California “Sodomite Suppression” Initiative (2016)

Not on Ballot

This measure was not put
on an election ballot

## Contents

* 1 Text of measure
* 1.1 Statute text
* 2 Opposition
* 2.1 Reaction
* 2.2 Arguments
* 3 Path to the ballot
* 4 See also
* 5 External links
* 6 Additional reading
* 7 Footnotes

A California “Sodomite Suppression” Initiative (#15-0008) did not qualify for the November 8, 2016 ballot in California as an initiated state statute.[1] Judge Raymond Cadei of the Sacramento County Superior Court struck the proposed measure down as unconstitutional.[2]

The measure, upon voter approval, would have mandated California to put to death any person who "willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification." The initiative classifies this group of people as "sodomites." It would also have made it a crime to distribute "sodomistic propaganda" to "any person under the age of majority." Being a "sodomite" or distributing "sodomistic propaganda" would have disqualified one from serving in public office or public employment and from enjoying any public benefit.

## Text of measure[edit]

### Statute text[edit]

The law that would have been enacted by this proposed measure read:[1]

“  | Penal Code section 39

a) The abominable crime against nature known as buggery, called also sodomy, is a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrha.

b) Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God's just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.

c) No person shall distribute, perform, or transmit sodomistic propaganda directly or indirectly by any means to any person under the age of majority. Sodomistic propaganda is defined as anything aimed at creating an interest in or an acceptance of human sexual relations other than between a man and a woman. Every offender shall be fined $1 million per occurrence, and/or imprisoned up to 10 years, and/or expelled from the boundaries of the state of California for up to life.

d) No person shall serve in any public office, nor serve in public employment, nor enjoy any public benefit, who is a sodomite or who espouses sodomistic propaganda or who belongs to any group that does.

e) This law is effective immediately and shall not be rendered ineffective nor invalidated by any court, state or federal, until heard by a quorum of the Supreme Court of California consisting only of judges who are neither sodomites nor subject to disqualification hereunder.

f) The state has an affirmative duty to defend and enforce this law as written, and every member of the public has standing to seek its enforcement and obtain reimbursement for all costs and attorney's fees in so doing, and further, should the state persist in inaction over 1 year after due notice, the general public is empowered and deputized to execute all the provisions hereunder extra-judicially, immune from any charge and indemnified by the state against any and all liability.

g) This law shall be known as "The Sodomite Suppression Act" and be numbered as section 39 in Title 3 of the Penal Code, pertaining to offences against the sovereignty of the state. The text shall be prominently posted in every public school classroom. All laws in conflict with this law are to that extent invalid.[3]

| ”

|
|

## Opposition[edit]

### Reaction[edit]

The proposed proposition spurred some commentators to call on legislators to amend the state's initiative process. Natasha Minsker, director of the ACLU California’s Center for Advocacy and Policy, argued that fundamental constitutional rights should not be subject to citizen-sponsored initiatives. She stated,

“  | It doesn’t have to be this way. Eight states and Washington, D.C., have some form of precertification review to ensure that only constitutionally sound measures make it onto the ballot. Three of those jurisdictions go even further and completely prohibit ballot initiatives that seek to limit specified constitutional rights. These jurisdictions have concluded that some constitutional rights are so fundamental, so core to our democracy, that they simply should not be subject to popular vote, at least not based on the petition-gathering process alone.[3] | ”

|
|

—Natasha Minsker[4]

Assemblyman Anthony Rendon (D-63) introduced legislation that he hoped would deter citizens from signing petitions regarding unconstitutional matters. Rendon said, "Voters must be informed when a petition they sign violates the United States Constitution." His bill would have made petition signatures subject to the California Public Records Act.[5]

Charlotte Laws, a Los Angeles city commissioner, proposed the "Intolerant Jackass" Initiative in response.[6]

Others called on Attorney General Harris (D) to deny the proposal a ballot title and summary and thus the ability to circulate. Vikram Amar, a professor at the University of California, Davis, pointed out that Harris did not have to power to do this. He contended, "What California law says is that the attorney general, a political elected official, cannot by herself exclude a measure from the signature-gathering process because we don’t trust elected political officials to make judgments about what is necessarily legal or not, especially in closed cases." She could, however, "go to a court and ask a court to declare this proposal patently unconstitutional..."[7]

Harris decided to bring the issue before the Sacramento County Superior Court.[8] She argued that the initiative is "patently unconstitutional, utterly reprehensible, and has no place in a civil society." In a press release, Harris noted, "If the Court does not grant this relief, my office will be forced to issue a title and summary for a proposal that seeks to legalize discrimination and vigilantism."[9]

Judge Raymond Cadei struck down the petition for the proposed ballot measure. He claimed the proposition was "patently unconstitutional." Forcing Harris to approve the petition would be "inappropriate, waste public resources, generate unnecessary divisions among the public and tend to mislead the electorate."[2]

### Arguments[edit]

* Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-33) said, "I support freedom of speech, but calling for state-sanctioned execution of a protected class calls into question the proponent’s character and judgment."[10]

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: California signature requirements

* Matt McLaughlin submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on February 26, 2015.
* A title and summary were to be issued by California's attorney general's office no later than May 4, 2015.
* 365,880 valid signatures would have been required for qualification purposes.
* On June 22, 2015, the potential measure was struck down.[2]

## See also[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* 2016 ballot measures
* California 2016 ballot propositions

## External links[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 15-0008

## Additional reading[edit]

* Slate, "California’s “Kill the Gays” Proposal Can’t Be Stopped," March 20, 2015
* Huffington Post, "Lawyer In California Proposes Killing Gays With 'Sodomite Suppression Act'," March 2, 2015

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 California Attorney General, "Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 15-0008," February 26, 2015
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 The Guardian, "California 'Kill the Gays' ballot blocked," June 24, 2015
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
4. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Fundamental rights should not be subject to popular vote," March 29, 2015
5. ↑ California Newswire, "Calif. Assemblyman Rendon Proposes Initiative Reform to Counter Anti-Gay Ballot Measure," March 25, 2015
6. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "‘Shoot the Gays’ initiative countered by ‘Intolerant Jackass Act’," March 25, 2015
7. ↑ NPR, "Calif. Lawyer's Ballot Proposal Calls Referendum System Into Question," March 25, 2015
8. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris seeks court order to stop anti-gay initiative," March 25, 2015
9. ↑ California Attorney General, "Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Issues Statement on Proposed Ballot Initiative," March 25, 2015
10. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "‘Shoot the gays’ initiative likely to be circulated," March 19, 2015

v • e

2016 ballot measures

I&R States|

Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming

Non I&R States|

Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Kentucky • Maryland • Minnesota • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New York • North Carolina • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • West Virginia • Wisconsin

Political topics|

Adult entertainment • Alcohol • Assisted death • Banking • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil and criminal trials • Civil rights • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Death penalty • Definition of a corporation • Education • Elections and campaigns • Energy • English language • Environment • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Forests and parks • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting and fishing • Labor and unions • Law enforcement • Lottery • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Prisons • Property • Redistricting • Religion • Salaries of government officials • School choice • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Tort law • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans • Wages and pay

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2016 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaigns • Campaign contributions • Campaign finance • Endorsements • Voter guides

v • e

Ballotpedia

About|

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy

Communications: Alison Graves • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Lauren Nemerovski
External Relations: Alison Prange • Kari Berger • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Kelly Rindfleisch
Policy: Christopher Nelson • Caitlin Styrsky • Molly Byrne • Katharine Frey • Jimmy McAllister • Samuel Postell
Research: Josh Altic, Managing Editor
Tech: Matt Latourelle • Nathan Bingham • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Joseph Sanchez

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial|

Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Chief • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Jerrick Adams • Victoria Antram • Dave Beaudoin • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Kate Carsella • Kelly Coyle • Megan Feeney • Nicole Fisher • Juan García de Paredes • Sara Horton • Tyler King • Doug Kronaizl • Amee LaTour • David Luchs • Roneka Matheny • Andrew McNair • Jackie Mitchell • Elisabeth Moore • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Samantha Post • Paul Rader • Ethan Rice • Myj Saintyl • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Caitlin Vanden Boom • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Mercedes Yanora

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2022 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy