Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo

Sommario

1. Introduzione: la “democrazia ibrida”, i giudici “legislatori” e gli elettori “legislatori costituzionali”. – 2. La battaglia referendaria per il same-sex marriage. – 2.1 Segue: In re marriage cases: il same-sex marriage ban alla prova dell’equal protection. – 3. La Proposition 8 tra emendamento e revisione costituzionale nella sentenza Strauss v. Horton. – 4. Il judicial scrutiny della democrazia diretta tra “cani da guardia” e “permissivisti”. – 5. L’emendamento costituzionale diretto: “flessibilità” della Costituzione statale e ruolo della Costituzione federale. – 6. La Costituzione statale “presa sul serio”.

Abstract

The struggle around the right of same-sex couples marriage in California, in the recent decisions of the state supreme court In re marriage cases and Strauss v. Horton, represents an interesting case for the study of constitutional dynamics and problems of the most majoritarian form of policymaking, the direct democracy, and its clash with the most countermajoritarian institution, the judicial review of legislation, in the State called “hybrid democracy”.This article explains how a theoretical political question about who should have the last word on fundamental policy issues becomes a real constitutional problem when the people, through a simple ballot measure with a bare majority of voters, enact a constitutional amendment containing a discrimination against disfavoured minorities which is presumptively “suspect” under the equal protection clause. Then, the article argues that, without the federal Constitution protection, the misunderstanding of distinction between “constitutional revision” and “constitutional amendment” by the supreme Court of California could jeopardizes the role of the state Constitution as ultimate guarantee of fundamental rights and individual freedom, because the equality before the law for all citizens is a foundation principle of the “governmental framework”.Finally, the article analyzes some solutions elaborated by constitutional scholars to improve the direct constitutional amendment process and to correct this way the excessive judicial deference of state Courts to constitutional direct legislation.