CC 04-04-2023 Item No. 3 Evan Low's Office regarding Constitutional Amendment 5- Relating to Marriage_Written CommunicationsCC 04-04-2023
Item No. 3
Presentation from
Assemblyman Evan Low's
Office regarding Assembly
Constitutional Amendment 5:
Relating to Marriage
Written Communications
OFFICE OF ASSEMBLYMEMBER
Evan Low
TWENTY-SIXTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Staff Contact: Mao Yang, Mao.Yang@asm.ca.gov, (916) 319-2026 Last updated: 02/25/2023
CAPITOL OFFICE
1021 O Street, Suite 6110
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 319-2026
Fax: (916) 319-2126
WEBSITE
http://asmdc.org/members/a26/
DISTRICT OFFICE
20111 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 220
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 446-2810
Fax: (408) 446-2815
E-MAIL
Assemblymember.Low@assembly.ca.gov
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5: Relating to Marriage
SUMMARY
Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 5
expresses the intent of the Legislature to amend the
state Constitution relating to marriage equality.
BACKGROUND
In November 2008, 52 percent of Californians voted in
favor of Proposition 8, which amended the state
constitution to state “only marriage between a man
and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
In August 2010, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn
Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional
under the due process and equal protection clauses
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. In February 2012, the U.S. Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals continued to uphold both of the
federal judges’ rulings, and finally the case was taken
to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 26, 2013, the
Supreme Court ruled that the appellants in Proposition
8 did not have standing to bring the case, effectively
nullifying the amendment.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in
Obergefell v. Hodges, that state bans on same-sex
marriage, as well as bans on recognizing same-sex
marriages performed in other jurisdictions, were
unconstitutional. The Court’s 5-4 ruling cited the due
process and equal protection clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The
decision resulted in marriage equality at the federal
level.
PROBLEM
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court published its
decision in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s
Health Organization, which overturned the Court’s
previous rulings in Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned
Parenthood of Pennsylvania. Justice Clarence
Thomas alluded to the decision’s potential
implications for marriage as well, stating in his
concurrence to the decision, that the Court “should
reconsider all of [its] substantive due process
precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and
Obergefell. Because any substantive due process
decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty
to ‘correct the error’ established in those
precedents…”
If the Supreme Court rules to overturn the precedents
set in Obergefell v. Hodges, same-sex marriage could
potentially be put at risk in the state of California.
While Hollingsworth v. Perry nullified the section of the
California Constitution stating marriage to be only
valid and recognized when between man and woman,
that section of the Constitution still remains and could
be re-applied should the Supreme Court revisit and
reverse its previous ruling.
SOLUTION
ACA 5 would express the intent of the Legislature to
amend the Constitution of the State relating to
marriage equality. As a leader on LGBTQ+ rights and
inclusivity for the rest of the country, it is California’s
duty to ensure that the tens of thousands of LGBTQ+
Californians who are married are protected and that
the right to marry remains available to all Californians,
regardless of their sexual orientation or gender
identity.
CAPITOL OFFICE
10210 Street, Suite 6110
Sacrainento, CA 95814
(916) 319-2026
Fax (916) 319-2126
WEBSITE
littp //asindc org/ineinbers/a26/
OFFICE OF ASSEMBLYMEMBER
Evan Low
TWENTY-SIXTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
cc r/t/z3
DISTRICT OFFICE
20111 Sievens Creek Blvd, Suite 220
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 446-2810
Fax (408) 446-2815
E-MAIL
Asseinblymetnber Low@asseinbly ca gov
Assembly Bill 1064: Hate Crimes
>i i'iA1tl'
Assembly Bill (AB) protects victims of hate crimes.
€ a <'>'XWSI=
Current law defines "hate crimes" as any criminal act
committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of
the following actual or perceived characteristics of the
victim:
a. disability
b. gender
c. nationality
d. race or ethnicity
e. religion
f. sexual orientation
g. association with a person or group with one or more
of these actual or perceived characteristics. '
Under California law, hate crimes can be charged as
misdei'neanors or felonies. Hate crimes prosecuted as a
misdemeanor are punishable by up to one year in
county jail and/or a fine of up to $5,000. If a person is
facing a felony hate crime charge, then they will
receive an enhanced penalty onto the sentence attached
to the felony conviction. This enhancement could add
an additional tliree years of prison time to a person's
sentence.
Hate crimes are on the rise in California. According to the
Attorney General's 202] Hate Criine in Crdifornici Report,
overall liate criine increased 32.6% froin 1,330 in 2020 to
1,763 in 2021. Reported liate criines targeting Black people
reinaii'i tlie inost prevalent and increased 12.5% froin 456 in
2020 to 513 in 2021, wlii)e reported anti-Asian liate criine
events once again increased drainatically, rising 177.5%
from 2020 to 202], and reported liate criines ii'ivolving a
sexual oriei'itation bias also increased sigi'iificai'itly, rising
47.8% froin 2020 to 2021,
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, AAPI
community members continue to experience hate at
alarming levels. Stop AAPI Hate reporting center has
received 11,467 reported incidents of anti-Asian attacks and
discrimination. Almost 48% of these incidents occurred
here in Califoniia, and around 40% of the incidents took
place in public spaces such as streets, sidewalks, roads, and
parks.
While current law is solid when it comes to prosecutions of
people who clearly state their intent to target an individual
of a protected class, it is weak when it comes to the more
common situation of an individual deliberately targeting
individuals from a protected class. Recently, in Santa Clara
County, there was a case where an individual targeted
visibly traditional Southeast Asian women for violent
robberies over and over, but current law makes it hard to
hold him accountable except for a traditional robbery.
'@)QUjf$i(@X
AB 1064 clarifies bias motivation to address the purposeful
targeting of victims due to bias motivations. Specifically,
this bill amends the definition of hate crimes to include
similar language from current law regarding trainmg on
bias criines for law enforcement.2
The Arc
United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration
California District Attorneys Association
' California Penal Code §422.55 (a)2 California Penal Code §422.87
Staff Contact: Mao Yang, mao.yang@asm.ca.gov, (916) 319-2026 Last updated: