[Ed. Note: FDL has complete team coverage of Perry v. Schwarzenegger–including more legal analysis, court documents, videos, and liveblogging direct from the federal court in San Francisco. You can find it all on our dedicated Prop 8 page.]
Continuing David Boies’ cross examination of Defendant-Intervenors’ Expert Witness Dr Kenneth Miller at ten minutes before the hour.
We are on break now.
Waiting now for the Judge to take the bench.
Betting here is that we will go until five; mixed decision on whether we will finish with Miller today.
Boies: PX1869, Tab 35: Santa Clara Law Review, you wrote this?
M: Yes
B: Offered
Walker: Very well, hearing no objection
B: Second full graf: “Moreover by liminting the opportunieis for opponents to participate the intitiative process makes it more difficult for opponents to participate in the legislative process.”
You wrote that?
M: Yes
B: And do youbelieve that today?
M: Yes
B (reads) “The initiative process fosters confrontation rather than consensus building.” Dod you wrtite that?
M: Yes
B: Do you believe it now?
M: Yes, but I might word it differently now.
B: Well do you believe it to be true now?
M: More or less, yes
B: Page six (reads) “Thus in CA both inititative constitutional amendements and inisitiative statutes undermine representative goveermnet.” Did you write that?
M: Yes
B: What did you mean by that?
M: Not sure, but initiatives have the tendency to make it more difficult for the legislature to do its job. Lock in spending, or cuts, and they can’t do their work within the voted-on framework.
