As disappointing as the decision is, this aspect of it makes sense. The choice was that everybody in a state could have standing or that standing is narrow. They choose standing is narrow and overall it makes sense.
The second outcome is a limit on democracy and a victory for representative government. As BT said, “elections have consequences”.
I think this will be litigated again in state court and the outcome may be very different. That’s why the SSM lobby is working overtime in government schools and the media to groom the public.
That was not the choice. The choice presented to them is that the sponsors of the proposition have legal standing and they decided they don’t.
This happened in California before. The state officials refuse to support the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.
We passed prop187 to restrict benefits for illegal aliens.
Gay Davis refused to defend it in court. That is the biggest contribution to the mess we have been in in Cal even before OB, the hero of benghazi came along.
Another issue. We have the right to an honest election do we not? If the answer is yes, then any citizen with a claim and evidence should have standing to proclaim that right has been violated or to put it more directly, the qualifications were not met by a candidate and that means the election was not legal.