window.__IS_SSR__=true
window.__INITIAL_STATE__={
"attachmentsReducer": {
"audio_0": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_0",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background0.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_1": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_1",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background1.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_2": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_2",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background2.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_3": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_3",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background3.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_4": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_4",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background4.jpg"
}
}
},
"placeholder": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "placeholder",
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xxsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"small": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xlarge": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 32,
"height": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 50,
"height": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 64,
"height": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 96,
"height": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 128,
"height": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
}
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false,
"liveAudioPlayStartedAt": 0,
"liveAudioPlayContext": ""
},
"authorsReducer": {
"jbrooks": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "80",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "80",
"found": true
},
"name": "Jon Brooks",
"firstName": "Jon",
"lastName": "Brooks",
"slug": "jbrooks",
"email": "jbrooks@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"science"
],
"title": "Digital Editor",
"bio": "Jon Brooks is a former Digital Editor for KQED Science. He is the former editor of KQED’s daily news blog, News Fix. In 2014, he won a California Journalism Award for his coverage of ride services like Uber and Lyft and the taxi industry. A veteran blogger, he previously worked for Yahoo! in various news writing and editing roles. Jon is also a playwright whose work has been produced in San Francisco, New York, Italy, and around the U.S. He has written about film for his own blog and studied film at Boston University.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "jbrooksfoy",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"Contributor",
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "mindshift",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "quest",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Jon Brooks | KQED",
"description": "Digital Editor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/jbrooks"
},
"kqed": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "236",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "236",
"found": true
},
"name": "KQED News Staff",
"firstName": "KQED News Staff",
"lastName": null,
"slug": "kqed",
"email": "faq@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "KQED News Staff | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/kqed"
},
"kqednewsstaffandwires": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "237",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "237",
"found": true
},
"name": "KQED News Staff and Wires",
"firstName": "KQED News Staff and Wires",
"lastName": null,
"slug": "kqednewsstaffandwires",
"email": "onlinenewsstaff@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "lowdown",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "food",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "KQED News Staff and Wires | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/kqednewsstaffandwires"
},
"scottshafer": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "255",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "255",
"found": true
},
"name": "Scott Shafer",
"firstName": "Scott",
"lastName": "Shafer",
"slug": "scottshafer",
"email": "sshafer@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Scott Shafer is a senior editor with the KQED Politics and Government desk. He is co-host of Political Breakdown, the award-winning radio show and podcast with a personal take on the world of politics. Scott came to KQED in 1998 to host the statewide\u003cem> California Report\u003c/em>. Prior to that he had extended stints in politics and government\u003cem>.\u003c/em> He uses that inside experience at KQED in his, reporting, hosting and analysis for the politics desk. Scott collaborated \u003cem>Political Breakdown a\u003c/em>nd on \u003cem>The Political Mind of Jerry Brown, \u003c/em>an eight-part series about the life and extraordinary political career of the former governor. For fun, he plays water polo with the San Francisco Tsunami.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "scottshafer",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Scott Shafer | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/scottshafer"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"news_category_law-and-justice": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6188",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6188",
"score": 13.5558605
},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Law and Justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Law and Justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6212,
"slug": "law-and-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"title": "Law and Justice",
"pageMeta": {
"site": "news",
"WpPageTemplate": "page-topic-editorial",
"currentPage": 432
},
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"query": "posts/news?category=law-and-justice",
"seeMore": false,
"paginated": true,
"page": 432
}
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad"
}
]
}
},
"pfsSessionReducer": {},
"postsReducer": {
"stream_live": {
"type": "live",
"id": "stream_live",
"audioUrl": "https://streams.kqed.org/kqedradio",
"title": "Live Stream",
"excerpt": "Live Stream information currently unavailable.",
"link": "/radio",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "KQED Live",
"link": "/"
}
},
"stream_kqedNewscast": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "stream_kqedNewscast",
"audioUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/RDnews/newscast.mp3?_=1",
"title": "KQED Newscast",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "88.5 FM",
"link": "/"
}
},
"news_100525": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_100525",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "100525",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371838504000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371838504,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Guide to What Happens Once Prop. 8 Ruling Comes Down",
"title": "Guide to What Happens Once Prop. 8 Ruling Comes Down",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/01/04/news-pix-best-images-of-2012/photoweek130104prop8/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-84574\">\u003cimg class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-84574\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/01/PhotoWeek130104Prop8.jpg\" alt=\"PhotoWeek130104Prop8\" width=\"620\" height=\"450\">\u003c/a>The Supreme Court is expected to rule on \u003ca title=\"Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know\" href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 8\u003c/a> next week. There are a number of possible outcomes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(If you're confused about any of this, start by reading the summary of \u003ca title=\"Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know\" href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">what you need to know about Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court\u003c/a>.)\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/20/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\" target=\"_blank\">Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The U.S. Supreme Court could affirm the 9th Circuit decision that invalidated Prop. 8's constitutionality.\u003c/strong> Such a ruling would legalize same-sex marriage in California. It could potentially go beyond California and legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could dismiss the case, by ruling that the petition for review should never have been granted.\u003c/strong> This would leave the 9th Circuit Court's decision that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional as the final binding decision. This ruling, however, was narrowly defined and would likely pertain solely to California.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could hold that the Prop. 8 backers lack standing under the federal law to appeal.\u003c/strong> This would vacate the 9th Circuit's decision, leaving \u003ca title=\"Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable'\" href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/11/vaughn-walker\">U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker\u003c/a>'s ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional as final, making same-sex marriage legal in California. However, this would leave open the possibility that Prop. 8 supporters could challenge whether that ruling applies statewide.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could reverse the 9th Circuit, upholding Prop. 8 as valid.\u003c/strong> This would mean that same-sex marriage would continue to be illegal in California. However, with public opinion on same-sex marriage shifting, \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=192523360\" target=\"_blank\">according to Pew\u003c/a>, it is likely that supporters of the issue would put a counteracting proposition on the ballot in the future.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The third of the four scenarios, in which the court rules that the proponents lacked legal standing to challenge Walker's decision, is believed to be the most likely. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar told KQED's Scott Shafer last week\u003c/a> that a broad decision declaring a fundamental, nationwide right to same-sex marriage is highly unlikely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said. He noted that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with the 35 that now ban gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Also from that report by Scott Shafer:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>At \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> in March, there seemed to be little appetite – even among the most liberal justices -- for a momentous decision in support of gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And there are two ways for the court to avoid that legal question altogether. They could simply dismiss the case, allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision to stand. (In fact, during \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a>, Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or, more likely, Amar said, the court will declare that Prop. 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If the case is decided on standing grounds, the thing we should focus on right away is what, if anything, the court says about the follow-on process,” Amar said.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>If the court decides to rule on the issue of standing, then a number of other things could happen next.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court will likely include some guidance on how the ruling can be interpreted legally, if it applies statewide or just in the counties where the lawsuits were filed -- or even just to the defendants. While many believe that a ruling on standing would make same-sex marriage legal throughout California, others believe that it would apply only in the counties where the suits were filed (Alameda and Los Angeles), and in San Francisco, which intervened in the case. Because of these complications, most counties have said they will look to the state for direction.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Although county clerks are responsible for issuing marriage licenses in California, they will likely turn to the Department of Public Health Vital Records on how to proceed, said Cathy Darling Allen, president of the California State Association of Clerks and Election Officials and the clerk in Shasta County.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I believe we will receive some guidance,\" Allen told KQED's Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>However, a department spokesperson told Shafer that they will, in turn, look to the governor's office for guidance -- creating a game of telephone in the wake of the ruling. Evan Westrup, a spokesperson for Gov. Jerry Brown, said the governor's office wouldn't deliberate on what guidance they will give until after the court's ruling. \"Lots of interesting scenarios, none of which we’d publicly comment or speculate on at this point,\" Westrup said by email.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And some counties may challenge a statewide rule in any event. While same-sex marriages were legal in 2008, in the time between when the court struck down Prop. 22 and the passage of Prop. 8, several counties, including Kern, Siskiyou and Butte, refused to perform civil ceremonies. They only issued the licenses.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>According to Allen, that resulted in many more couples from those counties rushing to Shasta County to have their ceremonies performed. Officials in Kern County have not said how they will proceed this time if Prop. 8 is struck down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Interestingly, the technical challenges to performing same-sex marriages -- i.e., changing the license forms and naming conventions to be gender-neutral -- were all addressed in 2008 when about 18,000 same-sex couples were married before Prop. 8 passed, said Allen. That means this time, they'll be \"ready to go,\" she said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If Prop. 8 is struck down, officials have said there could be a 25-day waiting period before marriages resume, meaning the earliest that ceremonies could be performed would be mid-July. However, even this is uncertain. Most cities and counties are preparing to be ready to issue a flood of licenses on Day One, should same-sex marriage be legalized. According to \u003ca href=\"http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/SF-Training-Volunteers-to-Administer-Marriage-Licenses-in-Preparation-for-Prop-8-Decision-211482311.html\" target=\"_blank\">NBC Bay Area\u003c/a>, San Francisco has even begun training volunteers to oversee impromptu weddings.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>“We anticipate that it could be as much as 200 people who come down to City Hall,” said San Francisco County Administrator Naomi Kelly. “We just want to make sure that anyone who wants to get married on that day can.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To prepare, the city is training dozens of volunteers to become deputy clerks. The volunteers are made up of mostly city employees giving up time to learn everything from how to administer vows to inputting legal data into city computers. Some will work as greeters, helping the betrothed navigate the winding matrimonial process.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "100525 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=100525",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/21/guide-to-what-happens-once-prop-8-ruling-comes-down/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1112,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 24
},
"modified": 1371925507,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Proposition 8 next week. There are a number of possible outcomes. (If you're confused about any of this, start by reading the summary of what you need to know about Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court.) Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage Prop. 8 at the",
"title": "Guide to What Happens Once Prop. 8 Ruling Comes Down | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Guide to What Happens Once Prop. 8 Ruling Comes Down",
"datePublished": "2013-06-21T11:15:04-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-22T11:25:07-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "guide-to-what-happens-once-prop-8-ruling-comes-down",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/19/what-happens-after-prop-8-ruling/",
"path": "/news/100525/guide-to-what-happens-once-prop-8-ruling-comes-down",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/01/04/news-pix-best-images-of-2012/photoweek130104prop8/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-84574\">\u003cimg class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-84574\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/01/PhotoWeek130104Prop8.jpg\" alt=\"PhotoWeek130104Prop8\" width=\"620\" height=\"450\">\u003c/a>The Supreme Court is expected to rule on \u003ca title=\"Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know\" href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 8\u003c/a> next week. There are a number of possible outcomes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(If you're confused about any of this, start by reading the summary of \u003ca title=\"Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know\" href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">what you need to know about Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court\u003c/a>.)\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/20/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\" target=\"_blank\">Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The U.S. Supreme Court could affirm the 9th Circuit decision that invalidated Prop. 8's constitutionality.\u003c/strong> Such a ruling would legalize same-sex marriage in California. It could potentially go beyond California and legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could dismiss the case, by ruling that the petition for review should never have been granted.\u003c/strong> This would leave the 9th Circuit Court's decision that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional as the final binding decision. This ruling, however, was narrowly defined and would likely pertain solely to California.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could hold that the Prop. 8 backers lack standing under the federal law to appeal.\u003c/strong> This would vacate the 9th Circuit's decision, leaving \u003ca title=\"Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable'\" href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/11/vaughn-walker\">U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker\u003c/a>'s ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional as final, making same-sex marriage legal in California. However, this would leave open the possibility that Prop. 8 supporters could challenge whether that ruling applies statewide.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could reverse the 9th Circuit, upholding Prop. 8 as valid.\u003c/strong> This would mean that same-sex marriage would continue to be illegal in California. However, with public opinion on same-sex marriage shifting, \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=192523360\" target=\"_blank\">according to Pew\u003c/a>, it is likely that supporters of the issue would put a counteracting proposition on the ballot in the future.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The third of the four scenarios, in which the court rules that the proponents lacked legal standing to challenge Walker's decision, is believed to be the most likely. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar told KQED's Scott Shafer last week\u003c/a> that a broad decision declaring a fundamental, nationwide right to same-sex marriage is highly unlikely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said. He noted that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with the 35 that now ban gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Also from that report by Scott Shafer:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>At \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> in March, there seemed to be little appetite – even among the most liberal justices -- for a momentous decision in support of gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And there are two ways for the court to avoid that legal question altogether. They could simply dismiss the case, allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision to stand. (In fact, during \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a>, Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or, more likely, Amar said, the court will declare that Prop. 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If the case is decided on standing grounds, the thing we should focus on right away is what, if anything, the court says about the follow-on process,” Amar said.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>If the court decides to rule on the issue of standing, then a number of other things could happen next.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court will likely include some guidance on how the ruling can be interpreted legally, if it applies statewide or just in the counties where the lawsuits were filed -- or even just to the defendants. While many believe that a ruling on standing would make same-sex marriage legal throughout California, others believe that it would apply only in the counties where the suits were filed (Alameda and Los Angeles), and in San Francisco, which intervened in the case. Because of these complications, most counties have said they will look to the state for direction.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Although county clerks are responsible for issuing marriage licenses in California, they will likely turn to the Department of Public Health Vital Records on how to proceed, said Cathy Darling Allen, president of the California State Association of Clerks and Election Officials and the clerk in Shasta County.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I believe we will receive some guidance,\" Allen told KQED's Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>However, a department spokesperson told Shafer that they will, in turn, look to the governor's office for guidance -- creating a game of telephone in the wake of the ruling. Evan Westrup, a spokesperson for Gov. Jerry Brown, said the governor's office wouldn't deliberate on what guidance they will give until after the court's ruling. \"Lots of interesting scenarios, none of which we’d publicly comment or speculate on at this point,\" Westrup said by email.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And some counties may challenge a statewide rule in any event. While same-sex marriages were legal in 2008, in the time between when the court struck down Prop. 22 and the passage of Prop. 8, several counties, including Kern, Siskiyou and Butte, refused to perform civil ceremonies. They only issued the licenses.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>According to Allen, that resulted in many more couples from those counties rushing to Shasta County to have their ceremonies performed. Officials in Kern County have not said how they will proceed this time if Prop. 8 is struck down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Interestingly, the technical challenges to performing same-sex marriages -- i.e., changing the license forms and naming conventions to be gender-neutral -- were all addressed in 2008 when about 18,000 same-sex couples were married before Prop. 8 passed, said Allen. That means this time, they'll be \"ready to go,\" she said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If Prop. 8 is struck down, officials have said there could be a 25-day waiting period before marriages resume, meaning the earliest that ceremonies could be performed would be mid-July. However, even this is uncertain. Most cities and counties are preparing to be ready to issue a flood of licenses on Day One, should same-sex marriage be legalized. According to \u003ca href=\"http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/SF-Training-Volunteers-to-Administer-Marriage-Licenses-in-Preparation-for-Prop-8-Decision-211482311.html\" target=\"_blank\">NBC Bay Area\u003c/a>, San Francisco has even begun training volunteers to oversee impromptu weddings.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>“We anticipate that it could be as much as 200 people who come down to City Hall,” said San Francisco County Administrator Naomi Kelly. “We just want to make sure that anyone who wants to get married on that day can.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To prepare, the city is training dozens of volunteers to become deputy clerks. The volunteers are made up of mostly city employees giving up time to learn everything from how to administer vows to inputting legal data into city computers. Some will work as greeters, helping the betrothed navigate the winding matrimonial process.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/100525/guide-to-what-happens-once-prop-8-ruling-comes-down",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_100457": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_100457",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "100457",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371819601000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371819601,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Can San Jose Win Its Lawsuit Against Major League Baseball?",
"title": "Can San Jose Win Its Lawsuit Against Major League Baseball?",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>On Tuesday, San Jose’s impatience with Major League Baseball’s inability to solve the seemingly intractable dispute pitting the A’s and San Jose against Major League Baseball manifested itself in the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/san-jose-city-council-votes-to-sue-mlb-over-as-move/\" target=\"_blank\">city filing a lawsuit against the league in federal court\u003c/a>. The conflict stems from the Giants' refusal to cede the territorial rights to California's third largest city to the A's-- rights which the A's, believe it or not, actually granted to the Giants in the 1990s --thus preventing the relocation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_62095\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 200px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/04/sanjoseas.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-62095\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/04/sanjoseas.jpg\" alt=\"Still a fake logo...\" width=\"200\" height=\"202\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Still a fake logo...\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>“This action arises from the blatant conspiracy by Major League Baseball to prevent the Athletics Baseball Club from moving to San Jose,” the federal complaint begins. \"For years, MLB has unlawfully conspired to control the location and relocation of major league men’s professional baseball clubs under the guise of an 'antitrust exemption' applied to the business of baseball.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The lawsuit, which you can \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/san-jose-city-council-votes-to-sue-mlb-over-as-move/#suit\" target=\"_blank\">read here\u003c/a>, claims San Jose has suffered losses in the millions of dollars related to direct spending and tax revenue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Baseball's antitrust exemption, created in a \u003ca href=\"http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1921/1921_204\" target=\"_blank\">1922 U.S. Supreme Court ruling\u003c/a>, is a cherished component of its business model. By challenging it, San Jose is putting into play a sort of worst-case scenario for the sport.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It’s a core tenet of what baseball holds very near and dear to them,” said Maury Brown, president of the Business of Sports Network and a writer for Baseball Prospectus. “They have lobbied and spent millions of dollars over the years through their PACs to basically retain that. So I believe that they are probably scared.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the antitrust exemption has been unsuccessfully tested before, in 1953 and again in 1972 in the famous \u003ca href=\"http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/07/how-curt-flood-changed-baseball-and-killed-his-career-in-the-process/241783/\" target=\"_blank\">Curt Flood case\u003c/a>. In that instance, the All Star baseball player challenged baseball's now-defunct \"reserve clause,\" which bound players to a team as long as the club desired. (\"A well-paid slave is nonetheless a slave,\" Flood said.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 1998 Congress passed the Curt Flood Act, which limited baseball's antitrust exemption in terms of its labor relations, said Michael McCann, director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire School of Law and a legal analyst for Sports Illustrated. This enshrined into law what had already been resolved in collective bargaining agreements. What that legislation did not do is end the league’s ability to block franchise relocation. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Most scholars and courts would say because Congress declined to do anything about the exemption in 1998, it should continue to remain in place,“ said McCann.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>[The antitrust exemption] is a core tenet of what baseball holds very near and dear ...\"\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\n--Maury Brown, The Business of Sports Network\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>McCann said the legal premise behind baseball’s antitrust exemption stems from the court’s nearly century-old view of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“In order for [antitrust laws] to apply, there has to be interstate commerce,” he said. “And the court held that because baseball games are only played in one place, that’s not interstate commerce. The court today would never agree to that – that’s a very archaic view.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Still, McCann thinks the odds of San Jose prevailing in the case are “very low.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I think it would take a very creative judge in terms of where the case is initially assigned to overlook precedent. But sometimes judges do their own thing and a judge may look at this more from a policy perspective than a precedent perspective. That’s certainly what San Jose is hoping for.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Other legal opinions expressed on the Web concur with McCann’s view that San Jose is unlikely to forge new ground here, no matter how just its cause. From the \u003ca href=\"http://www.mercurynews.com/athletics/ci_23485245/san-jose-sues-mlb-over-stalled-oakland-move\" target=\"_blank\">San Jose Mercury News\u003c/a> on Tuesday:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>University of Virginia law professor Gordon Hylton, who has studied the legal history of American sports, said he \"never thought that the division of the Bay Area into two distinct areas made much sense.\" He added that organized baseball's monopoly is \"almost certainly a violation of the federal antitrust laws.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Hylton was skeptical a San Jose lawsuit against the baseball monopoly would succeed. \"San Jose would probably be better off appealing to Congress than the courts,\" Hylton said.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>And from \u003ca href=\"http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper/2013/06/20/san-joses-lawsuit-against-major-league-baseball-is-weak/\" target=\"_blank\">Tom Van Riper's column in Forbes\u003c/a> today, on the failure of the potential revocation of the exemption to solve San Jose's problem in any case ....\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>The league could certainly maintain a degree of control of its franchises, as does the NFL and other leagues,” says Joseph Bauer, a professor of law at the \u003ca href=\"http://www.forbes.com/colleges/university-of-notre-dame/\">University of Notre Dame\u003c/a>, who studies sports labor issues. “Removing the exemption doesn’t make it unlawful if it has merit.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Merit would conceivably include optimizing business by spreading things out in a way that makes sense. “The league has a legitimate interest in where its franchises are located,” says Matthew Mitten, director of the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University. “That includes being geographically disbursed for television and for sponsors.”\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003c/strong>Maury Brown, of the Business of Sports Network, said there is some precedent for teams successfully challenging their leagues for the right to relocate. He pointed to the San Diego Clippers' move to Los Angeles in 1984, which it did without permission from the NBA. The Clippers and the league settled in 1987, with the team paying the league $6 million and formally agreeing that NBA rules on franchise location are binding.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 1982, Al Davis sued for and won the right to move the Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles against a unanimous veto of the relocation by NFL owners.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>THE STADIUM ISSUE\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That was another dispute that had its roots in displeasure over the Oakland Coliseum: City officials wouldn’t make improvements to the venue that Davis wanted. Leaving aside San Jose's legal case, I asked Maury Brown how much of the A's business problems have to do with the deficiencies of their stadium (now officially called O.co Coliseum, though, really, not by fans).\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Brown, who grew up in the Bay Area and calls himself a “Finley kid,” said of the venue: \"It is the last multipurpose stadium available. It is really not terribly conducive to the whole ballpark experience, which is wholly unique in all of sports.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Ballparks have this historical element, especially since the advent of Oriole Park at Camden Yards and this throwback thing. People really experience ballparks in a different way. I would have to say the stadium is probably a very key element in trying to allow them to be competitive.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The promise of a new stadium in downtown San Jose is one thing that has tempted A’s ownership, though even if the move were approved tomorrow, that is not exactly a shovel-ready project and would require a referendum and the acquisition of additional land parcels.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Getting a new sports venue built is no easy trick, said Brown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Ballparks, there’s all these things that come into play – whether infrastructure has to be changed or modified to basically allow 20,000 to maybe 40,000 people to go into a certain area.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"There can be lots of individuals that say we want to have this happen, but when it really comes down to brass tacks, it can be exceptionally difficult.” “\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The other thing that’s tempting the A’s is the lure of playing in the heart of Silicon Valley. As KQED’s Nina Thorsen reported in her \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/a/kqednews/RN201204190633/a\" target=\"_blank\">series on the stalled San Jose move\u003c/a> last year, \"These relocations are inspired not so much by the fan base or the availability of land, but by the proximity to corporations who are an increasingly important source of revenue.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>John Vrooman, a sports economist on the faculty of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, told Thorsen that corporate clients are the most important ticket buyers. \"It's true for the Sharks, it's true for the Warriors, it's true for the Raiders, and it's going be true for the Athletics.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As for the non-corporate Oakland fan base of today, the uncertainty continues. As it does for the would-be fan base awaiting in San Jose.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As of Thursday, the \u003ca href=\"http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/standings/\" target=\"_blank\">A's were in first place\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "100457 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=100457",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/21/can-san-jose-win-its-lawsuit-against-mlb/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1427,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 34
},
"modified": 1371864506,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "On Tuesday, San Jose’s impatience with Major League Baseball’s inability to solve the seemingly intractable dispute pitting the A’s and San Jose against Major League Baseball manifested itself in the city filing a lawsuit against the league in federal court. The conflict stems from the Giants' refusal to cede the territorial rights to California's third",
"title": "Can San Jose Win Its Lawsuit Against Major League Baseball? | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Can San Jose Win Its Lawsuit Against Major League Baseball?",
"datePublished": "2013-06-21T06:00:01-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-21T18:28:26-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "can-san-jose-win-its-lawsuit-against-mlb",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/San_Jose_As_Lawsuit/",
"path": "/news/100457/can-san-jose-win-its-lawsuit-against-mlb",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>On Tuesday, San Jose’s impatience with Major League Baseball’s inability to solve the seemingly intractable dispute pitting the A’s and San Jose against Major League Baseball manifested itself in the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/san-jose-city-council-votes-to-sue-mlb-over-as-move/\" target=\"_blank\">city filing a lawsuit against the league in federal court\u003c/a>. The conflict stems from the Giants' refusal to cede the territorial rights to California's third largest city to the A's-- rights which the A's, believe it or not, actually granted to the Giants in the 1990s --thus preventing the relocation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_62095\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 200px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/04/sanjoseas.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-62095\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/04/sanjoseas.jpg\" alt=\"Still a fake logo...\" width=\"200\" height=\"202\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Still a fake logo...\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>“This action arises from the blatant conspiracy by Major League Baseball to prevent the Athletics Baseball Club from moving to San Jose,” the federal complaint begins. \"For years, MLB has unlawfully conspired to control the location and relocation of major league men’s professional baseball clubs under the guise of an 'antitrust exemption' applied to the business of baseball.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The lawsuit, which you can \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/san-jose-city-council-votes-to-sue-mlb-over-as-move/#suit\" target=\"_blank\">read here\u003c/a>, claims San Jose has suffered losses in the millions of dollars related to direct spending and tax revenue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Baseball's antitrust exemption, created in a \u003ca href=\"http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1921/1921_204\" target=\"_blank\">1922 U.S. Supreme Court ruling\u003c/a>, is a cherished component of its business model. By challenging it, San Jose is putting into play a sort of worst-case scenario for the sport.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It’s a core tenet of what baseball holds very near and dear to them,” said Maury Brown, president of the Business of Sports Network and a writer for Baseball Prospectus. “They have lobbied and spent millions of dollars over the years through their PACs to basically retain that. So I believe that they are probably scared.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the antitrust exemption has been unsuccessfully tested before, in 1953 and again in 1972 in the famous \u003ca href=\"http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/07/how-curt-flood-changed-baseball-and-killed-his-career-in-the-process/241783/\" target=\"_blank\">Curt Flood case\u003c/a>. In that instance, the All Star baseball player challenged baseball's now-defunct \"reserve clause,\" which bound players to a team as long as the club desired. (\"A well-paid slave is nonetheless a slave,\" Flood said.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 1998 Congress passed the Curt Flood Act, which limited baseball's antitrust exemption in terms of its labor relations, said Michael McCann, director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire School of Law and a legal analyst for Sports Illustrated. This enshrined into law what had already been resolved in collective bargaining agreements. What that legislation did not do is end the league’s ability to block franchise relocation. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Most scholars and courts would say because Congress declined to do anything about the exemption in 1998, it should continue to remain in place,“ said McCann.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>[The antitrust exemption] is a core tenet of what baseball holds very near and dear ...\"\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\n--Maury Brown, The Business of Sports Network\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>McCann said the legal premise behind baseball’s antitrust exemption stems from the court’s nearly century-old view of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“In order for [antitrust laws] to apply, there has to be interstate commerce,” he said. “And the court held that because baseball games are only played in one place, that’s not interstate commerce. The court today would never agree to that – that’s a very archaic view.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Still, McCann thinks the odds of San Jose prevailing in the case are “very low.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I think it would take a very creative judge in terms of where the case is initially assigned to overlook precedent. But sometimes judges do their own thing and a judge may look at this more from a policy perspective than a precedent perspective. That’s certainly what San Jose is hoping for.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Other legal opinions expressed on the Web concur with McCann’s view that San Jose is unlikely to forge new ground here, no matter how just its cause. From the \u003ca href=\"http://www.mercurynews.com/athletics/ci_23485245/san-jose-sues-mlb-over-stalled-oakland-move\" target=\"_blank\">San Jose Mercury News\u003c/a> on Tuesday:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>University of Virginia law professor Gordon Hylton, who has studied the legal history of American sports, said he \"never thought that the division of the Bay Area into two distinct areas made much sense.\" He added that organized baseball's monopoly is \"almost certainly a violation of the federal antitrust laws.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Hylton was skeptical a San Jose lawsuit against the baseball monopoly would succeed. \"San Jose would probably be better off appealing to Congress than the courts,\" Hylton said.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>And from \u003ca href=\"http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper/2013/06/20/san-joses-lawsuit-against-major-league-baseball-is-weak/\" target=\"_blank\">Tom Van Riper's column in Forbes\u003c/a> today, on the failure of the potential revocation of the exemption to solve San Jose's problem in any case ....\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>The league could certainly maintain a degree of control of its franchises, as does the NFL and other leagues,” says Joseph Bauer, a professor of law at the \u003ca href=\"http://www.forbes.com/colleges/university-of-notre-dame/\">University of Notre Dame\u003c/a>, who studies sports labor issues. “Removing the exemption doesn’t make it unlawful if it has merit.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Merit would conceivably include optimizing business by spreading things out in a way that makes sense. “The league has a legitimate interest in where its franchises are located,” says Matthew Mitten, director of the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University. “That includes being geographically disbursed for television and for sponsors.”\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003c/strong>Maury Brown, of the Business of Sports Network, said there is some precedent for teams successfully challenging their leagues for the right to relocate. He pointed to the San Diego Clippers' move to Los Angeles in 1984, which it did without permission from the NBA. The Clippers and the league settled in 1987, with the team paying the league $6 million and formally agreeing that NBA rules on franchise location are binding.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 1982, Al Davis sued for and won the right to move the Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles against a unanimous veto of the relocation by NFL owners.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>THE STADIUM ISSUE\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That was another dispute that had its roots in displeasure over the Oakland Coliseum: City officials wouldn’t make improvements to the venue that Davis wanted. Leaving aside San Jose's legal case, I asked Maury Brown how much of the A's business problems have to do with the deficiencies of their stadium (now officially called O.co Coliseum, though, really, not by fans).\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Brown, who grew up in the Bay Area and calls himself a “Finley kid,” said of the venue: \"It is the last multipurpose stadium available. It is really not terribly conducive to the whole ballpark experience, which is wholly unique in all of sports.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Ballparks have this historical element, especially since the advent of Oriole Park at Camden Yards and this throwback thing. People really experience ballparks in a different way. I would have to say the stadium is probably a very key element in trying to allow them to be competitive.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The promise of a new stadium in downtown San Jose is one thing that has tempted A’s ownership, though even if the move were approved tomorrow, that is not exactly a shovel-ready project and would require a referendum and the acquisition of additional land parcels.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Getting a new sports venue built is no easy trick, said Brown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Ballparks, there’s all these things that come into play – whether infrastructure has to be changed or modified to basically allow 20,000 to maybe 40,000 people to go into a certain area.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"There can be lots of individuals that say we want to have this happen, but when it really comes down to brass tacks, it can be exceptionally difficult.” “\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The other thing that’s tempting the A’s is the lure of playing in the heart of Silicon Valley. As KQED’s Nina Thorsen reported in her \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/a/kqednews/RN201204190633/a\" target=\"_blank\">series on the stalled San Jose move\u003c/a> last year, \"These relocations are inspired not so much by the fan base or the availability of land, but by the proximity to corporations who are an increasingly important source of revenue.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>John Vrooman, a sports economist on the faculty of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, told Thorsen that corporate clients are the most important ticket buyers. \"It's true for the Sharks, it's true for the Warriors, it's true for the Raiders, and it's going be true for the Athletics.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As for the non-corporate Oakland fan base of today, the uncertainty continues. As it does for the would-be fan base awaiting in San Jose.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As of Thursday, the \u003ca href=\"http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/standings/\" target=\"_blank\">A's were in first place\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/100457/can-san-jose-win-its-lawsuit-against-mlb",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_10"
],
"tags": [
"news_2540",
"news_18",
"news_161",
"news_18541"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_100707": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_100707",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "100707",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371759829000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371759829,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Court Rules Gov. Brown Must Comply With Reducing Prison Population",
"title": "Court Rules Gov. Brown Must Comply With Reducing Prison Population",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A panel of federal judges on Thursday rejected Gov. Jerry Brown's attempt to circumvent its long-standing order for reducing California's prison population, the latest step in an ongoing legal drama over how to improve the medical and mental health care for state inmates.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_100716\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-100716\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS50_ChinoStatePrisonInmates20130108-scr-300x215.jpg\" alt=\"File photo. An inmate at Chino State Prison. (Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"215\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">File photo. An inmate at Chino State Prison. (Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The judges stopped short of citing the Democratic governor for contempt of court, as they had threatened earlier this year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The plan submitted by the Brown administration in May to further reduce the inmate population failed to meet the judges' mandate because it fell short of the court-ordered population cap by 2,300 inmates, the judges said in their 51-page order. That order has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The judges reiterated in their ruling that the governor must comply with the original order to reduce the population to 110,000 inmates by the end of the year. They ordered Brown to take all the steps he outlined in May, as well as one more step — the expansion of good-time credits leading to early release. Brown had offered that as an option, but it was not one he was willing to embrace.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The governor's plan for getting closer to the required level called for sending more inmates to firefighting camps, leasing cells at county jails, slowing the return of thousands of inmates now housed in private prisons in other states, increasing early release credits for nonviolent inmates and paroling elderly felons. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The judges said they want the administration to implement all the measures regardless of whether they conflict with any state or local laws.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The ruling from the three-judge panel was expected, and the governor already has filed notice that he intends to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Deborah Hoffman, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said the administration is reviewing the order and had no immediate comment. However, the administration is expected to ask the courts to stay the judges' order while its appeal is underway.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At issue is how far the state must go in reducing its inmate population to meet a previous court order to improve medical and mental health treatment. The courts have said that prison overcrowding is the main cause of care that fails to meet the constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "100707 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=100707",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/20/court-rules-brown-must-comply-with-reducing-prison-population/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 408,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 11
},
"modified": 1371761632,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A panel of federal judges on Thursday rejected Gov. Jerry Brown's attempt to circumvent its long-standing order for reducing California's prison population, the latest step in an ongoing legal drama over how to improve the medical and mental health care for state inmates. The judges stopped short of citing the Democratic",
"title": "Court Rules Gov. Brown Must Comply With Reducing Prison Population | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Court Rules Gov. Brown Must Comply With Reducing Prison Population",
"datePublished": "2013-06-20T13:23:49-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-20T13:53:52-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "court-rules-brown-must-comply-with-reducing-prison-population",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/20/california-prisons-lawsuit/",
"path": "/news/100707/court-rules-brown-must-comply-with-reducing-prison-population",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A panel of federal judges on Thursday rejected Gov. Jerry Brown's attempt to circumvent its long-standing order for reducing California's prison population, the latest step in an ongoing legal drama over how to improve the medical and mental health care for state inmates.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_100716\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-100716\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS50_ChinoStatePrisonInmates20130108-scr-300x215.jpg\" alt=\"File photo. An inmate at Chino State Prison. (Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"215\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">File photo. An inmate at Chino State Prison. (Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The judges stopped short of citing the Democratic governor for contempt of court, as they had threatened earlier this year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The plan submitted by the Brown administration in May to further reduce the inmate population failed to meet the judges' mandate because it fell short of the court-ordered population cap by 2,300 inmates, the judges said in their 51-page order. That order has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The judges reiterated in their ruling that the governor must comply with the original order to reduce the population to 110,000 inmates by the end of the year. They ordered Brown to take all the steps he outlined in May, as well as one more step — the expansion of good-time credits leading to early release. Brown had offered that as an option, but it was not one he was willing to embrace.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The governor's plan for getting closer to the required level called for sending more inmates to firefighting camps, leasing cells at county jails, slowing the return of thousands of inmates now housed in private prisons in other states, increasing early release credits for nonviolent inmates and paroling elderly felons. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The judges said they want the administration to implement all the measures regardless of whether they conflict with any state or local laws.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The ruling from the three-judge panel was expected, and the governor already has filed notice that he intends to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Deborah Hoffman, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said the administration is reviewing the order and had no immediate comment. However, the administration is expected to ask the courts to stay the judges' order while its appeal is underway.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At issue is how far the state must go in reducing its inmate population to meet a previous court order to improve medical and mental health treatment. The courts have said that prison overcrowding is the main cause of care that fails to meet the constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/100707/court-rules-brown-must-comply-with-reducing-prison-population",
"authors": [
"237"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_616",
"news_686",
"news_30",
"news_1471"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_100595": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_100595",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "100595",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371738005000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371738005,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Supreme Court Decision on Prop. 8 or DOMA Today; Next Possibility is Monday",
"title": "No Supreme Court Decision on Prop. 8 or DOMA Today; Next Possibility is Monday",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_55200\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 320px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8plaintiffsSM1.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-55200\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8plaintiffsSM1.jpg\" alt=\"Plaintiffs in the lawusit against Prop 8 (Scott Shafer/KQED)\" width=\"320\" height=\"240\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Plaintiffs in the lawusit against Prop 8 (Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update\u003c/strong>: The U.S. Supreme Court released three decisions today, none of which was one of the closely watched cases on same-sex marriage, the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action in school admissions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court now has 11 cases still remaining.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are only two scheduled decision-release days left, Monday and Thursday -- though it's possible the court will go even beyond that date in coming to grips with the potential landmark cases remaining.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While you're waiting ... and waiting and waiting .... here's \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">everything you ever wanted to know about the Prop. 8 case and then some\u003c/a>. The Reader's Digest version:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop. 8 is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, same-sex marriages could begin again in California in mid-to-late July, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. (San Francisco was an intervenor in the case on the plaintiff's side.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/20/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\" target=\"_blank\">Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage in California\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Legal analyst Vikram Amar, however, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">told KQED's Scott Shafer last week\u003c/a> that a broad decision declaring a fundamental nationwide right to same-sex marriage is highly unlikely. “It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said. He noted that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with 35 that now ban gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But it should also be noted that polls have shown a remarkable swing in favor of same-sex marriage since voters approved Prop. 8 in 2008. So, even in a worst-case scenario for those who support same-sex marriage -- that California's ban is upheld -- a ballot initiative in 2014 could well overturn the law. On Wednesday, state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said the \u003ca href=\"http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Calif-may-act-if-court-upholds-Prop-8-4611357.php\" target=\"_blank\">Senate may act to place a repeal of Prop. 8 on the ballot \u003c/a>should same-sex marriages remain illegal in the state. Such a measure would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature for it to be placed before voters. LGBT advocates could also place a measure on the ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>DOMA\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between only a man and a woman. It prevents those who are in same-sex marriages from receiving a host of federal benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the case before the court, a widow was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue here.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "100595 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=100595",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/20/prop-8-supreme-court-watch-continues-todays-decisions-released-7-a-m/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 542,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 11
},
"modified": 1371763763,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update: The U.S. Supreme Court released three decisions today, none of which was one of the closely watched cases on same-sex marriage, the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action in school admissions. The court now has 11 cases still remaining. There are only two scheduled decision-release days left, Monday and Thursday -- though it's possible",
"title": "No Supreme Court Decision on Prop. 8 or DOMA Today; Next Possibility is Monday | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Supreme Court Decision on Prop. 8 or DOMA Today; Next Possibility is Monday",
"datePublished": "2013-06-20T07:20:05-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-20T14:29:23-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "prop-8-supreme-court-watch-continues-todays-decisions-released-7-a-m",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/20/prop-8-supreme-court/",
"path": "/news/100595/prop-8-supreme-court-watch-continues-todays-decisions-released-7-a-m",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_55200\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 320px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8plaintiffsSM1.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-55200\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8plaintiffsSM1.jpg\" alt=\"Plaintiffs in the lawusit against Prop 8 (Scott Shafer/KQED)\" width=\"320\" height=\"240\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Plaintiffs in the lawusit against Prop 8 (Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update\u003c/strong>: The U.S. Supreme Court released three decisions today, none of which was one of the closely watched cases on same-sex marriage, the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action in school admissions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court now has 11 cases still remaining.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are only two scheduled decision-release days left, Monday and Thursday -- though it's possible the court will go even beyond that date in coming to grips with the potential landmark cases remaining.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While you're waiting ... and waiting and waiting .... here's \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">everything you ever wanted to know about the Prop. 8 case and then some\u003c/a>. The Reader's Digest version:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop. 8 is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, same-sex marriages could begin again in California in mid-to-late July, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. (San Francisco was an intervenor in the case on the plaintiff's side.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/20/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\" target=\"_blank\">Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage in California\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Legal analyst Vikram Amar, however, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">told KQED's Scott Shafer last week\u003c/a> that a broad decision declaring a fundamental nationwide right to same-sex marriage is highly unlikely. “It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said. He noted that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with 35 that now ban gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But it should also be noted that polls have shown a remarkable swing in favor of same-sex marriage since voters approved Prop. 8 in 2008. So, even in a worst-case scenario for those who support same-sex marriage -- that California's ban is upheld -- a ballot initiative in 2014 could well overturn the law. On Wednesday, state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said the \u003ca href=\"http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Calif-may-act-if-court-upholds-Prop-8-4611357.php\" target=\"_blank\">Senate may act to place a repeal of Prop. 8 on the ballot \u003c/a>should same-sex marriages remain illegal in the state. Such a measure would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature for it to be placed before voters. LGBT advocates could also place a measure on the ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>DOMA\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between only a man and a woman. It prevents those who are in same-sex marriages from receiving a host of federal benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the case before the court, a widow was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue here.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/100595/prop-8-supreme-court-watch-continues-todays-decisions-released-7-a-m",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_100262": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_100262",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "100262",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371680436000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371680436,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know",
"title": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cstrong>by Rachael Marcus, Kelly Dunleavy O'Mara and Jon Brooks\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_91707\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/21/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know/supreme-court-decides-whether-of-not-to-review-challenge-of-californias-prop-8-4/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-91707\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS1372_samesexmarriage20121130-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin of Oaklyn, New Jersey, holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the Supreme Court November 30, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2012. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>We are fast nearing a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban. The court does not announce in advance which opinions it will release on which days, but the last scheduled date for opinions to come down is Jun 27, though the court could stretch the wait out beyond that date. Many SCOTUS observers believe the court will take as long as possible on the same-sex marriage cases, as it often does with potentially landmark decisions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As you await the decision, here is an updated reposting of our Prop. 8-at-SCOTUS primer, which we first published in March, when the case was heard.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA: A BRIEF HISTORY\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/20/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\" target=\"_blank\">Timeline: The battle over same-sex marriage in California\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted \"yes\" on \u003ca href=\"http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22text.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 22\u003c/a>, a measure that amended state law to say: \"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.\" The state Supreme Court overturned the law in 2008 as discriminatory, opening the way for same-sex couples to get legally married in the state. About 18,000 gay and lesbian couples took advantage of the chance to tie the knot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed \u003ca href=\"http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 8\u003c/a>. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Same-sex marriage advocates immediately filed challenges with the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and in May 2009 the court upheld Prop. 8, another blow against same-sex marriage. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE FEDERAL COURTS\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.\"\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\n--Judge Vaughn Walker in his 2010 ruling\u003cbr>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Taking the cause up the legal chain, same-sex marriage advocates then turned to the federal court system. \u003cem>Perry v. Schwarzenegger\u003c/em> (the governor was named the defendant because he was the head of state at the time, although he did not defend the measure) came before U.S. District Court Judge \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/01/15/who-is-judge-vaughn-walker/\">Vaughn Walker\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Walker \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\">overturned\u003c/a> Prop. 8 in August 2010, saying that it violated the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,\" Walker wrote in the \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/news/prop8ruling080410.pdf\">ruling\u003c/a>. \"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Nonetheless, Walker ruled that same-sex marriages should not resume in California until Prop. 8 supporters had a chance to appeal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 BACKERS APPEAL\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/05/prop-8-supporters-file-appeal/\">appeal\u003c/a> before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court got off to a rocky start in September 2010. Schwarzenegger, then-Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/09/13/is-abel-willing/\">declined to defend\u003c/a> the same-sex marriage ban in court. Imperial County was the only government entity \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/10/imperial-county-files-to-intervene-in-proposition-8-appeals/\">willing to defend\u003c/a> Prop. 8, though the court soon ruled the county didn't have legal standing to intervene in the case. The federal court then sent the case back to the California Supreme Court for a ruling on whether even Prop. 8's proponents had legal standing to sue, considering that the state's publicly elected officials had declined to do so. California's high court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/17/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m/\">ruled\u003c/a> that Prop. 8's proponents did, indeed, have the right to defend the measure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 9th Circuit then took up the case again, and in February 2012 it \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\">upheld\u003c/a> the district court's ruling, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/read-the-full-prop-8-ruling-and-key-passages/\">calling\u003c/a> Prop. 8 unconstitutional. It did, however, narrow the ruling considerably, applying it only to California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now the battle has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban/\">reached\u003c/a> the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> oral arguments March 26. President Obama has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/obama-argues-against-californias-proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban/\">urged\u003c/a> the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">Oral arguments\u003c/a> touched on a number of issues: whether Prop. 8 proponents have standing to bring the case, how to define marriage, if procreation is connected to marriage and what the Constitution says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the meantime, other states have blazed their own trail on same-sex marriage. Currently, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, Vermont and Washington, D.C., allow gays and lesbians to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are multiple possible outcomes of the Prop. 8 case. The court could potentially issue a sweeping ruling that overturns all same-sex marriage bans in the U.S. However, what is more likely, according to many legal analysts, is that the justices will rule in such a way as to \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">restrict the impact of their ruling\u003c/a> to California, allowing other bans on same-sex marriage to stand.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And if the Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8, the decision would not affect the laws in states that already allow same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices could also decide that Prop. 8 proponents lacked standing to bring the case, which would vacate the 9th Circuit's decision and uphold Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. That could leave the issue open to further appeals, with the ban's supporters arguing that the District Court ruling should not apply statewide\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>WHAT ABOUT DOMA?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> the arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act the day after Prop. 8 arguments. DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 to define marriage as between a man and a woman. (Clinton has since said he \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/08/173808091/bill-clinton-defense-of-marriage-act-that-i-signed-is-unconstitutional\">believes\u003c/a> the law is unconstitutional.) DOMA consequently denies legally married same-sex couples a host of federal benefits that are available to married opposite-sex couples, such as the ability to file a joint tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case before the Supreme Court involves a widow who was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two hours of \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> touched largely on what constitutes equal protection under the Constitution, states' rights, and why the president chose not to uphold the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court upholds DOMA, not much will likely change. But if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, the federal government will have to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in the states where it is already legal, giving those married couples all the same federal rights and benefits as opposite-sex married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>GAY MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA TODAY\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While the cases were being decided, same-sex marriages have not resumed in California, but those performed in 2008 between the overturning of Prop. 22 and the passage of Prop. 8 are considered valid in the state. A \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\">Field Poll\u003c/a> released last month found that 61 percent of likely voters now support same-sex marriage. That's the same percentage that voted against it just 13 years ago.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Which means that even if Prop. 8 is upheld, we are likely to see another ballot, this one legalizing same-sex marriage in California, in 2014.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "100262 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=100262",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/19/prop-8-at-the-supreme-court-what-you-need-to-know/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1266,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 32
},
"modified": 1371742225,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "by Rachael Marcus, Kelly Dunleavy O'Mara and Jon Brooks We are fast nearing a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban. The court does not announce in advance which opinions it will release on which days, but the last scheduled date for opinions to come down is Jun 27, though the",
"title": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know",
"datePublished": "2013-06-19T15:20:36-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-20T08:30:25-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "prop-8-at-the-supreme-court-what-you-need-to-know",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/",
"path": "/news/100262/prop-8-at-the-supreme-court-what-you-need-to-know",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>by Rachael Marcus, Kelly Dunleavy O'Mara and Jon Brooks\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_91707\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/21/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know/supreme-court-decides-whether-of-not-to-review-challenge-of-californias-prop-8-4/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-91707\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS1372_samesexmarriage20121130-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin of Oaklyn, New Jersey, holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the Supreme Court November 30, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2012. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>We are fast nearing a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban. The court does not announce in advance which opinions it will release on which days, but the last scheduled date for opinions to come down is Jun 27, though the court could stretch the wait out beyond that date. Many SCOTUS observers believe the court will take as long as possible on the same-sex marriage cases, as it often does with potentially landmark decisions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As you await the decision, here is an updated reposting of our Prop. 8-at-SCOTUS primer, which we first published in March, when the case was heard.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA: A BRIEF HISTORY\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/20/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\" target=\"_blank\">Timeline: The battle over same-sex marriage in California\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted \"yes\" on \u003ca href=\"http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22text.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 22\u003c/a>, a measure that amended state law to say: \"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.\" The state Supreme Court overturned the law in 2008 as discriminatory, opening the way for same-sex couples to get legally married in the state. About 18,000 gay and lesbian couples took advantage of the chance to tie the knot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed \u003ca href=\"http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 8\u003c/a>. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Same-sex marriage advocates immediately filed challenges with the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and in May 2009 the court upheld Prop. 8, another blow against same-sex marriage. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE FEDERAL COURTS\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.\"\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\n--Judge Vaughn Walker in his 2010 ruling\u003cbr>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Taking the cause up the legal chain, same-sex marriage advocates then turned to the federal court system. \u003cem>Perry v. Schwarzenegger\u003c/em> (the governor was named the defendant because he was the head of state at the time, although he did not defend the measure) came before U.S. District Court Judge \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/01/15/who-is-judge-vaughn-walker/\">Vaughn Walker\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Walker \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\">overturned\u003c/a> Prop. 8 in August 2010, saying that it violated the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,\" Walker wrote in the \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/news/prop8ruling080410.pdf\">ruling\u003c/a>. \"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Nonetheless, Walker ruled that same-sex marriages should not resume in California until Prop. 8 supporters had a chance to appeal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 BACKERS APPEAL\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/05/prop-8-supporters-file-appeal/\">appeal\u003c/a> before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court got off to a rocky start in September 2010. Schwarzenegger, then-Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/09/13/is-abel-willing/\">declined to defend\u003c/a> the same-sex marriage ban in court. Imperial County was the only government entity \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/10/imperial-county-files-to-intervene-in-proposition-8-appeals/\">willing to defend\u003c/a> Prop. 8, though the court soon ruled the county didn't have legal standing to intervene in the case. The federal court then sent the case back to the California Supreme Court for a ruling on whether even Prop. 8's proponents had legal standing to sue, considering that the state's publicly elected officials had declined to do so. California's high court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/17/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m/\">ruled\u003c/a> that Prop. 8's proponents did, indeed, have the right to defend the measure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 9th Circuit then took up the case again, and in February 2012 it \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\">upheld\u003c/a> the district court's ruling, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/read-the-full-prop-8-ruling-and-key-passages/\">calling\u003c/a> Prop. 8 unconstitutional. It did, however, narrow the ruling considerably, applying it only to California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now the battle has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban/\">reached\u003c/a> the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> oral arguments March 26. President Obama has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/obama-argues-against-californias-proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban/\">urged\u003c/a> the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">Oral arguments\u003c/a> touched on a number of issues: whether Prop. 8 proponents have standing to bring the case, how to define marriage, if procreation is connected to marriage and what the Constitution says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the meantime, other states have blazed their own trail on same-sex marriage. Currently, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, Vermont and Washington, D.C., allow gays and lesbians to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are multiple possible outcomes of the Prop. 8 case. The court could potentially issue a sweeping ruling that overturns all same-sex marriage bans in the U.S. However, what is more likely, according to many legal analysts, is that the justices will rule in such a way as to \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">restrict the impact of their ruling\u003c/a> to California, allowing other bans on same-sex marriage to stand.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And if the Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8, the decision would not affect the laws in states that already allow same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices could also decide that Prop. 8 proponents lacked standing to bring the case, which would vacate the 9th Circuit's decision and uphold Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. That could leave the issue open to further appeals, with the ban's supporters arguing that the District Court ruling should not apply statewide\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>WHAT ABOUT DOMA?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> the arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act the day after Prop. 8 arguments. DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 to define marriage as between a man and a woman. (Clinton has since said he \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/08/173808091/bill-clinton-defense-of-marriage-act-that-i-signed-is-unconstitutional\">believes\u003c/a> the law is unconstitutional.) DOMA consequently denies legally married same-sex couples a host of federal benefits that are available to married opposite-sex couples, such as the ability to file a joint tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case before the Supreme Court involves a widow who was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two hours of \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> touched largely on what constitutes equal protection under the Constitution, states' rights, and why the president chose not to uphold the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court upholds DOMA, not much will likely change. But if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, the federal government will have to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in the states where it is already legal, giving those married couples all the same federal rights and benefits as opposite-sex married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>GAY MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA TODAY\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While the cases were being decided, same-sex marriages have not resumed in California, but those performed in 2008 between the overturning of Prop. 22 and the passage of Prop. 8 are considered valid in the state. A \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\">Field Poll\u003c/a> released last month found that 61 percent of likely voters now support same-sex marriage. That's the same percentage that voted against it just 13 years ago.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Which means that even if Prop. 8 is upheld, we are likely to see another ballot, this one legalizing same-sex marriage in California, in 2014.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/100262/prop-8-at-the-supreme-court-what-you-need-to-know",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_100224": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_100224",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "100224",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371650844000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "draft-public-records-act",
"title": "Open Government Activists Irate Over Proposed Weakening of Public Records Act",
"publishDate": 1371650844,
"format": "aside",
"headTitle": "Open Government Activists Irate Over Proposed Weakening of Public Records Act | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 6944,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cstrong>By Francesca Segrè and Dan Brekke\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_100402\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-100402\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/56531571-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"File photo. Sacramento (David Paul Morris/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">File photo. Sacramento (David Paul Morris/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>First Amendment activists and advocates of open government are furious about legislation sent to the governor that could make public records harder for news organizations and the general public to get.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Currently, the \u003ca href=\"http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6250-6270\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">California Public Records Act\u003c/a> requires local government agencies to respond to requests for public records within 10 days, to inform those who request information what records are available, to explain themselves when they deny a request, and to provide electronic records in the same form they’re stored (for instance, if your town has an Excel spreadsheet of employee salaries that’s subject to disclosure and you ask for that information, the town is obligated to provide the spreadsheet).\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>All that would change under a provision passed as a “trailer” to the state’s budget last week and sent to Gov. Jerry Brown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Those directives in the current law are redefined as “best practices” and local government agencies are “encouraged, but are not required” to follow them. The \u003ca href=\"http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB76\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">new language\u003c/a> would also compel local agencies to announce at their first public meeting every year whether they’ll volunteer to adhere to the best practices. (Note, though, that the changes do \u003cem>not\u003c/em> repeal the Public Records Act, and all the law’s provisions still apply to state government records.)\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The changes were suggested by the Brown administration as a way of relieving a potentially expensive state mandate on local governments. In \u003ca href=\"http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/localgov/Newly-Identified-Mandates-53113.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">an analysis\u003c/a> of the new law, the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office said the annual cost of reimbursing cities’ and counties’ adherence to the mandates of the Public Records Act could be in the tens of millions of dollars. An LAO official contacted today said the state has never received a bill from local agencies for public record requests.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Peter Scheer of the \u003ca href=\"http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">First Amendment Coalition\u003c/a> says the bill gives local governments a chance to create roadblocks to getting records.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Editorials\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_23485981/mercury-news-editorial-public-records-act-must-be\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Public Records Act Must be Restored\u003c/a> (San Jose Mercury News)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20130619/OPINION01/306190004/Editorial-RIP-California-Public-Records-Act\">RIP: California Public Records Act\u003c/a> (Visalia Times-Delta)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/06/18/3349183/editorial-tell-brown-to-veto-attack.html\">Tell Jerry Brown to veto attack on Public Records Act\u003c/a>\u003cstrong>\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>\u003c/strong>(Fresno Bee)\u003cbr>\n\u003c/li>\u003c/ul>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>But state Sen. Mark Leno, a Democrat from San Francisco who supported the bill, says changing the law’s requirements to “best practices” will still put pressure on local governments to honor records requests. “If your city or county government were to take such a vote not to provide these services, then they’re going to hear about it and you will rightfully have a problem with your local elected officials.”And LAO senior analyst Marianne O’Malley echoed that belief. “Ask any local government association — they’re all over this,” she says. “It is part of the fabric of California. I strongly doubt that anyone is not following the best practices. To make a public declaration that anyone is not going to follow these practices would be an extraordinary step.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Leno conceded that if local governments choose not to follow the revised law’s suggestions, it will make it harder for some people to find public records. “Individuals who are less experienced and need a public document and don’t know how to find it — they will likely need some assistance,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Under the new bill, local governments could also claim some documents are exempt from public access without saying why they’re off limits. If people believe the local government response is unjust, they can sue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The California Public Records Act was first enacted in 1968 and has been broadened over time. The provisions ordering local agencies to respond to record requests within 10 days and help the public find documents have been in place for more than a decade. But the \u003ca href=\"http://www.csm.ca.gov/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">agency\u003c/a> responsible for determining whether the state has imposed a “reimbursable” mandate on local governments has not said how much the Public Records Act is costing cities and counties. Even with the changes in the law, the state will still be on the hook financially for the past decade of implementing the state-mandated components of the records act. The new bill would free the state from paying the bills going forward.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Leno said he believes local governments will continue to find money in their coffers to continue to help people locate documents and respond to them promptly. “My bet is that cities and counties aren’t going to change the fact that they provide that service, because it would not be politically expedient—they will hear from their constituents, ‘Why are you not providing that service any longer?’ ”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If Gov. Brown signs the bill as expected, the new legislation will take effect July 1.\n\n\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": null,
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1721148823,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 16,
"wordCount": 822
},
"headData": {
"title": "Open Government Activists Irate Over Proposed Weakening of Public Records Act | KQED",
"description": "By Francesca Segrè and Dan Brekke First Amendment activists and advocates of open government are furious about legislation sent to the governor that could make public records harder for news organizations and the general public to get. Currently, the California Public Records Act requires local government agencies to respond to requests for public records within",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Open Government Activists Irate Over Proposed Weakening of Public Records Act",
"datePublished": "2013-06-19T07:07:24-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-07-16T09:53:43-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"customPermalink": "california-public-records-act-controversy/",
"path": "/news/100224/draft-public-records-act",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>By Francesca Segrè and Dan Brekke\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_100402\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-100402\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/56531571-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"File photo. Sacramento (David Paul Morris/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">File photo. Sacramento (David Paul Morris/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>First Amendment activists and advocates of open government are furious about legislation sent to the governor that could make public records harder for news organizations and the general public to get.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Currently, the \u003ca href=\"http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6250-6270\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">California Public Records Act\u003c/a> requires local government agencies to respond to requests for public records within 10 days, to inform those who request information what records are available, to explain themselves when they deny a request, and to provide electronic records in the same form they’re stored (for instance, if your town has an Excel spreadsheet of employee salaries that’s subject to disclosure and you ask for that information, the town is obligated to provide the spreadsheet).\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>All that would change under a provision passed as a “trailer” to the state’s budget last week and sent to Gov. Jerry Brown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Those directives in the current law are redefined as “best practices” and local government agencies are “encouraged, but are not required” to follow them. The \u003ca href=\"http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB76\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">new language\u003c/a> would also compel local agencies to announce at their first public meeting every year whether they’ll volunteer to adhere to the best practices. (Note, though, that the changes do \u003cem>not\u003c/em> repeal the Public Records Act, and all the law’s provisions still apply to state government records.)\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The changes were suggested by the Brown administration as a way of relieving a potentially expensive state mandate on local governments. In \u003ca href=\"http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/localgov/Newly-Identified-Mandates-53113.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">an analysis\u003c/a> of the new law, the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office said the annual cost of reimbursing cities’ and counties’ adherence to the mandates of the Public Records Act could be in the tens of millions of dollars. An LAO official contacted today said the state has never received a bill from local agencies for public record requests.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Peter Scheer of the \u003ca href=\"http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">First Amendment Coalition\u003c/a> says the bill gives local governments a chance to create roadblocks to getting records.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Editorials\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_23485981/mercury-news-editorial-public-records-act-must-be\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Public Records Act Must be Restored\u003c/a> (San Jose Mercury News)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20130619/OPINION01/306190004/Editorial-RIP-California-Public-Records-Act\">RIP: California Public Records Act\u003c/a> (Visalia Times-Delta)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/06/18/3349183/editorial-tell-brown-to-veto-attack.html\">Tell Jerry Brown to veto attack on Public Records Act\u003c/a>\u003cstrong>\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>\u003c/strong>(Fresno Bee)\u003cbr>\n\u003c/li>\u003c/ul>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>But state Sen. Mark Leno, a Democrat from San Francisco who supported the bill, says changing the law’s requirements to “best practices” will still put pressure on local governments to honor records requests. “If your city or county government were to take such a vote not to provide these services, then they’re going to hear about it and you will rightfully have a problem with your local elected officials.”And LAO senior analyst Marianne O’Malley echoed that belief. “Ask any local government association — they’re all over this,” she says. “It is part of the fabric of California. I strongly doubt that anyone is not following the best practices. To make a public declaration that anyone is not going to follow these practices would be an extraordinary step.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Leno conceded that if local governments choose not to follow the revised law’s suggestions, it will make it harder for some people to find public records. “Individuals who are less experienced and need a public document and don’t know how to find it — they will likely need some assistance,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Under the new bill, local governments could also claim some documents are exempt from public access without saying why they’re off limits. If people believe the local government response is unjust, they can sue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The California Public Records Act was first enacted in 1968 and has been broadened over time. The provisions ordering local agencies to respond to record requests within 10 days and help the public find documents have been in place for more than a decade. But the \u003ca href=\"http://www.csm.ca.gov/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">agency\u003c/a> responsible for determining whether the state has imposed a “reimbursable” mandate on local governments has not said how much the Public Records Act is costing cities and counties. Even with the changes in the law, the state will still be on the hook financially for the past decade of implementing the state-mandated components of the records act. The new bill would free the state from paying the bills going forward.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Leno said he believes local governments will continue to find money in their coffers to continue to help people locate documents and respond to them promptly. “My bet is that cities and counties aren’t going to change the fact that they provide that service, because it would not be politically expedient—they will hear from their constituents, ‘Why are you not providing that service any longer?’ ”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If Gov. Brown signs the bill as expected, the new legislation will take effect July 1.\n\n\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/100224/draft-public-records-act",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_1759",
"news_30",
"news_95",
"news_71"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_100055": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_100055",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "100055",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371479738000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371479738,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Prop. 8/DOMA Supreme Court Decisions -- Watch Continues on Thursday",
"title": "No Prop. 8/DOMA Supreme Court Decisions -- Watch Continues on Thursday",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update: \u003c/strong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a> tells us five opinions were released, none related to the same-sex marriage cases. Decisions on major cases on affirmative action and voting rights were also not issued. The court did strike down an Arizona law requiring proof of U.S. citizenship before registering to vote through a federal \"motor voter\" registration form.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">\u003cstrong>Prop 8 at SCOTUS: What You Need to Know\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>The court now has 14 outstanding cases to decide. Next scheduled release date is Thursday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So why is it taking so long? At least seven cases that already have been decided were argued after the Prop. 8 and DOMA cases, and the affirmative action case was heard way back in October. Here's an answer from one of the SCOTUSblog experts, lawyer Amy Howe:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I think it's just all about when they have the opinions ready. These are big, historic cases that we're talking about, and there are likely to be multiple opinions. I was talking to someone who clerked at the court, and he said last year that even if health care had been argued on the first day of the term, it still would have gone to the last day.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Original post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We know there's intense interest in the impending Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act opinions by the U.S. Supreme Court, so we've been up tracking the court's release of its opinions each day that happens this month. Though, as inveterate court watchers have said throughout, the most likely scenario is SCOTUS drags these two out until the very end and releases them at the end of the month.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99836\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-scr.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-99836\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-scr-300x181.jpg\" alt=\"The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court\" width=\"300\" height=\"181\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>7 a.m. PT is when the court starts disseminating the day's opinions. As usual, we point you to \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a>, which is live blogging all the decisions released. Per SCOTUSblog, there are \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/\" target=\"_blank\">19 undecided cases\u003c/a> from this term.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop. 8, of course, is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, same-sex marriages could begin again in California in mid- to-late July, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. (San Francisco was an intervenor in the case on the plaintiff's side.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar told KQED's Scott Shafer last week\u003c/a> that a broad decision declaring a fundamental, nationwide right to same-sex marriage is highly unlikely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said. He noted that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with 35 that now ban gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Also from that report by Scott Shafer:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>At \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> in March, there seemed to be little appetite – even among the most liberal justices -- for a momentous decision in support of gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And there are two ways for the court to avoid that legal question altogether. They could simply dismiss the case, allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision to stand. (In fact, during \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a>, Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or, more likely, Amar said, the court will declare that Prop. 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If the case is decided on standing grounds, the thing we should focus on right away is what, if anything, the court says about the follow-on process,” Amar said.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>It should also be noted that even in a worst-case scenario for those who support same-sex marriage -- that the court overturns the 9th Circuit's decision and upholds Proposition 8 -- a substantial majority of Californians now support LGBT couples' right to marry, a political turnabout that is sure to lead to a proposition being put on the ballot to once again legalize same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>DOMA\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between only a man and a woman. It prevents those who are in same-sex marriages from receiving a host of federal benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the case before the court, a widow was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue here.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "100055 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=100055",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/17/todays-prop-8doma-supreme-court-watch/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 816,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 20
},
"modified": 1371675921,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update: SCOTUSblog tells us five opinions were released, none related to the same-sex marriage cases. Decisions on major cases on affirmative action and voting rights were also not issued. The court did strike down an Arizona law requiring proof of U.S. citizenship before registering to vote through a federal "motor voter" registration form. Prop 8",
"title": "No Prop. 8/DOMA Supreme Court Decisions -- Watch Continues on Thursday | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Prop. 8/DOMA Supreme Court Decisions -- Watch Continues on Thursday",
"datePublished": "2013-06-17T07:35:38-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-19T14:05:21-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "todays-prop-8doma-supreme-court-watch",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/17/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/",
"path": "/news/100055/todays-prop-8doma-supreme-court-watch",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update: \u003c/strong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a> tells us five opinions were released, none related to the same-sex marriage cases. Decisions on major cases on affirmative action and voting rights were also not issued. The court did strike down an Arizona law requiring proof of U.S. citizenship before registering to vote through a federal \"motor voter\" registration form.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">\u003cstrong>Prop 8 at SCOTUS: What You Need to Know\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>The court now has 14 outstanding cases to decide. Next scheduled release date is Thursday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So why is it taking so long? At least seven cases that already have been decided were argued after the Prop. 8 and DOMA cases, and the affirmative action case was heard way back in October. Here's an answer from one of the SCOTUSblog experts, lawyer Amy Howe:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I think it's just all about when they have the opinions ready. These are big, historic cases that we're talking about, and there are likely to be multiple opinions. I was talking to someone who clerked at the court, and he said last year that even if health care had been argued on the first day of the term, it still would have gone to the last day.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Original post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We know there's intense interest in the impending Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act opinions by the U.S. Supreme Court, so we've been up tracking the court's release of its opinions each day that happens this month. Though, as inveterate court watchers have said throughout, the most likely scenario is SCOTUS drags these two out until the very end and releases them at the end of the month.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99836\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-scr.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-99836\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-scr-300x181.jpg\" alt=\"The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court\" width=\"300\" height=\"181\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>7 a.m. PT is when the court starts disseminating the day's opinions. As usual, we point you to \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a>, which is live blogging all the decisions released. Per SCOTUSblog, there are \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/\" target=\"_blank\">19 undecided cases\u003c/a> from this term.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop. 8, of course, is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, same-sex marriages could begin again in California in mid- to-late July, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. (San Francisco was an intervenor in the case on the plaintiff's side.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar told KQED's Scott Shafer last week\u003c/a> that a broad decision declaring a fundamental, nationwide right to same-sex marriage is highly unlikely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said. He noted that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with 35 that now ban gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Also from that report by Scott Shafer:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>At \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> in March, there seemed to be little appetite – even among the most liberal justices -- for a momentous decision in support of gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And there are two ways for the court to avoid that legal question altogether. They could simply dismiss the case, allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision to stand. (In fact, during \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a>, Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or, more likely, Amar said, the court will declare that Prop. 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If the case is decided on standing grounds, the thing we should focus on right away is what, if anything, the court says about the follow-on process,” Amar said.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>It should also be noted that even in a worst-case scenario for those who support same-sex marriage -- that the court overturns the 9th Circuit's decision and upholds Proposition 8 -- a substantial majority of Californians now support LGBT couples' right to marry, a political turnabout that is sure to lead to a proposition being put on the ballot to once again legalize same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>DOMA\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between only a man and a woman. It prevents those who are in same-sex marriages from receiving a host of federal benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the case before the court, a widow was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue here.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/100055/todays-prop-8doma-supreme-court-watch",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_99826": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_99826",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "99826",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371214831000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371214831,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Analysis: Prop. 8 Case Unlikely to Result in Broad Right to Same-Sex Marriage",
"title": "Analysis: Prop. 8 Case Unlikely to Result in Broad Right to Same-Sex Marriage",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>Nearly five years after voters passed Proposition 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of California's ban on same-sex marriage. But will that be the final word?\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99836\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-99836 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-scr-300x181.jpg\" alt=\"Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"181\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>When two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 8, their attorney, Theodore Olson, described the issue in sweeping terms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The case we filed is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican,” Olson said. “This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the summer of 2010, federal judge Vaughn Walker agreed, issuing a landmark decision \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\" target=\"_blank\">declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional\u003c/a> -- saying there was no rational basis for denying same-sex couples a license to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2012/02/07/appeals-court-upholds-vaughns-decision/\" target=\"_blank\">9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld\u003c/a> Walker's ruling in February 2012 but narrowed it considerably, saying it applied only to California, not the entire country. In the next two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar calls a broad decision declaring a fundamental, nationwide right to same-sex marriage highly unlikely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said, noting that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with 35 that now ban gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since Prop. 8 passed, 11 states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. And John Eastman, an attorney for the National Organization for Marriage -- supporters of Prop. 8 -- hopes that discourages the high court from intervening.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Vik Amar\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>“Americans across the country are grappling with an intense policy debate,” Eastman said. “And there's nothing specifically in the Constitution that decides that debate one way or the other. And the Supreme Court ought to recognize that and let it play out.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> in March, there seemed to be little appetite – even among the most liberal justices -- for a momentous decision in support of gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And there are two ways for the court to avoid that legal question altogether. They could simply dismiss the case, allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision to stand. (In fact, during \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a>, Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or, more likely, Amar said, the court will declare that Prop. 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If the case is decided on standing grounds, the thing we should focus on right away is what, if anything, the court says about the follow-on process,” Amar said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In other words, how broadly does Judge Walker's decision apply? Not broadly at all, said Prop. 8 attorney Andy Pugno.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If we didn't have standing, then there was no one to defend Proposition 8,” Pugno argued. “And in a case like that you can't declare a statute unconsitutional. The best you can do is grant the relief that was asked for, and that's for the two couples.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But opponents of Prop. 8 argue that Gov. Jerry Brown would likely instruct county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In that case, same-sex weddings would begin again by the end of July.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even if the measure is upheld by the Supreme Court, the question is sure to be back on the ballot next year. Polls show well over 50 percent of California voters are now supporting same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "99826 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=99826",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/14/analysis-prop-8-case-unlikely-to-result-in-broad-right-to-marry/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 686,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 19
},
"modified": 1398733213,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Nearly five years after voters passed Proposition 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of California's ban on same-sex marriage. But will that be the final word? When two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 8, their attorney, Theodore Olson, described the issue in sweeping terms. “The case",
"title": "Analysis: Prop. 8 Case Unlikely to Result in Broad Right to Same-Sex Marriage | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Analysis: Prop. 8 Case Unlikely to Result in Broad Right to Same-Sex Marriage",
"datePublished": "2013-06-14T06:00:31-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:13-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "analysis-prop-8-case-unlikely-to-result-in-broad-right-to-marry",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/",
"path": "/news/99826/analysis-prop-8-case-unlikely-to-result-in-broad-right-to-marry",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Nearly five years after voters passed Proposition 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of California's ban on same-sex marriage. But will that be the final word?\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99836\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-99836 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-scr-300x181.jpg\" alt=\"Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"181\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>When two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 8, their attorney, Theodore Olson, described the issue in sweeping terms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The case we filed is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican,” Olson said. “This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the summer of 2010, federal judge Vaughn Walker agreed, issuing a landmark decision \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\" target=\"_blank\">declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional\u003c/a> -- saying there was no rational basis for denying same-sex couples a license to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2012/02/07/appeals-court-upholds-vaughns-decision/\" target=\"_blank\">9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld\u003c/a> Walker's ruling in February 2012 but narrowed it considerably, saying it applied only to California, not the entire country. In the next two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar calls a broad decision declaring a fundamental, nationwide right to same-sex marriage highly unlikely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said, noting that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with 35 that now ban gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since Prop. 8 passed, 11 states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. And John Eastman, an attorney for the National Organization for Marriage -- supporters of Prop. 8 -- hopes that discourages the high court from intervening.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Vik Amar\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>“Americans across the country are grappling with an intense policy debate,” Eastman said. “And there's nothing specifically in the Constitution that decides that debate one way or the other. And the Supreme Court ought to recognize that and let it play out.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> in March, there seemed to be little appetite – even among the most liberal justices -- for a momentous decision in support of gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And there are two ways for the court to avoid that legal question altogether. They could simply dismiss the case, allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision to stand. (In fact, during \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a>, Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or, more likely, Amar said, the court will declare that Prop. 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If the case is decided on standing grounds, the thing we should focus on right away is what, if anything, the court says about the follow-on process,” Amar said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In other words, how broadly does Judge Walker's decision apply? Not broadly at all, said Prop. 8 attorney Andy Pugno.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If we didn't have standing, then there was no one to defend Proposition 8,” Pugno argued. “And in a case like that you can't declare a statute unconsitutional. The best you can do is grant the relief that was asked for, and that's for the two couples.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But opponents of Prop. 8 argue that Gov. Jerry Brown would likely instruct county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In that case, same-sex weddings would begin again by the end of July.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even if the measure is upheld by the Supreme Court, the question is sure to be back on the ballot next year. Polls show well over 50 percent of California voters are now supporting same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/99826/analysis-prop-8-case-unlikely-to-result-in-broad-right-to-marry",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_152",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_932",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_99713": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_99713",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "99713",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371131729000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371131729,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Prop. 8, DOMA Supreme Court Decisions Today -- Next Possibility is Monday",
"title": "No Prop. 8, DOMA Supreme Court Decisions Today -- Next Possibility is Monday",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_68608\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/06/1073613061.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-68608\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/06/1073613061-300x212.jpg\" alt=\"Protesters on both sides closely watched the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision on Proposition 8.\" width=\"300\" height=\"212\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Protesters on both sides closely watched the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Proposition 8. (Don Clyde/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Jun 17\u003c/strong>: And the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/17/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/\" target=\"_blank\">wait continues\u003c/a>...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update\u003c/strong>: Per \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a>, four opinions are in, none of them one of the same-sex marriage cases. That's it for today -- the court has recessed until Monday, when we'll be back here again on Prop. 8/DOMA watch.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(The court did issue a \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-rules-human-genes-cannot-be-patented/\">significant ruling on gene patenting\u003c/a>, with potentially big implications for the biotech industry.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Original post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There's a possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will release its decisions on either Proposition 8, the Defense of Marriage Act, or both this morning, around 7 a.m. PDT. It's not very likely, according to inveterate SCOTUS watchers. But, on the other hand, people have made entire careers out of unsuccessfully trying to predict what the high court will do. So, here we are, monitoring.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>SCOTUSblog, which almost always is first in reporting the decisions, has begun \u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">live blogging\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>. Here's a \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/merits-cases-remaining-for-october-term-2012/\" target=\"_blank\">list from the site of all the cases that are still outstanding\u003c/a> from the October 2012 term. (There's a major decision on an \u003ca href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-345\" target=\"_blank\">affirmative action case\u003c/a> that could come down today.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop. 8, of course, is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, same-sex marriages could begin again in California in mid- to-late July, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. (San Francisco was an intervenor in the case on the plaintiff's side.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country. There are many in-between possibilities as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between only a man and a woman. It prevents those who are in same-sex marriages from receiving a host of federal benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the case before the court, a widow was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue here.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "99713 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=99713",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/waiting-for-possible-prop-8-doma-decisions-by-supreme-court-this-morning/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 423,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 10
},
"modified": 1371491000,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update Jun 17: And the wait continues... Update: Per SCOTUSblog, four opinions are in, none of them one of the same-sex marriage cases. That's it for today -- the court has recessed until Monday, when we'll be back here again on Prop. 8/DOMA watch. (The court did issue a significant ruling on gene patenting, with",
"title": "No Prop. 8, DOMA Supreme Court Decisions Today -- Next Possibility is Monday | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Prop. 8, DOMA Supreme Court Decisions Today -- Next Possibility is Monday",
"datePublished": "2013-06-13T06:55:29-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-17T10:43:20-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "waiting-for-possible-prop-8-doma-decisions-by-supreme-court-this-morning",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/13/supreme-court-prop-8-decision/",
"path": "/news/99713/waiting-for-possible-prop-8-doma-decisions-by-supreme-court-this-morning",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_68608\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/06/1073613061.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-68608\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/06/1073613061-300x212.jpg\" alt=\"Protesters on both sides closely watched the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision on Proposition 8.\" width=\"300\" height=\"212\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Protesters on both sides closely watched the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Proposition 8. (Don Clyde/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Jun 17\u003c/strong>: And the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/17/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/\" target=\"_blank\">wait continues\u003c/a>...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update\u003c/strong>: Per \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a>, four opinions are in, none of them one of the same-sex marriage cases. That's it for today -- the court has recessed until Monday, when we'll be back here again on Prop. 8/DOMA watch.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(The court did issue a \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-rules-human-genes-cannot-be-patented/\">significant ruling on gene patenting\u003c/a>, with potentially big implications for the biotech industry.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Original post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There's a possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will release its decisions on either Proposition 8, the Defense of Marriage Act, or both this morning, around 7 a.m. PDT. It's not very likely, according to inveterate SCOTUS watchers. But, on the other hand, people have made entire careers out of unsuccessfully trying to predict what the high court will do. So, here we are, monitoring.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>SCOTUSblog, which almost always is first in reporting the decisions, has begun \u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">live blogging\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>. Here's a \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/merits-cases-remaining-for-october-term-2012/\" target=\"_blank\">list from the site of all the cases that are still outstanding\u003c/a> from the October 2012 term. (There's a major decision on an \u003ca href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-345\" target=\"_blank\">affirmative action case\u003c/a> that could come down today.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop. 8, of course, is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, same-sex marriages could begin again in California in mid- to-late July, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. (San Francisco was an intervenor in the case on the plaintiff's side.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country. There are many in-between possibilities as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between only a man and a woman. It prevents those who are in same-sex marriages from receiving a host of federal benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the case before the court, a widow was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue here.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/99713/waiting-for-possible-prop-8-doma-decisions-by-supreme-court-this-morning",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_99462": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_99462",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "99462",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371085233000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371085233,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable'",
"title": "Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable'",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99554\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 200px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/06/Vaughn-Walker-Photo3.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-99554\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/06/Vaughn-Walker-Photo3.jpg\" alt=\"Vaughn-Walker-Photo\" width=\"200\" height=\"300\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Former federal judge Vaughn R. Walker, who wrote the 2010 decision invalidating Proposition 8\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Ever since he struck down Proposition 8 in 2010, former federal judge Vaughn Walker has maintained a certain distance from the case. That’s probably wise, given that the Supreme Court has yet to make a final determination on his ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So when Walker called and invited me to hear him speak about LGBT legal issues before a gathering of 25 or so criminal defense attorneys Monday night, how could I resist?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the meeting, Walker outlined the history of homosexuality and the law. Born in 1944, Walker said the breadth of change in how the courts perceive gay rights is something that “I could not have imagined in my wildest dreams.” For emphasis, he added that the shift has been “utterly unimaginable.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Recalling that day in 2009 when he first noticed a complaint in his “in box” titled Perry v. Schwarzenegger, it was, he said, “my oh-shit moment.” He realized the importance of the case challenging Prop. 8, but said he never thought it would attract the media attention it has. The Prop. 8 case is, he said, “the gift that keeps on giving.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To Walker, the most fascinating moment in the March 26 oral arguments at the Supreme Court was this exchange between Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Prop. 8 attorney Charles Cooper.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Outside of the - outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision ... that the Government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I cannot. I do not have any -- anything to offer you in that regard.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->It was, said Walker, “a remarkable exchange” highlighting the extent to which equal treatment for gays and lesbians has become embedded in our culture.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And why did Walker choose to hold a trial with witnesses, rather than just take briefs and make a ruling?\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>Walker said the breadth of change in how the courts perceive LGBT rights is something, “I could not have imagined in my wildest dreams.”\u003c/strong>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>“Trials have a cleansing effect,” he said. “It’s not always a Perry Mason moment, but there’s nothing like putting someone on the witness stand” and making them answer questions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After the meeting, Walker and I strolled over to the Hyatt Regency, where we had a wide-ranging discussion about the Prop. 8 trial and the Supreme Court's pending decision. That was off the record, though I can say he drinks a Hendrick's gin martini up with two olives. And also: the judge says that unlike those of us in the media who are up early on SCOTUS decision days to catch first word of the ruling, he's a lot less obsessed with the case's final outcome.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But at his talk with attorneys, Walker paraphrased former civil rights leader John Lewis, saying, “The leaders are scrambling to keep up with the people. There goes America. The laws some day will catch up.”\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "99462 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=99462",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/12/vaughn-walker-calls-getting-prop-8-case-my-oh-s-moment/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 559,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 14
},
"modified": 1371087707,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Ever since he struck down Proposition 8 in 2010, former federal judge Vaughn Walker has maintained a certain distance from the case. That’s probably wise, given that the Supreme Court has yet to make a final determination on his ruling. So when Walker called and invited me to hear him speak about LGBT legal issues",
"title": "Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable' | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable'",
"datePublished": "2013-06-12T18:00:33-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-12T18:41:47-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "vaughn-walker-calls-getting-prop-8-case-my-oh-s-moment",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/11/vaughn-walker/",
"path": "/news/99462/vaughn-walker-calls-getting-prop-8-case-my-oh-s-moment",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99554\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 200px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/06/Vaughn-Walker-Photo3.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-99554\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/06/Vaughn-Walker-Photo3.jpg\" alt=\"Vaughn-Walker-Photo\" width=\"200\" height=\"300\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Former federal judge Vaughn R. Walker, who wrote the 2010 decision invalidating Proposition 8\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Ever since he struck down Proposition 8 in 2010, former federal judge Vaughn Walker has maintained a certain distance from the case. That’s probably wise, given that the Supreme Court has yet to make a final determination on his ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So when Walker called and invited me to hear him speak about LGBT legal issues before a gathering of 25 or so criminal defense attorneys Monday night, how could I resist?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the meeting, Walker outlined the history of homosexuality and the law. Born in 1944, Walker said the breadth of change in how the courts perceive gay rights is something that “I could not have imagined in my wildest dreams.” For emphasis, he added that the shift has been “utterly unimaginable.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Recalling that day in 2009 when he first noticed a complaint in his “in box” titled Perry v. Schwarzenegger, it was, he said, “my oh-shit moment.” He realized the importance of the case challenging Prop. 8, but said he never thought it would attract the media attention it has. The Prop. 8 case is, he said, “the gift that keeps on giving.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To Walker, the most fascinating moment in the March 26 oral arguments at the Supreme Court was this exchange between Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Prop. 8 attorney Charles Cooper.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Outside of the - outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision ... that the Government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I cannot. I do not have any -- anything to offer you in that regard.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->It was, said Walker, “a remarkable exchange” highlighting the extent to which equal treatment for gays and lesbians has become embedded in our culture.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And why did Walker choose to hold a trial with witnesses, rather than just take briefs and make a ruling?\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>Walker said the breadth of change in how the courts perceive LGBT rights is something, “I could not have imagined in my wildest dreams.”\u003c/strong>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>“Trials have a cleansing effect,” he said. “It’s not always a Perry Mason moment, but there’s nothing like putting someone on the witness stand” and making them answer questions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After the meeting, Walker and I strolled over to the Hyatt Regency, where we had a wide-ranging discussion about the Prop. 8 trial and the Supreme Court's pending decision. That was off the record, though I can say he drinks a Hendrick's gin martini up with two olives. And also: the judge says that unlike those of us in the media who are up early on SCOTUS decision days to catch first word of the ruling, he's a lot less obsessed with the case's final outcome.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But at his talk with attorneys, Walker paraphrased former civil rights leader John Lewis, saying, “The leaders are scrambling to keep up with the people. There goes America. The laws some day will catch up.”\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/99462/vaughn-walker-calls-getting-prop-8-case-my-oh-s-moment",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1196"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_99173": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_99173",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "99173",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1370870491000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1370870491,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Prop 8 or DOMA Decisions From Supreme Court Today",
"title": "No Prop 8 or DOMA Decisions From Supreme Court Today",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Thursday Jun 13:\u003c/strong> We're again monitoring the possibility today that the court will issue its rulings on Prop 8 and/or DOMA. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-prop-8-decision/\" target=\"_blank\">See that post here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update\u003c/strong>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Per \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/live-blog-of-orders-and-opinions-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law-17/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a>, three opinions have been issued, none of which are Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8) or United States v. Windsor (DOMA). That's it for today. There's a possibility the decisions could come on Thursday, though most court watchers think that's unlikely, and that the opinions won't be released until the last week of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Original post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_55730\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/prop8SM.gif\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-55730\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/prop8SM-300x200.gif\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage supporters march. (Don Clyde/KQED)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">FILE PHOTO: Same-sex marriage supporters march. (Don Clyde/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>There's a chance the Supreme Court will release its Proposition 8 and/or Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) rulings today, around 7 a.m. If that's the case, we'll be live blogging right here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If that's not the case, we'll head back to bed and keep an eye out on Thursday, the next day the court will be issuing opinions. Here's a \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/faqs-opinion-announcement-days/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog FAQ\u003c/a> about how the court issues opinions. SCOTUSblog, the gold standard in high court watching, thinks the same-sex marriage opinions won't be issued until the last week of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/11/vaughn-walker\" target=\"_blank\">Judge Vaughn Walker: Getting Prop 8 Case 'My Oh S*** Moment'\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Prop 8, of course, is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, same-sex marriages could begin again in California within a month, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. (San Francisco was an intervenor in the case on the plaintiff's side.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. It prevents those who are in same-sex marriages from receiving a host of federal benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the case before the court, a widow was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue here.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "99173 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=99173",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/10/supreme-courts-prop-8-doma-rulings-could-come-this-morning/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 419,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 10
},
"modified": 1371130266,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update Thursday Jun 13: We're again monitoring the possibility today that the court will issue its rulings on Prop 8 and/or DOMA. See that post here. Update: Per SCOTUSblog, three opinions have been issued, none of which are Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8) or United States v. Windsor (DOMA). That's it for today. There's a",
"title": "No Prop 8 or DOMA Decisions From Supreme Court Today | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Prop 8 or DOMA Decisions From Supreme Court Today",
"datePublished": "2013-06-10T06:21:31-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-13T06:31:06-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "supreme-courts-prop-8-doma-rulings-could-come-this-morning",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/10/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/",
"path": "/news/99173/supreme-courts-prop-8-doma-rulings-could-come-this-morning",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Thursday Jun 13:\u003c/strong> We're again monitoring the possibility today that the court will issue its rulings on Prop 8 and/or DOMA. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-prop-8-decision/\" target=\"_blank\">See that post here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update\u003c/strong>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Per \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/live-blog-of-orders-and-opinions-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law-17/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a>, three opinions have been issued, none of which are Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8) or United States v. Windsor (DOMA). That's it for today. There's a possibility the decisions could come on Thursday, though most court watchers think that's unlikely, and that the opinions won't be released until the last week of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Original post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_55730\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/prop8SM.gif\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-55730\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/prop8SM-300x200.gif\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage supporters march. (Don Clyde/KQED)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">FILE PHOTO: Same-sex marriage supporters march. (Don Clyde/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>There's a chance the Supreme Court will release its Proposition 8 and/or Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) rulings today, around 7 a.m. If that's the case, we'll be live blogging right here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If that's not the case, we'll head back to bed and keep an eye out on Thursday, the next day the court will be issuing opinions. Here's a \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/faqs-opinion-announcement-days/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog FAQ\u003c/a> about how the court issues opinions. SCOTUSblog, the gold standard in high court watching, thinks the same-sex marriage opinions won't be issued until the last week of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/11/vaughn-walker\" target=\"_blank\">Judge Vaughn Walker: Getting Prop 8 Case 'My Oh S*** Moment'\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Prop 8, of course, is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, same-sex marriages could begin again in California within a month, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. (San Francisco was an intervenor in the case on the plaintiff's side.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. It prevents those who are in same-sex marriages from receiving a host of federal benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the case before the court, a widow was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue here.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/99173/supreme-courts-prop-8-doma-rulings-could-come-this-morning",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_99127": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_99127",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "99127",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1370632150000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1370632150,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Richard Ramirez Dies in San Quentin",
"title": "Richard Ramirez Dies in San Quentin",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>LOS ANGELES (AP) — Richard Ramirez, the demonic serial killer who left satantic signs at murder scenes and mutilated victims' bodies during a reign of terror in the 1980s, died early Friday in a hospital, a prison official said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ramirez, 53, had been taken from San Quentin's death row to a hospital where authorities said he died of liver failure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>This documentary outlines Ramirez's rampage:\u003cbr>\n\u003c/strong>[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXs0gX9fXa0?rel=0]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He had been housed on death row for decades and was awaiting execution, even though it has been years since anyone has been put to death in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At his first court appearance, Ramirez raised a hand with a pentagram drawn on it and yelled, \"Hail, Satan.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>His marathon trial, which ended in 1989, was a horror show in which jurors heard about one victim's eyes being gouged out and another's head being nearly severed. Courtroom observers wept when survivors of some of the attacks testified.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ramirez was convicted of 13 murders that terrorized Southern California in 1984 and 1985 as well as charges of rape, sodomy, oral copulation, burglary and attempted murder.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Satanic symbols were left at murder scenes and some victims were forced to \"swear to Satan\" by the killer, who entered homes through unlocked windows and doors.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ramirez was finally run down and beaten in 1985 by residents of an East Los Angeles neighborhood while attempting a carjacking. They recognized him because his picture had appeared that day in the news media.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The trial of Ramirez took a year, but the entire case which was bogged down in pretrial motions and appeals lasted four years, one of the longest criminal cases in U.S. history.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Because of the notoriety of the case, more than 1600 prospective jurors were called.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After his conviction, Ramirez flashed a two-fingered \"devil sign\" to photographers and muttered a single word: \"Evil.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On his way to a jail bus, he sneered in reaction to the verdict, muttering: \"Big deal. Death always went with the territory. See you in Disneyland.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The black-clad killer, unrepentant to the end, made his comment in an underground garage after a jury recommended the death penalty for his gruesome crimes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Inexplicably, Ramirez, a native of El Paso, Texas, had a following of young women admirers who came to the courtroom regularly and sent him love notes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some visited him in prison, and in 1996 Ramirez was married to 41-year-old freelance magazine editor Doreen Lioy in a visiting room at San Quentin prison.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Relatives called Lioy a recluse who lived in a fantasy world.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 2006, the California Supreme Court upheld Ramirez's convictions and death sentence. The U.S. Supreme Court refused in 2007 to review the convictions and sentence.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two years later, San Francisco police said DNA linked Ramirez to the April 10, 1984, killing of 9-year-old Mei Leung. She was killed in the basement of a residential hotel in San Francisco's Tenderloin neighborhood where she lived with her family.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ramirez had been staying at nearby hotels.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ramirez previously was tied to killings in Northern California. He was charged in the shooting deaths of Peter Pan, 66, and his wife, Barbara, in 1985 just before his arrest in Los Angeles, but he was never tried in that case.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "99127 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=99127",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/07/richard-ramirez-dies-in-san-quentin/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": true,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 557,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 23
},
"modified": 1398475048,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "LOS ANGELES (AP) — Richard Ramirez, the demonic serial killer who left satantic signs at murder scenes and mutilated victims' bodies during a reign of terror in the 1980s, died early Friday in a hospital, a prison official said. Ramirez, 53, had been taken from San Quentin's death row to a hospital where authorities said",
"title": "Richard Ramirez Dies in San Quentin | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Richard Ramirez Dies in San Quentin",
"datePublished": "2013-06-07T12:09:10-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-25T18:17:28-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "richard-ramirez-dies-in-san-quentin",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/07/99127/",
"path": "/news/99127/richard-ramirez-dies-in-san-quentin",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>LOS ANGELES (AP) — Richard Ramirez, the demonic serial killer who left satantic signs at murder scenes and mutilated victims' bodies during a reign of terror in the 1980s, died early Friday in a hospital, a prison official said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ramirez, 53, had been taken from San Quentin's death row to a hospital where authorities said he died of liver failure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>This documentary outlines Ramirez's rampage:\u003cbr>\n\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutube'>\n \u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutubeInside'>\n \u003ciframe\n loading='lazy'\n class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__youtubePlayer'\n type='text/html'\n src='//www.youtube.com/embed/vXs0gX9fXa0?rel=0'\n title='//www.youtube.com/embed/vXs0gX9fXa0?rel=0'\n allowfullscreen='true'\n style='border:0;'>\u003c/iframe>\n \u003c/span>\n \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He had been housed on death row for decades and was awaiting execution, even though it has been years since anyone has been put to death in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At his first court appearance, Ramirez raised a hand with a pentagram drawn on it and yelled, \"Hail, Satan.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>His marathon trial, which ended in 1989, was a horror show in which jurors heard about one victim's eyes being gouged out and another's head being nearly severed. Courtroom observers wept when survivors of some of the attacks testified.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ramirez was convicted of 13 murders that terrorized Southern California in 1984 and 1985 as well as charges of rape, sodomy, oral copulation, burglary and attempted murder.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Satanic symbols were left at murder scenes and some victims were forced to \"swear to Satan\" by the killer, who entered homes through unlocked windows and doors.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ramirez was finally run down and beaten in 1985 by residents of an East Los Angeles neighborhood while attempting a carjacking. They recognized him because his picture had appeared that day in the news media.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The trial of Ramirez took a year, but the entire case which was bogged down in pretrial motions and appeals lasted four years, one of the longest criminal cases in U.S. history.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Because of the notoriety of the case, more than 1600 prospective jurors were called.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After his conviction, Ramirez flashed a two-fingered \"devil sign\" to photographers and muttered a single word: \"Evil.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On his way to a jail bus, he sneered in reaction to the verdict, muttering: \"Big deal. Death always went with the territory. See you in Disneyland.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The black-clad killer, unrepentant to the end, made his comment in an underground garage after a jury recommended the death penalty for his gruesome crimes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Inexplicably, Ramirez, a native of El Paso, Texas, had a following of young women admirers who came to the courtroom regularly and sent him love notes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some visited him in prison, and in 1996 Ramirez was married to 41-year-old freelance magazine editor Doreen Lioy in a visiting room at San Quentin prison.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Relatives called Lioy a recluse who lived in a fantasy world.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 2006, the California Supreme Court upheld Ramirez's convictions and death sentence. The U.S. Supreme Court refused in 2007 to review the convictions and sentence.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two years later, San Francisco police said DNA linked Ramirez to the April 10, 1984, killing of 9-year-old Mei Leung. She was killed in the basement of a residential hotel in San Francisco's Tenderloin neighborhood where she lived with her family.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ramirez had been staying at nearby hotels.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ramirez previously was tied to killings in Northern California. He was charged in the shooting deaths of Peter Pan, 66, and his wife, Barbara, in 1985 just before his arrest in Los Angeles, but he was never tried in that case.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/99127/richard-ramirez-dies-in-san-quentin",
"authors": [
"237"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_486"
],
"label": "news_6944"
}
},
"podcastsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"podcasts": {}
},
"radioProgramsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"radioPrograms": {}
},
"radioSearchSegmentsReducer": {},
"programsReducer": {
"all-things-considered": {
"id": "all-things-considered",
"title": "All Things Considered",
"info": "Every weekday, \u003cem>All Things Considered\u003c/em> hosts Robert Siegel, Audie Cornish, Ari Shapiro, and Kelly McEvers present the program's trademark mix of news, interviews, commentaries, reviews, and offbeat features. Michel Martin hosts on the weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 1pm-2pm, 4:30pm-6:30pm\u003cbr />SAT-SUN 5pm-6pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/All-Things-Considered-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/all-things-considered"
},
"american-suburb-podcast": {
"id": "american-suburb-podcast",
"title": "American Suburb: The Podcast",
"tagline": "The flip side of gentrification, told through one town",
"info": "Gentrification is changing cities across America, forcing people from neighborhoods they have long called home. Call them the displaced. Now those priced out of the Bay Area are looking for a better life in an unlikely place. American Suburb follows this migration to one California town along the Delta, 45 miles from San Francisco. But is this once sleepy suburb ready for them?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/American-Suburb-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 19
},
"link": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/RBrW",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=1287748328",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/American-Suburb-p1086805/",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMzMDExODgxNjA5"
}
},
"baycurious": {
"id": "baycurious",
"title": "Bay Curious",
"tagline": "Exploring the Bay Area, one question at a time",
"info": "KQED’s new podcast, Bay Curious, gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Bay-Curious-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Bay Curious",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/baycurious",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 3
},
"link": "/podcasts/baycurious",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/category/bay-curious-podcast/feed/podcast",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9a90d476-aa04-455d-9a4c-0871ed6216d4/bay-curious",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/bay-curious",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6O76IdmhixfijmhTZLIJ8k"
}
},
"bbc-world-service": {
"id": "bbc-world-service",
"title": "BBC World Service",
"info": "The day's top stories from BBC News compiled twice daily in the week, once at weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9pm-10pm, TUE-FRI 1am-2am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/BBC-World-Service-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_world_service",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "BBC World Service"
},
"link": "/radio/program/bbc-world-service",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/global-news-podcast/id135067274?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/BBC-World-Service-p455581/",
"rss": "https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/p02nq0gn.rss"
}
},
"californiareport": {
"id": "californiareport",
"title": "The California Report",
"tagline": "California, day by day",
"info": "KQED’s statewide radio news program providing daily coverage of issues, trends and public policy decisions.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareport",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 8
},
"link": "/californiareport",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-the-california-report/id79681292",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/26099305-72af-4542-9dde-ac1807fe36d5/kqed-s-the-california-report",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432285393/the-california-report",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-the-california-report-podcast-8838",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcram/feed/podcast"
}
},
"californiareportmagazine": {
"id": "californiareportmagazine",
"title": "The California Report Magazine",
"tagline": "Your state, your stories",
"info": "Every week, The California Report Magazine takes you on a road trip for the ears: to visit the places and meet the people who make California unique. The in-depth storytelling podcast from the California Report.",
"airtime": "FRI 4:30pm-5pm, 6:30pm-7pm, 11pm-11:30pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Magazine-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report Magazine",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareportmagazine",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 10
},
"link": "/californiareportmagazine",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-california-report-magazine/id1314750545",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM3NjkwNjk1OTAz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/564733126/the-california-report-magazine",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-california-report-magazine",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcrmag/feed/podcast"
}
},
"city-arts": {
"id": "city-arts",
"title": "City Arts & Lectures",
"info": "A one-hour radio program to hear celebrated writers, artists and thinkers address contemporary ideas and values, often discussing the creative process. Please note: tapes or transcripts are not available",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/cityartsandlecture-300x300.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.cityarts.net/",
"airtime": "SUN 1pm-2pm, TUE 10pm, WED 1am",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "City Arts & Lectures"
},
"link": "https://www.cityarts.net",
"subscribe": {
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/City-Arts-and-Lectures-p692/",
"rss": "https://www.cityarts.net/feed/"
}
},
"closealltabs": {
"id": "closealltabs",
"title": "Close All Tabs",
"tagline": "Your irreverent guide to the trends redefining our world",
"info": "Close All Tabs breaks down how digital culture shapes our world through thoughtful insights and irreverent humor.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAT_2_Tile-scaled.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Close All Tabs",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 1
},
"link": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/close-all-tabs/id214663465",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC6993880386",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/92d9d4ac-67a3-4eed-b10a-fb45d45b1ef2/close-all-tabs",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6LAJFHnGK1pYXYzv6SIol6?si=deb0cae19813417c"
}
},
"code-switch-life-kit": {
"id": "code-switch-life-kit",
"title": "Code Switch / Life Kit",
"info": "\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em>, which listeners will hear in the first part of the hour, has fearless and much-needed conversations about race. Hosted by journalists of color, the show tackles the subject of race head-on, exploring how it impacts every part of society — from politics and pop culture to history, sports and more.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em>, which will be in the second part of the hour, guides you through spaces and feelings no one prepares you for — from finances to mental health, from workplace microaggressions to imposter syndrome, from relationships to parenting. The show features experts with real world experience and shares their knowledge. Because everyone needs a little help being human.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510312/codeswitch\">\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/lifekit\">\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />",
"airtime": "SUN 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Code-Switch-Life-Kit-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/code-switch-life-kit",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/1112190608?mt=2&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9NTEwMzEy",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3bExJ9JQpkwNhoHvaIIuyV",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510312/podcast.xml"
}
},
"commonwealth-club": {
"id": "commonwealth-club",
"title": "Commonwealth Club of California Podcast",
"info": "The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum. As a non-partisan forum, The Club brings to the public airwaves diverse viewpoints on important topics. The Club's weekly radio broadcast - the oldest in the U.S., dating back to 1924 - is carried across the nation on public radio stations and is now podcasting. Our website archive features audio of our recent programs, as well as selected speeches from our long and distinguished history. This podcast feed is usually updated twice a week and is always un-edited.",
"airtime": "THU 10pm, FRI 1am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Commonwealth-Club-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.commonwealthclub.org/podcasts",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Commonwealth Club of California"
},
"link": "/radio/program/commonwealth-club",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-of-california-podcast/id976334034?mt=2",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21tb253ZWFsdGhjbHViLm9yZy9hdWRpby9wb2RjYXN0L3dlZWtseS54bWw",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Commonwealth-Club-of-California-p1060/"
}
},
"forum": {
"id": "forum",
"title": "Forum",
"tagline": "The conversation starts here",
"info": "KQED’s live call-in program discussing local, state, national and international issues, as well as in-depth interviews.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9am-11am, 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Forum-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Forum with Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/forum",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 9
},
"link": "/forum",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-forum/id73329719",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5NTU3MzgxNjMz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432307980/forum",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-forum-podcast",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9557381633"
}
},
"freakonomics-radio": {
"id": "freakonomics-radio",
"title": "Freakonomics Radio",
"info": "Freakonomics Radio is a one-hour award-winning podcast and public-radio project hosted by Stephen Dubner, with co-author Steve Levitt as a regular guest. It is produced in partnership with WNYC.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/freakonomicsRadio.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://freakonomics.com/",
"airtime": "SUN 1am-2am, SAT 3pm-4pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/freakonomics-radio",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/Freakonomics-Radio-p272293/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/freakonomicsradio"
}
},
"fresh-air": {
"id": "fresh-air",
"title": "Fresh Air",
"info": "Hosted by Terry Gross, \u003cem>Fresh Air from WHYY\u003c/em> is the Peabody Award-winning weekday magazine of contemporary arts and issues. One of public radio's most popular programs, Fresh Air features intimate conversations with today's biggest luminaries.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fresh-Air-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/fresh-air",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=214089682&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Fresh-Air-p17/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/381444908/podcast.xml"
}
},
"here-and-now": {
"id": "here-and-now",
"title": "Here & Now",
"info": "A live production of NPR and WBUR Boston, in collaboration with stations across the country, Here & Now reflects the fluid world of news as it's happening in the middle of the day, with timely, in-depth news, interviews and conversation. Hosted by Robin Young, Jeremy Hobson and Tonya Mosley.",
"airtime": "MON-THU 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Here-And-Now-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/here-and-now",
"subsdcribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=426698661",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Here--Now-p211/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510051/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hidden-brain": {
"id": "hidden-brain",
"title": "Hidden Brain",
"info": "Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/hiddenbrain.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain",
"airtime": "SUN 7pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "NPR"
},
"link": "/radio/program/hidden-brain",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-brain/id1028908750?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Science-Podcasts/Hidden-Brain-p787503/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510308/podcast.xml"
}
},
"how-i-built-this": {
"id": "how-i-built-this",
"title": "How I Built This with Guy Raz",
"info": "Guy Raz dives into the stories behind some of the world's best known companies. How I Built This weaves a narrative journey about innovators, entrepreneurs and idealists—and the movements they built.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/howIBuiltThis.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this",
"airtime": "SUN 7:30pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/how-i-built-this",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/3zxy",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-built-this-with-guy-raz/id1150510297?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/How-I-Built-This-p910896/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510313/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hyphenacion": {
"id": "hyphenacion",
"title": "Hyphenación",
"tagline": "Where conversation and cultura meet",
"info": "What kind of no sabo word is Hyphenación? For us, it’s about living within a hyphenation. Like being a third-gen Mexican-American from the Texas border now living that Bay Area Chicano life. Like Xorje! Each week we bring together a couple of hyphenated Latinos to talk all about personal life choices: family, careers, relationships, belonging … everything is on the table. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hyphenacion_FinalAssets_PodcastTile.png",
"imageAlt": "KQED Hyphenación",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 15
},
"link": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyphenaci%C3%B3n/id1191591838",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/2p3Fifq96nw9BPcmFdIq0o?si=39209f7b25774f38",
"youtube": "https://www.youtube.com/c/kqedarts",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/6c3dd23c-93fb-4aab-97ba-1725fa6315f1/hyphenaci%C3%B3n",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC2275451163"
}
},
"jerrybrown": {
"id": "jerrybrown",
"title": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"tagline": "Lessons from a lifetime in politics",
"info": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown brings listeners the wisdom of the former Governor, Mayor, and presidential candidate. Scott Shafer interviewed Brown for more than 40 hours, covering the former governor's life and half-century in the political game – and Brown has some lessons he'd like to share. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Political-Mind-of-Jerry-Brown-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 18
},
"link": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/790253322/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1492194549",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/jerrybrown/feed/podcast/",
"tuneIn": "http://tun.in/pjGcK",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/54C1dmuyFyKMFttY6X2j6r?si=K8SgRCoISNK6ZbjpXrX5-w",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/44420f75-3b0e-4301-ab3b-16da6b09e543/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown"
}
},
"latino-usa": {
"id": "latino-usa",
"title": "Latino USA",
"airtime": "MON 1am-2am, SUN 6pm-7pm",
"info": "Latino USA, the radio journal of news and culture, is the only national, English-language radio program produced from a Latino perspective.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/latinoUsa.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://latinousa.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/latino-usa",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/xtTd",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=79681317&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Latino-USA-p621/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510016/podcast.xml"
}
},
"marketplace": {
"id": "marketplace",
"title": "Marketplace",
"info": "Our flagship program, helmed by Kai Ryssdal, examines what the day in money delivered, through stories, conversations, newsworthy numbers and more. Updated Monday through Friday at about 3:30 p.m. PT.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 4pm-4:30pm, MON-WED 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Marketplace-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.marketplace.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "American Public Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/marketplace",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201853034&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/APM-Marketplace-p88/",
"rss": "https://feeds.publicradio.org/public_feeds/marketplace-pm/rss/rss"
}
},
"masters-of-scale": {
"id": "masters-of-scale",
"title": "Masters of Scale",
"info": "Masters of Scale is an original podcast in which LinkedIn co-founder and Greylock Partner Reid Hoffman sets out to describe and prove theories that explain how great entrepreneurs take their companies from zero to a gazillion in ingenious fashion.",
"airtime": "Every other Wednesday June 12 through October 16 at 8pm (repeats Thursdays at 2am)",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Masters-of-Scale-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://mastersofscale.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WaitWhat"
},
"link": "/radio/program/masters-of-scale",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "http://mastersofscale.app.link/",
"rss": "https://rss.art19.com/masters-of-scale"
}
},
"mindshift": {
"id": "mindshift",
"title": "MindShift",
"tagline": "A podcast about the future of learning and how we raise our kids",
"info": "The MindShift podcast explores the innovations in education that are shaping how kids learn. Hosts Ki Sung and Katrina Schwartz introduce listeners to educators, researchers, parents and students who are developing effective ways to improve how kids learn. We cover topics like how fed-up administrators are developing surprising tactics to deal with classroom disruptions; how listening to podcasts are helping kids develop reading skills; the consequences of overparenting; and why interdisciplinary learning can engage students on all ends of the traditional achievement spectrum. This podcast is part of the MindShift education site, a division of KQED News. KQED is an NPR/PBS member station based in San Francisco. You can also visit the MindShift website for episodes and supplemental blog posts or tweet us \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/MindShiftKQED\">@MindShiftKQED\u003c/a> or visit us at \u003ca href=\"/mindshift\">MindShift.KQED.org\u003c/a>",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Mindshift-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED MindShift: How We Will Learn",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/mindshift/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 12
},
"link": "/podcasts/mindshift",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mindshift-podcast/id1078765985",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1NzY0NjAwNDI5",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/464615685/mind-shift-podcast",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/stories-teachers-share",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0MxSpNYZKNprFLCl7eEtyx"
}
},
"morning-edition": {
"id": "morning-edition",
"title": "Morning Edition",
"info": "\u003cem>Morning Edition\u003c/em> takes listeners around the country and the world with multi-faceted stories and commentaries every weekday. Hosts Steve Inskeep, David Greene and Rachel Martin bring you the latest breaking news and features to prepare you for the day.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3am-9am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Morning-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/morning-edition"
},
"onourwatch": {
"id": "onourwatch",
"title": "On Our Watch",
"tagline": "Deeply-reported investigative journalism",
"info": "For decades, the process for how police police themselves has been inconsistent – if not opaque. In some states, like California, these proceedings were completely hidden. After a new police transparency law unsealed scores of internal affairs files, our reporters set out to examine these cases and the shadow world of police discipline. On Our Watch brings listeners into the rooms where officers are questioned and witnesses are interrogated to find out who this system is really protecting. Is it the officers, or the public they've sworn to serve?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/On-Our-Watch-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "On Our Watch from NPR and KQED",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 11
},
"link": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1567098962",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDM2MC9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbD9zYz1nb29nbGVwb2RjYXN0cw",
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/onourwatch",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0OLWoyizopu6tY1XiuX70x",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-Our-Watch-p1436229/",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/show/on-our-watch",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510360/podcast.xml"
}
},
"on-the-media": {
"id": "on-the-media",
"title": "On The Media",
"info": "Our weekly podcast explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of \"making media,\" especially news media, because it's through that lens that we see the world and the world sees us",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm-3pm, MON 12am-1am",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/onTheMedia.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/otm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wnyc"
},
"link": "/radio/program/on-the-media",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-the-Media-p69/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/onthemedia"
}
},
"pbs-newshour": {
"id": "pbs-newshour",
"title": "PBS NewsHour",
"info": "Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/PBS-News-Hour-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "pbs"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pbs-newshour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pbs-newshour-full-show/id394432287?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/PBS-NewsHour---Full-Show-p425698/",
"rss": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/show"
}
},
"perspectives": {
"id": "perspectives",
"title": "Perspectives",
"tagline": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991",
"info": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Perspectives_Tile_Final.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Perspectives",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/perspectives/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 14
},
"link": "/perspectives",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id73801135",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432309616/perspectives",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/perspectives/category/perspectives/feed/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvcGVyc3BlY3RpdmVzL2NhdGVnb3J5L3BlcnNwZWN0aXZlcy9mZWVkLw"
}
},
"planet-money": {
"id": "planet-money",
"title": "Planet Money",
"info": "The economy explained. Imagine you could call up a friend and say, Meet me at the bar and tell me what's going on with the economy. Now imagine that's actually a fun evening.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/planetmoney.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/money/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/planet-money",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/M4f5",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id290783428?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Business--Economics-Podcasts/Planet-Money-p164680/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510289/podcast.xml"
}
},
"politicalbreakdown": {
"id": "politicalbreakdown",
"title": "Political Breakdown",
"tagline": "Politics from a personal perspective",
"info": "Political Breakdown is a new series that explores the political intersection of California and the nation. Each week hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos are joined with a new special guest to unpack politics -- with personality — and offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics happens.",
"airtime": "THU 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Breakdown-2024-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Political Breakdown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 5
},
"link": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/e0c2d153-ad36-4c8d-901d-f1da6a724824/political-breakdown",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/572155894/political-breakdown",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/political-breakdown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/07RVyIjIdk2WDuVehvBMoN",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/political-breakdown/feed/podcast"
}
},
"possible": {
"id": "possible",
"title": "Possible",
"info": "Possible is hosted by entrepreneur Reid Hoffman and writer Aria Finger. Together in Possible, Hoffman and Finger lead enlightening discussions about building a brighter collective future. The show features interviews with visionary guests like Trevor Noah, Sam Altman and Janette Sadik-Khan. Possible paints an optimistic portrait of the world we can create through science, policy, business, art and our shared humanity. It asks: What if everything goes right for once? How can we get there? Each episode also includes a short fiction story generated by advanced AI GPT-4, serving as a thought-provoking springboard to speculate how humanity could leverage technology for good.",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Possible-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.possible.fm/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Possible"
},
"link": "/radio/program/possible",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/possible/id1677184070",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/730YpdUSNlMyPQwNnyjp4k"
}
},
"pri-the-world": {
"id": "pri-the-world",
"title": "PRI's The World: Latest Edition",
"info": "Each weekday, host Marco Werman and his team of producers bring you the world's most interesting stories in an hour of radio that reminds us just how small our planet really is.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-World-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pri.org/programs/the-world",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "PRI"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pri-the-world",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pris-the-world-latest-edition/id278196007?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/PRIs-The-World-p24/",
"rss": "http://feeds.feedburner.com/pri/theworld"
}
},
"radiolab": {
"id": "radiolab",
"title": "Radiolab",
"info": "A two-time Peabody Award-winner, Radiolab is an investigation told through sounds and stories, and centered around one big idea. In the Radiolab world, information sounds like music and science and culture collide. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich, the show is designed for listeners who demand skepticism, but appreciate wonder. WNYC Studios is the producer of other leading podcasts including Freakonomics Radio, Death, Sex & Money, On the Media and many more.",
"airtime": "SUN 12am-1am, SAT 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/radiolab1400.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/radiolab",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radiolab/id152249110?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/RadioLab-p68032/",
"rss": "https://feeds.wnyc.org/radiolab"
}
},
"reveal": {
"id": "reveal",
"title": "Reveal",
"info": "Created by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, Reveal is public radios first one-hour weekly radio show and podcast dedicated to investigative reporting. Credible, fact based and without a partisan agenda, Reveal combines the power and artistry of driveway moment storytelling with data-rich reporting on critically important issues. The result is stories that inform and inspire, arming our listeners with information to right injustices, hold the powerful accountable and improve lives.Reveal is hosted by Al Letson and showcases the award-winning work of CIR and newsrooms large and small across the nation. In a radio and podcast market crowded with choices, Reveal focuses on important and often surprising stories that illuminate the world for our listeners.",
"airtime": "SAT 4pm-5pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/reveal300px.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/reveal",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Reveal-p679597/",
"rss": "http://feeds.revealradio.org/revealpodcast"
}
},
"rightnowish": {
"id": "rightnowish",
"title": "Rightnowish",
"tagline": "Art is where you find it",
"info": "Rightnowish digs into life in the Bay Area right now… ish. Journalist Pendarvis Harshaw takes us to galleries painted on the sides of liquor stores in West Oakland. We'll dance in warehouses in the Bayview, make smoothies with kids in South Berkeley, and listen to classical music in a 1984 Cutlass Supreme in Richmond. Every week, Pen talks to movers and shakers about how the Bay Area shapes what they create, and how they shape the place we call home.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rightnowish-Podcast-Tile-500x500-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Rightnowish with Pendarvis Harshaw",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 16
},
"link": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/721590300/rightnowish",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/programs/rightnowish/feed/podcast",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rightnowish/id1482187648",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/rightnowish",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMxMjU5MTY3NDc4",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/7kEJuafTzTVan7B78ttz1I"
}
},
"science-friday": {
"id": "science-friday",
"title": "Science Friday",
"info": "Science Friday is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide. Each week, the show focuses on science topics that are in the news and tries to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join host Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program.",
"airtime": "FRI 11am-1pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Science-Friday-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/science-friday",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/science-friday",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=73329284&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Science-Friday-p394/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/science-friday"
}
},
"snap-judgment": {
"id": "snap-judgment",
"title": "Snap Judgment",
"tagline": "Real stories with killer beats",
"info": "The Snap Judgment radio show and podcast mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio. Snap's musical brand of storytelling dares listeners to see the world through the eyes of another. This is storytelling... with a BEAT!! Snap first aired on public radio stations nationwide in July 2010. Today, Snap Judgment airs on over 450 public radio stations and is brought to the airwaves by KQED & PRX.",
"airtime": "SAT 1pm-2pm, 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Snap-Judgment-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Snap Judgment",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 4
},
"link": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/snap-judgment/id283657561",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/449018144/snap-judgment",
"stitcher": "https://www.pandora.com/podcast/snap-judgment/PC:241?source=stitcher-sunset",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3Cct7ZWmxHNAtLgBTqjC5v",
"rss": "https://snap.feed.snapjudgment.org/"
}
},
"soldout": {
"id": "soldout",
"title": "SOLD OUT: Rethinking Housing in America",
"tagline": "A new future for housing",
"info": "Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Sold-Out-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/soldout",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 13
},
"link": "/podcasts/soldout",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/911586047/s-o-l-d-o-u-t-a-new-future-for-housing",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introducing-sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america/id1531354937",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/soldout",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/38dTBSk2ISFoPiyYNoKn1X",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america",
"tunein": "https://tunein.com/radio/SOLD-OUT-Rethinking-Housing-in-America-p1365871/"
}
},
"spooked": {
"id": "spooked",
"title": "Spooked",
"tagline": "True-life supernatural stories",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Spooked-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Spooked",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 7
},
"link": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spooked/id1279361017",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/549547848/snap-judgment-presents-spooked",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/76571Rfl3m7PLJQZKQIGCT",
"rss": "https://feeds.simplecast.com/TBotaapn"
}
},
"tech-nation": {
"id": "tech-nation",
"title": "Tech Nation Radio Podcast",
"info": "Tech Nation is a weekly public radio program, hosted by Dr. Moira Gunn. Founded in 1993, it has grown from a simple interview show to a multi-faceted production, featuring conversations with noted technology and science leaders, and a weekly science and technology-related commentary.",
"airtime": "FRI 10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Tech-Nation-Radio-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://technation.podomatic.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "Tech Nation Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tech-nation",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://technation.podomatic.com/rss2.xml"
}
},
"ted-radio-hour": {
"id": "ted-radio-hour",
"title": "TED Radio Hour",
"info": "The TED Radio Hour is a journey through fascinating ideas, astonishing inventions, fresh approaches to old problems, and new ways to think and create.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm, SAT 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/tedRadioHour.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2018-06-22",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/ted-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/8vsS",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=523121474&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/TED-Radio-Hour-p418021/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510298/podcast.xml"
}
},
"thebay": {
"id": "thebay",
"title": "The Bay",
"tagline": "Local news to keep you rooted",
"info": "Host Devin Katayama walks you through the biggest story of the day with reporters and newsmakers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Bay-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Bay",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/thebay",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 2
},
"link": "/podcasts/thebay",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/d800ea4c-7a2c-42f2-b861-edaf78a5db0b/the-bay",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/586725995/the-bay",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-bay",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/4BIKBKIujizLHlIlBNaAqQ",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC8259786327"
}
},
"thelatest": {
"id": "thelatest",
"title": "The Latest",
"tagline": "Trusted local news in real time",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Latest-2025-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Latest",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/thelatest",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 6
},
"link": "/thelatest",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-latest-from-kqed/id1197721799",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/1257949365/the-latest-from-k-q-e-d",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/5KIIXMgM9GTi5AepwOYvIZ?si=bd3053fec7244dba",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9137121918"
}
},
"theleap": {
"id": "theleap",
"title": "The Leap",
"tagline": "What if you closed your eyes, and jumped?",
"info": "Stories about people making dramatic, risky changes, told by award-winning public radio reporter Judy Campbell.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Leap-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Leap",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/theleap",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 17
},
"link": "/podcasts/theleap",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-leap/id1046668171",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/447248267/the-leap",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-leap",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3sSlVHHzU0ytLwuGs1SD1U",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/programs/the-leap/feed/podcast"
}
},
"the-moth-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-moth-radio-hour",
"title": "The Moth Radio Hour",
"info": "Since its launch in 1997, The Moth has presented thousands of true stories, told live and without notes, to standing-room-only crowds worldwide. Moth storytellers stand alone, under a spotlight, with only a microphone and a roomful of strangers. The storyteller and the audience embark on a high-wire act of shared experience which is both terrifying and exhilarating. Since 2008, The Moth podcast has featured many of our favorite stories told live on Moth stages around the country. For information on all of our programs and live events, visit themoth.org.",
"airtime": "SAT 8pm-9pm and SUN 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/theMoth.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://themoth.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "prx"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-moth-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-moth-podcast/id275699983?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/The-Moth-p273888/",
"rss": "http://feeds.themoth.org/themothpodcast"
}
},
"the-new-yorker-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"title": "The New Yorker Radio Hour",
"info": "The New Yorker Radio Hour is a weekly program presented by the magazine's editor, David Remnick, and produced by WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Each episode features a diverse mix of interviews, profiles, storytelling, and an occasional burst of humor inspired by the magazine, and shaped by its writers, artists, and editors. This isn't a radio version of a magazine, but something all its own, reflecting the rich possibilities of audio storytelling and conversation. Theme music for the show was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of tUnE-YArDs.",
"airtime": "SAT 10am-11am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-New-Yorker-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/tnyradiohour",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1050430296",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/New-Yorker-Radio-Hour-p803804/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/newyorkerradiohour"
}
},
"the-sam-sanders-show": {
"id": "the-sam-sanders-show",
"title": "The Sam Sanders Show",
"info": "One of public radio's most dynamic voices, Sam Sanders helped launch The NPR Politics Podcast and hosted NPR's hit show It's Been A Minute. Now, the award-winning host returns with something brand new, The Sam Sanders Show. Every week, Sam Sanders and friends dig into the culture that shapes our lives: what's driving the biggest trends, how artists really think, and even the memes you can't stop scrolling past. Sam is beloved for his way of unpacking the world and bringing you up close to fresh currents and engaging conversations. The Sam Sanders Show is smart, funny and always a good time.",
"airtime": "FRI 12-1pm AND SAT 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Sam-Sanders-Show-Podcast-Tile-400x400-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "KCRW"
},
"link": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feed.cdnstream1.com/zjb/feed/download/ac/28/59/ac28594c-e1d0-4231-8728-61865cdc80e8.xml"
}
},
"the-splendid-table": {
"id": "the-splendid-table",
"title": "The Splendid Table",
"info": "\u003cem>The Splendid Table\u003c/em> hosts our nation's conversations about cooking, sustainability and food culture.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Splendid-Table-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.splendidtable.org/",
"airtime": "SUN 10-11 pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-splendid-table"
},
"this-american-life": {
"id": "this-american-life",
"title": "This American Life",
"info": "This American Life is a weekly public radio show, heard by 2.2 million people on more than 500 stations. Another 2.5 million people download the weekly podcast. It is hosted by Ira Glass, produced in collaboration with Chicago Public Media, delivered to stations by PRX The Public Radio Exchange, and has won all of the major broadcasting awards.",
"airtime": "SAT 12pm-1pm, 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/thisAmericanLife.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wbez"
},
"link": "/radio/program/this-american-life",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201671138&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"rss": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/rss.xml"
}
},
"tinydeskradio": {
"id": "tinydeskradio",
"title": "Tiny Desk Radio",
"info": "We're bringing the best of Tiny Desk to the airwaves, only on public radio.",
"airtime": "SUN 8pm and SAT 9pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/300x300-For-Member-Station-Logo-Tiny-Desk-Radio-@2x.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/g-s1-52030/tiny-desk-radio",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tinydeskradio",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/g-s1-52030/rss.xml"
}
},
"wait-wait-dont-tell-me": {
"id": "wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"title": "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!",
"info": "Peter Sagal and Bill Kurtis host the weekly NPR News quiz show alongside some of the best and brightest news and entertainment personalities.",
"airtime": "SUN 10am-11am, SAT 11am-12pm, SAT 6pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Wait-Wait-Podcast-Tile-300x300-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/Xogv",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=121493804&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Wait-Wait-Dont-Tell-Me-p46/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/344098539/podcast.xml"
}
},
"weekend-edition-saturday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-saturday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Saturday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Saturday wraps up the week's news and offers a mix of analysis and features on a wide range of topics, including arts, sports, entertainment, and human interest stories. The two-hour program is hosted by NPR's Peabody Award-winning Scott Simon.",
"airtime": "SAT 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-saturday"
},
"weekend-edition-sunday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-sunday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Sunday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Sunday features interviews with newsmakers, artists, scientists, politicians, musicians, writers, theologians and historians. The program has covered news events from Nelson Mandela's 1990 release from a South African prison to the capture of Saddam Hussein.",
"airtime": "SUN 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-sunday"
}
},
"racesReducer": {},
"racesGenElectionReducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026Reducer": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts/news?category=law-and-justice": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 5172,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 12,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 6189,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_100525",
"news_100457",
"news_100707",
"news_100595",
"news_100262",
"news_100224",
"news_100055",
"news_99826",
"news_99713",
"news_99462",
"news_99173",
"news_99127"
],
"complete": true
}
},
"recallGuideReducer": {
"intros": {},
"policy": {},
"candidates": {}
},
"savedArticleReducer": {
"articles": [],
"status": {}
},
"newslettersReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"newsletters": {},
"isSubscribing": false,
"isUnsubscribing": false,
"subscribedNewsletters": {}
},
"termsReducer": {
"about": {
"name": "About",
"type": "terms",
"id": "about",
"slug": "about",
"link": "/about",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"arts": {
"name": "Arts & Culture",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"description": "KQED Arts provides daily in-depth coverage of the Bay Area's music, art, film, performing arts, literature and arts news, as well as cultural commentary and criticism.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "arts",
"slug": "arts",
"link": "/arts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"artschool": {
"name": "Art School",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "artschool",
"slug": "artschool",
"link": "/artschool",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareabites": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareabites",
"slug": "bayareabites",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareahiphop": {
"name": "Bay Area Hiphop",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareahiphop",
"slug": "bayareahiphop",
"link": "/bayareahiphop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"campaign21": {
"name": "Campaign 21",
"type": "terms",
"id": "campaign21",
"slug": "campaign21",
"link": "/campaign21",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"careers": {
"name": "Careers",
"type": "terms",
"id": "careers",
"slug": "careers",
"link": "/careers",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"checkplease": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "checkplease",
"slug": "checkplease",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"education": {
"name": "Education",
"grouping": [
"education"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "education",
"slug": "education",
"link": "/education",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"elections": {
"name": "Elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "elections",
"slug": "elections",
"link": "/elections",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"events": {
"name": "Events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "events",
"slug": "events",
"link": "/events",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"event": {
"name": "Event",
"alias": "events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "event",
"slug": "event",
"link": "/event",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"filmschoolshorts": {
"name": "Film School Shorts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "filmschoolshorts",
"slug": "filmschoolshorts",
"link": "/filmschoolshorts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"food": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "food",
"slug": "food",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"forum": {
"name": "Forum",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/forum?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum",
"slug": "forum",
"link": "/forum",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"futureofyou": {
"name": "Future of You",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "futureofyou",
"slug": "futureofyou",
"link": "/futureofyou",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"jpepinheart": {
"name": "KQED food",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/food,bayareabites,checkplease",
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "jpepinheart",
"slug": "jpepinheart",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"liveblog": {
"name": "Live Blog",
"type": "terms",
"id": "liveblog",
"slug": "liveblog",
"link": "/liveblog",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"livetv": {
"name": "Live TV",
"parent": "tv",
"type": "terms",
"id": "livetv",
"slug": "livetv",
"link": "/livetv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"lowdown": {
"name": "The Lowdown",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/lowdown?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "lowdown",
"slug": "lowdown",
"link": "/lowdown",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"mindshift": {
"name": "Mindshift",
"parent": "news",
"description": "MindShift explores the future of education by highlighting the innovative – and sometimes counterintuitive – ways educators and parents are helping all children succeed.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "mindshift",
"slug": "mindshift",
"link": "/mindshift",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news": {
"name": "News",
"grouping": [
"news",
"forum"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "news",
"slug": "news",
"link": "/news",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"newsletters": {
"name": "newsletters",
"type": "terms",
"id": "newsletters",
"slug": "newsletters",
"link": "/newsletters",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"perspectives": {
"name": "Perspectives",
"parent": "radio",
"type": "terms",
"id": "perspectives",
"slug": "perspectives",
"link": "/perspectives",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"podcasts": {
"name": "Podcasts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "podcasts",
"slug": "podcasts",
"link": "/podcasts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pop": {
"name": "Pop",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pop",
"slug": "pop",
"link": "/pop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pressroom": {
"name": "Pressroom",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pressroom",
"slug": "pressroom",
"link": "/pressroom",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"quest": {
"name": "Quest",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "quest",
"slug": "quest",
"link": "/quest",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"radio": {
"name": "Radio",
"grouping": [
"forum",
"perspectives"
],
"description": "Listen to KQED Public Radio – home of Forum and The California Report – on 88.5 FM in San Francisco, 89.3 FM in Sacramento, 88.3 FM in Santa Rosa and 88.1 FM in Martinez.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "radio",
"slug": "radio",
"link": "/radio",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"root": {
"name": "KQED",
"image": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"imageWidth": 1200,
"imageHeight": 630,
"headData": {
"title": "KQED | News, Radio, Podcasts, TV | Public Media for Northern California",
"description": "KQED provides public radio, television, and independent reporting on issues that matter to the Bay Area. We’re the NPR and PBS member station for Northern California."
},
"type": "terms",
"id": "root",
"slug": "root",
"link": "/root",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"science": {
"name": "Science",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"description": "KQED Science brings you award-winning science and environment coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "science",
"slug": "science",
"link": "/science",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"stateofhealth": {
"name": "State of Health",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "stateofhealth",
"slug": "stateofhealth",
"link": "/stateofhealth",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"support": {
"name": "Support",
"type": "terms",
"id": "support",
"slug": "support",
"link": "/support",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"thedolist": {
"name": "The Do List",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "thedolist",
"slug": "thedolist",
"link": "/thedolist",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"trulyca": {
"name": "Truly CA",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "trulyca",
"slug": "trulyca",
"link": "/trulyca",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"tv": {
"name": "TV",
"type": "terms",
"id": "tv",
"slug": "tv",
"link": "/tv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"voterguide": {
"name": "Voter Guide",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "voterguide",
"slug": "voterguide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"guiaelectoral": {
"name": "Guia Electoral",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "guiaelectoral",
"slug": "guiaelectoral",
"link": "/guiaelectoral",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news_category_law-and-justice": {
"isLoading": true
},
"news_6188": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6188",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6188",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Law and Justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Law and Justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6212,
"slug": "law-and-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/law-and-justice"
},
"news_6944": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6944",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6944",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/News-Fix-Logo-Web-Banners-04.png",
"name": "News Fix",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "The News Fix is a daily news podcast from KQED that breaks down the latest headlines and provides in-depth analysis of the stories that matter to the Bay Area.",
"title": "News Fix - Daily Dose of Bay Area News | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6968,
"slug": "news-fix",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/news-fix"
},
"news_82": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_82",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "82",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "LGBT",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "LGBT Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 83,
"slug": "lgbt",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/lgbt"
},
"news_126": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_126",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "126",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Proposition 8",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Proposition 8 Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 130,
"slug": "proposition-8",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-8"
},
"news_322": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_322",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "322",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "same-sex marriage",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "same-sex marriage Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 330,
"slug": "same-sex-marriage",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/same-sex-marriage"
},
"news_1172": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1172",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1172",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "U.S. Supreme Court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1183,
"slug": "u-s-supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/u-s-supreme-court"
},
"news_10": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_10",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Sports",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Sports Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 10,
"slug": "sports",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/sports"
},
"news_2540": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2540",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2540",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "MLB",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "MLB Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2555,
"slug": "mlb",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/mlb"
},
"news_161": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_161",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "161",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Oakland As",
"slug": "oakland-as",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Oakland As | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 168,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/oakland-as"
},
"news_18541": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18541",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18541",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "San Jose",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "San Jose Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 91,
"slug": "san-jose",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/san-jose"
},
"news_616": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_616",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "616",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California prisons",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California prisons Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 625,
"slug": "california-prisons",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/california-prisons"
},
"news_686": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_686",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "686",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Human Rights",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Human Rights Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 695,
"slug": "human-rights",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/human-rights"
},
"news_30": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_30",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "30",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Jerry Brown",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Jerry Brown Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 30,
"slug": "jerry-brown",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/jerry-brown"
},
"news_1471": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1471",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1471",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "prisons",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "prisons Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1483,
"slug": "prisons",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/prisons"
},
"news_13": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_13",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "13",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Politics",
"slug": "politics",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Politics | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 13,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/politics"
},
"news_1759": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1759",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1759",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "budget",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "budget Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1772,
"slug": "budget",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/budget"
},
"news_95": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_95",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "95",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Sacramento",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Sacramento Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 411,
"slug": "sacramento",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/sacramento"
},
"news_71": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_71",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "71",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "State Budget",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "State Budget Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 72,
"slug": "state-budget-2",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/state-budget-2"
},
"news_152": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_152",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "152",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Government",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Government Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 159,
"slug": "government",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/government"
},
"news_932": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_932",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "932",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "supreme court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "supreme court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 942,
"slug": "supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/supreme-court"
},
"news_323": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_323",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "323",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Perry v. Schwarzenegger",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Perry v. Schwarzenegger Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 331,
"slug": "perry-v-schwarzenegger",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/perry-v-schwarzenegger"
},
"news_1196": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1196",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1196",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Vaughn R. Walker",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Vaughn R. Walker Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1208,
"slug": "vaughn-r-walker",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/vaughn-r-walker"
},
"news_486": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_486",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "486",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "San Quentin",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "San Quentin Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 495,
"slug": "san-quentin",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/san-quentin"
}
},
"userPermissionsReducer": {
"wpLoggedIn": false
},
"eventsReducer": {},
"fssReducer": {},
"tvDailyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvWeeklyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvPrimetimeScheduleReducer": {},
"tvMonthlyScheduleReducer": {},
"userAccountReducer": {
"user": {
"email": null,
"emailStatus": "EMAIL_UNVALIDATED",
"loggedStatus": "LOGGED_OUT",
"loggingChecked": false,
"articles": [],
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"phoneNumber": null,
"fetchingMembership": false,
"membershipError": false,
"memberships": [
{
"id": null,
"startDate": null,
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"familyNumber": null,
"memberNumber": null,
"memberSince": null,
"expirationDate": null,
"pfsEligible": false,
"isSustaining": false,
"membershipLevel": "Prospect",
"membershipStatus": "Non Member",
"lastGiftDate": null,
"renewalDate": null,
"lastDonationAmount": null
}
]
},
"authModal": {
"isOpen": false,
"view": "LANDING_VIEW"
},
"error": null
},
"youthMediaReducer": {},
"checkPleaseReducer": {
"filterData": {
"region": {
"key": "Restaurant Region",
"filters": [
"Any Region"
]
},
"cuisine": {
"key": "Restaurant Cuisine",
"filters": [
"Any Cuisine"
]
}
},
"restaurantDataById": {},
"restaurantIdsSorted": [],
"error": null
},
"userAgentReducer": {
"userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)",
"isBot": true
}
}
