[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 131 (Friday, October 1, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2009]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         INTRODUCTION OF THE ``STATE INITIATIVE FAIRNESS ACT''

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. MARY BONO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 30, 1999

  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to re-introduce the ``State 
Initiative Fairness Act.'' This commonsense judicial reform is 
legislation that is already well-known to my colleagues and 
courtwatchers. It passed the House of Representatives twice in recent 
memory. First, it passed as the free-standing bill, H.R. 1170, during 
the 104th Congress in 1995. And again, it passed as part of the 
Judicial Reform Act in 1998 during the 105th Congress where it was one 
of the first issues I considered upon joining this institution. This 
measure gained bipartisan and broad support in the past. This procedure 
contained in the bill establishing a three-judge panel review is simply 
the restoration of a judicial procedure that was the norm in the 
federal system for most of the twentieth century.
  Strong voting rights are the keystone of our democratic system. It is 
noted that ``A system which permits one judge to block with the stroke 
of a pen what 4,736,180 state residents voted to enact as law tests the 
integrity of our constitutional democracy.'' (See The Coalition For 
Economic Equity v. Wilson, 110 F3d 1431, 1437 (9th Cir. 1997)). The 
unjust effect on voting rights created by injunctions issued in 
California by one judge against the will of the people of the State as 
reflected in propositions concerning immigration, medical marijuana, 
and affirmative action is well-known. This bill provides that requests 
for injunctions in cases challenging the constitutionality of measures 
passed by a State referendum must be heard by a three-judge court. Like 
other Federal voting rights legislation containing a provision 
providing for a hearing by a three-judge court, the bill is designed to 
protect voters in the exercise of their vote and to further protect the 
results of that vote. It requires that any state-passed initiative or 
referendum voted upon and approved directly by the citizens of a State 
be afforded the protection of a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
2284 where an application for an injunction is brought in Federal court 
to arrest the enforcement of the referendum on the premise that the 
referendum is unconstitutional.
  It is not my intent to change the outcome of any litigation 
concerning the past propositions passed by the electorate. The goal of 
the bill is to secure the judicial process and guarantee to the people 
it is as objective as possible. For example, where the entire populace 
of a State democratically exercises a direct vote on an issue, one 
Federal judge will not be able to issue an injunction preventing the 
enforcement of the will of the people of that State. Rather, three 
judges, at the trial level, according to procedures already provided by 
statute, will hear the application for an injunction and determine 
whether the requested injunction should issue. An appeal is taken 
directly to the Supreme Court, expediting the enforcement of the 
referendum if the final decision is that the referendum is 
constitutional. Such an expedited procedure is already provided for in 
other voting rights cases. It should be no different in this case, 
since a State is redistricted for purposes of a vote on a referendum 
into one voting block. The Congressional Research Service estimates 
that these 3-judge courts would be required less than 10 times in a 
decade under this bill, causing a very insubstantial burden on the 
Federal judiciary, while substantially protecting the rights of the 
voters of a State.
  This bill recognizes that State referenda reflect, more than any 
other process, the one-person-one-vote system, and seeks to protect a 
fundamental part of our national foundation. This bill will implement a 
fair and effective policy that preserves a proper balance in Federal-
State relations.
  In closing, I wish to express my gratitude to my many colleagues who 
join me today as cosponsors and their support as we strive to amplify 
and secure the will of the people.

                          ____________________