non-bishop lords are known as the Lords Temporal, and if you enjoyed that fact, look up Black Rod, and the weird traditions that are associated with him.) The other big criticism of the HoL is the size - the UK is I believe the only bicameral parliamentary system with an upper house larger than the lower house. This is because it's in every party's interest to stuff the House with more representatives for their party (or at least neutral representatives who can water down the opposition's strength). There are limits on how many new lords can be created, but I do not believe there's any limit on how big the HoL can become. There are regularly discussions about how to "fix" the House of Lords - Labour fairly consistently have it as a manifesto promise, although how exactly they plan to reform the institution tends to change. A common suggestion is an elected house, but this has the effect that the upper house would look suspiciously like the lower house in terms of political makeup - most people who vote for one party in the House of Commons are unlikely to want a different party in the House of Lords. Alternatively, abolishing the Lords Spiritual and the hereditary peers is often proposed, but many Christians (or at least, people who see themselves as ethnically/culturally Christian) are opposed. In addition, the Lords Spiritual tends to lean left wing in the UK, regularly criticising the Government for failures in social policy such as food bank usage or lack of access to Universal Credit and other social security programs. Personally, I'd like to see the Lords appointment process cleaned up - rather than being mainly a political decision, it would be good to have it entirely removed to either a cross-party group, or a separate group altogether. They would then be tasked with finding representatives from a wider range of candidates from the charity sector, arts, business, technology, and other places. The idea should be that the Lords represents more of a council of experts in a variety of fields. However, the principle of an unelected upper house that is strictly weaker than the lower house is not necessarily a bad one, and I think in recent years it has done a lot of good for the country.
skyde 4y ago
law explicitly about granting preferential treatment to sex are against california constitution? what about law giving preferential treatment to race? i’m sure california already have diversity hiring quotas for race!
- ss108 4y ago
  Why are you sure? Do you have some evidence or sources on this? What about the proposed constitutional amendment/proposition to permit certain types of affirmative action currently prohibited, which was rejected by California voters?
  - jimmygrapes 4y ago
    Other things were rejected by California voters yet put into law anyway, most notably in recent years the allowance of homosexual marriage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
    - ss108 4y ago
      Which fact does nothing to support the above poster's contention that "i’m sure california already have diversity hiring quotas for race!"
      - jimmygrapes 4y ago
        My apologies, I was not referring to that post but rather to the (inferred on my part) concept that popular vote on something should be the deciding factor for something becoming law. If I misinterpreted, my bad.
        ss108 4y ago
        No worries. I agree with you in opposition to the notion that we should even have direct democracy for most, if not all, issues.

vmception 4y ago

We need a way to the governor/head of state to immediately punt something up for judicial review, as an additional option aside from signing or vetoing. The most inspired things I've seen from activists in the US is "line item veto", but I'm thinking of direct constitutional court review without waiting for someone with deep pockets/connections to be hurt by the law. Some developed countries have this. Seems like a better check and balance than the one from 1792. Passing a law can potentially involve all three branches of the government.

codefreeordie 4y ago
In this instance, the governor was the one advocating for the law, and everybody else pretty much admitted that it wasn't going to fly
- vmception 4y ago
  in that case, I would want another additional path for judicial review without waiting for someone to be hurt. I wonder how other countries do this efficiently (without reviewing the same law a bunch of times from all angles)
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
    You'll have to find some Brits to tell you how effective it is, but the UK has the House of Lords whose basic role at this point is to review and offer legal commentary on bills that come out of the Commons before they get Royal Assent and become law. The Commons generally can overrule the Lords, but in theory it produces a version of this result.
    - MrJohz 4y ago
      It's reasonably effective, at least in my opinion. The HoL is definitely constitutionally weaker than the HoC, but because of (a) their influence (many are former politicians or other important figures) and (b) the delaying effect that repeatedly ping-ponging legislation between the houses has, if the House of Lords blocks something, then it often had a good chance of being amended at least partially to find a compromise. In addition, the HoL gives people a place to criticize Government decisions with some authority - a lord complaining about a decision generally has more political influence than many other people (although in practice less political power). There are some "loopholes" as it were - if a particular piece of legislation was part of the governing party's manifesto when they were elected (say, a government gets elected promising four day work weeks), then by convention, that legislation is passed through the HoL unchanged, on the basis that it has a clear democratic mandate. (It will still get discussed in both houses, and in the House of Commons, it'll get sent through a couple of rounds of cross-party committees to scrutinise the wording, so there are still some checks in place there.) There are some flaws with the system. Firstly and most prominently, I suspect, in the eyes of the American observer: the House of Lords are unelected representatives. The word "Lords" in the name literally means what it says on the tin, and historically, many of the people sitting there were nobility who inherited their titles, and therefore were granted the right to sit there simply by birth. The New Labour reforms decreased the number of these peers to 92 (about an eighth of the around 750 peers currently active) and also added rules as to which people with hereditary titles would be able to claim those seats. In addition, the "Lords Spiritual" are a group of 25 seats set aside for bishops of the Church of England. The rest of the HoL operates more like the Supreme Court in the US, where someone will be given a lifetime peerage, generally as a reward for services to the country in some way. Many major former politicians therefore end up in the HoL, as do some campaigners or community organisers, as well as significant business leaders. Generally the government is and to choose who gets made a lord, although other parties are traditionally able to make suggestions to ensure that the makeup of the HoL stays reasonably fair, and isn't weighted too heavily to one party or another. (As an aside, the non-bishop lords are known as the Lords Temporal, and if you enjoyed that fact, look up Black Rod, and the weird traditions that are associated with him.) The other big criticism of the HoL is the size - the UK is I believe the only bicameral parliamentary system with an upper house larger than the lower house. This is because it's in every party's interest to stuff the House with more representatives for their party (or at least neutral representatives who can water down the opposition's strength). There are limits on how many new lords can be created, but I do not believe there's any limit on how big the HoL can become. There are regularly discussions about how to "fix" the House of Lords - Labour fairly consistently have it as a manifesto promise, although how exactly they plan to reform the institution tends to change. A common suggestion is an elected house, but this has the effect that the upper house would look suspiciously like the lower house in terms of political makeup - most people who vote for one party in the House of Commons are unlikely to want a different party in the House of Lords. Alternatively, abolishing the Lords Spiritual and the hereditary peers is often proposed, but many Christians (or at least, people who see themselves as ethnically/culturally Christian) are opposed. In addition, the Lords Spiritual tends to lean left wing in the UK, regularly criticising the Government for failures in social policy such as food bank usage or lack of access to Universal Credit and other social security programs. Personally, I'd like to see the Lords appointment process cleaned up - rather than being mainly a political decision, it would be good to have it entirely removed to either a cross-party group, or a separate group altogether. They would then be tasked with finding representatives from a wider range of candidates from the charity sector, arts, business, technology, and other places. The idea should be that the Lords represents more of a council of experts in a variety of fields. However, the principle of an unelected upper house that is strictly weaker than the lower house is not necessarily a bad one, and I think in recent years it has done a lot of good for the country.

skyde 4y ago

law explicitly about granting preferential treatment to sex are against california constitution? what about law giving preferential treatment to race? i’m sure california already have diversity hiring quotas for race!

ss108 4y ago
Why are you sure? Do you have some evidence or sources on this? What about the proposed constitutional amendment/proposition to permit certain types of affirmative action currently prohibited, which was rejected by California voters?
- jimmygrapes 4y ago
  Other things were rejected by California voters yet put into law anyway, most notably in recent years the allowance of homosexual marriage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
  - ss108 4y ago
    Which fact does nothing to support the above poster's contention that "i’m sure california already have diversity hiring quotas for race!"
    - jimmygrapes 4y ago
      My apologies, I was not referring to that post but rather to the (inferred on my part) concept that popular vote on something should be the deciding factor for something becoming law. If I misinterpreted, my bad.
      - ss108 4y ago
        No worries. I agree with you in opposition to the notion that we should even have direct democracy for most, if not all, issues.