January 20, 2010
By Rick Jacobs
[I’m back in the hot seat for the rest of the day.]
Prof Segura: Not surprised that UNITE HERE gave $100,000 to campaign. UNITE HERE represents hotel and restaurant workers as well as needle trades. Both are frequented by LGBT folks.
S: Geoff Kors (EQCA) comment in press release that this shows long standing relationship with organized labor reflect his view, not sure it’s accurate.
Thompson: $1.7 million from unions to No on 8. Do you know of any to yes?
T: Story dated Oct. 26, 2008 from Sac Bee. Influential Latinos including the Los Angeles mayor and can you help me with the pronunciation—
T: Yes, that’s it! [Wants to make the point that Villaraigosa is Latino. Really racist.]
T: All tech companies support gay rights. And they have power?
S: They do and so do other companies have power, but they may not be influential or powerful on all issues. Silicon Valley and large corporations are powerful in that they make large campaign contributions and have lots of lobbyists.
S: I’m not aware of large corporations working against LGBT?
T: HRC 1996 annual report, page 13. “Big businesses like Microsoft support state legislation that would help GLBT people.” Nike also supported GLBT legislation in 1996. Do you doubt this?
S: I would clarify the statement. First this is the advocacy organization speaking about how wonderful they are so that they can raise more money. Second, it says that more and more businesses are supporting fair-minded legislators, which makes clear we need to change. Third, not clear that corporations are donating
Judge: Does losing elections or failing to obtain favorable legislation show political powerlessness?
S: Losing elections do not necessarily mean that. Initiatives are different. It’s the only means by which voters vote on the rights of others. We have 150 elections in which LGBT have lost. That’s extraordinary. Does each act warrant judicial intervention? No. If we have passage of a bill where a majority party votes for and minority against, when power changes, could be reversed. And we could see it all reversed by initiative. I would want to look at the range of events. Loss rate shows that long standing prejudice is shaping political outcomes.
Judge: How much time do you have left with Prof. Segura? Perhaps you can do as you have done before and spend this evening honing those questions.
T: I will endeavor to do that.
Professor Herrick will go on if he is not ill as he was today. Otherwise, we’ll just put Mr. Tam on. Then we have documents. Those are our two live witnesses. Possible we may have to call Mr. Prentice to authenticate some documents.
Judge: Okay. I understand Magistrate Judge has resolved the matter discussed before the break with some of the documents. Can counsel inform me of the outcome? Mr. McGill, you were involved. Can you inform us?
McGill (Lawyer for our side): Says we are working it out.
Judge: Is it plaintiff’s intention to introduce some of those documents?
Boies: Yes, if we can authenticate some of the documents.
Judge: Unduly optimistic that plaintiff could rest tomorrow?
Boies: Challenging, but possible to finish tomorrow, but certainly Friday.
Judge: Defense should be ready tomorrow or at the latest Friday morning.
T: We’ll have Prof. Ken Miller here on Friday morning.
Boutrous: Judge Magistrate ruled against the motion to quash.
Judge: Very well. See you bright and early at 8:30 tomorrow morning.