California death penalty opponents filed a taxpayer suit on November 9 to block Proposition 66—the ballot initiative promoted as speeding up the state’s execution process—from going into effect. The suit was filed by former El Dorado County supervisor Ron Briggs (pictured)—who co-authored the measure to reinstate California’s death penalty in 1978—and former California Attorney General John van de Camp. California voters narrowly approved Proposition 66, which was written by prosecutors, by a vote of 50.9%-49.1%. The proposition makes a number of changes to state death penalty appeals procedures, including 5-year time limits for the state Supreme Court to rule on appeals, shortening filing deadlines, transferring the initial consideration of death penalty appeals from the appellate courts to the trial courts, and requiring lawyers to take on death penalty appeals if they wish to keep court appointments for other criminal appeals. The lawsuit argues that these measures would “impair the courts’ exercise of discretion, as well as the courts’ ability to act in fairness to the litigants before them” and raises concerns that death row inmates will be assigned lawyers “who do not currently meet the qualification standards.” Briggs was particularly critical of a new provision that requires initial appeals to be heard by the trial court: “What 66 is saying is we are going to keep the case in the lower court, and those same eyes that convicted the defendant are going to review the appeal. We believe that infringes on the constitution and is flat out not fair.” The lawsuit challenges Proposition 66 on three separate legal grounds. It argues that the proposition “illegally interferes with the jurisdiction of California’s state courts” by revoking the authority conferred by the state constitution for California’s appellate courts to hear capital habeas corpus cases and violates the state constitution’s separation of powers by “materially impair[ing]” the courts’ power to resolve capital appeals. It also argues that Proposition 66 violated the state constitutional requirement that “an initiative measure may not embrace more than one subject.” In addition to the expressed purpose of “death penalty reform,” Proposition 66 included provisions for victim compensation, changes in the state’s Administrative Procedures Act governing the adoption of administrative regulations, and disbanding the unpaid Board of Directors that governs the state’s institutional capital defender organization.

(J. Ulloa, “Proposition 66 hasn’t been called by elections officials, but death penalty opponents are already taking it to court,” Los Angeles Times, November 10, 2016; B. Egelko, “Suit filed to block death-penalty measure Prop. 66,” San Francisco Chronicle, November 9, 2016.) See Recent Legislative Activity. Read the Petition for Extraordinary relief here.

Citation Guide