PROP 8 LAWSUIT Q&A: WHAT’S A REQUEST FOR AN “IMMEDIATE STAY”? DOES THAT SETTLE THE CASE?

UPDATE:  Attorney General Brown submits recommendation to Court. Urges review of Prop. 8 but does NOT recommend the immediate state.  Read press release here. (We’ll do full analysis later in the day).

Here’s a question we’re getting a lot.

Q:  I keep reading about how the the Prop 8 Lawsuit (Strauss v. Horton) might be decided very soon, is this true?

A: No.  The issue that may get decided in the next days is the “immediate stay” of Prop. 8.  An “immediate stay” is a court order to not do something until the court has a chance to review the issue further.  If the ‘”immediate stay” were granted, then Prop. 8 would not go into effect until the entire lawsuit was decided.  The entire lawsuit won’t be decided until the Yes-On-8 side files an their briefs, the court can ask for even more briefs from either side, and there may be oral arguments.  It could go on for awhile.

Q:  Do you think the “immediate stay” will be granted?

Dunno.  It’s a toss-up.  There’s another provision in the California Constitution that says that all ballot props which amend the constitution go into effect the day after the election results are in.

This is significant because one of the lawsuit’s arguments is that Prop. 8 does not amend the California Constitution, but it actually revises it.  If the court grants the stay are they signaling that they agree that Prop. 8 is a revision and not an amendment?  If they don’t grant the stay are they signaling that they believe Prop. 8 is an amendment?

Sometimes courts use rulings on things like “stays” to drop hints as to which way they’re leaning on the ultimate issue, but we’re not sure if that’ll be the case here.  Either way, both sides would be well-served not to read too much into the “immediate stay” decision.

For a full explanation of the Prop 8 lawsuit, check out our <a href=” “http://johnnycalifornia.com/?p=1313″ target=”_blank”> Explanation of the Prop. 8 Lawsuits for Non-Lawyers</a>