Bono Reintroduces Bill on Challenges to State Initiatives

WASHINGTON — Reinspired by the ill-fated course of California’s anti-affirmative action initiative, Proposition 209, Rep. Sonny Bono has reintroduced his bill to make it more difficult for federal courts to block state voter initiatives.

“I believe that the will of the people, expressed through their vote, deserves to be protected,” the Palm Springs Republican said while relaunching the State Initiative Fairness Act. “Likewise, constitutional issues need to be resolved in a nonpolitical forum. This bill helps accomplish both goals.”

Bono’s bill would put an end to a system that allows a single federal judge to halt by injunction an initiative passed by state voters. According to Bono, opponents of a measure search for a judge sympathetic to their argument and block the bill, a technique he calls “judge shopping.”

The bill instead would require federal courts to establish a three-judge panel to review constitutional challenges to voter-approved state measures. The same system is currently used to review voter-rights cases.

At least one panel member would have to be a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Any appeal of the panel’s decision would automatically go to the U.S. Supreme Court, the bill states.

The proposal was the first bill of Bono’s legislative career. It handily passed the House in 1995 but died in the Senate for lack of action. It was originally introduced in his outrage over the limping progress of Proposition 187, California’s anti-illegal immigration initiative, most of which has been blocked on constitutional grounds by the federal court since it passed in 1994.

Now Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action initiative passed by voters in November, has gone the same route--blocked indefinitely by Chief U.S. District Judge Thelton E. Henderson.

Bono said his legislation sailed through the House with wide bipartisan support but was bumped off the Senate’s agenda by a crowded schedule.

In a recent statement to Bono, Gov. Pete Wilson endorsed the measure: “Your legislation will establish a careful balance between protecting the public against unconstitutional state legislation and against a single judge obstructing the implementation of constitutional and voter-approved state legislation.”

Even if approved by Congress this time and signed by the president, the bill would not be retroactive and would not affect the federal court’s review of either the immigration or affirmative action measures.