State Sen. Mike Crotts, the lead sponsor of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban marriage in Georgia, said the measure addresses his concerns over ‘judicial activism.’ (Photo by R.O. Youngblood)
MOST VIEWED Local: A Beatle in Piedmont Park National News: Obama cheered at Pride celebration Local: Judge: Trans lawsuit against Ga. lawmakers can continue Feature: Tough as nails National News: Gay groups back suit against marriage ban

HOME > NEWS > LOCAL

Feb 20, 2004  | COMMENTS |   |  

State Sen. Mike Crotts (R-Conyers), the lead sponsor of a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in Georgia, has often said his measure is designed to protect the state from “judicial activists.”

During Senate debate Monday on the proposed amendment, Democratic opponents of the measure asked Crotts if a recent redistricting ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals — a decision that may benefit the state GOP — constituted judicial activism. (See story, page 5) Crotts said the redistricting ruling wasn’t judicial activism, but did not elaborate on how the marriage and redistricting cases are different.

After the Senate voted 40-14 to approve the amendment, Southern Voice reporter Ryan Lee interviewed Crotts about his use of the phrase “judicial activism.”

Southern Voice: You say the recent redistricting ruling didn’t constitute judicial activism because they didn’t redraw the maps — they sent it to the legislators and told them to redraw the maps. Is that correct?
State Sen. Mike Crotts: Well that’s what they did.

SoVo: And that’s why it doesn’t constitute judicial activism?
Crotts: Well, I think they reviewed it. They could’ve ruled on it which would have been activism, or discrimination, whichever the case may be. They ruled the maps were discriminatory because they didn’t represent one person, one vote. But they sent it back to be worked — these other states are not doing that.

SoVo: Now I want to ask you about that, because in Vermont, are you familiar with the Vermont case?
Crotts: Yeah.

SoVo: Do you know what the Vermont Supreme Court said?
Crotts: Well it’s my understanding that Vermont sent it back [to the legislature].

SoVo: So how is that judicial activism?
Crotts: Well, I mean that’s just one state. That’s one state.

SoVo: But that’s the state you’re using as an example of judicial activism.
Crotts: No, I’m using Massachusetts.

SoVo: OK, now what did Massachusetts do?
Crotts: Massachusetts, has, they ruled the judges made a ruling.

SoVo: I’m sorry, when did they make that ruling?
Crotts: The week before last.

SoVo: That was an opinion offered by them in response to a legislator’s question.
Crotts: No, they ruled. I got the opinion down there on my desk where they ruled.

SoVo: In the November ruling, do you know what they did?
Crotts: Yeah, but I’m talking about last week.

SoVo: They sent it back to the legislature.
Crotts: Yeah, that’s right.

SoVo: So how does that constitute judicial activism if they sent it back to the legislature to work out?
Crotts: It will if they finally rule on it to the point that the direction they’re going in, and that’s not right. It ought to be the legislature redoing it based on the opinion of the court, just like with these maps. They sent us these maps back and said, ‘Fix it. If you don’t fix it, we will. But we’re going to give you that chance.’”

SoVo: Isn’t that exactly what the Massachusetts and Vermont [supreme] courts did? Did they not send it back to the legislature?
Crotts: Well they’re marrying people. They’re marrying people in California like crazy.

SoVo: But did they not send it back to the legislature?
Crotts: Ehh, well, yeah, maybe.

SoVo: So how is that judicial activism?
Crotts: Well it is. It is when they rewrite the law.

SoVo: But again, they sent it back to the legislature.
Crotts: But again, you’re talking about one state.

SoVo: No, in both Massachusetts and Vermont, they sent it back to the legislature. How is that judicial activism, when you say that, for redistricting, when they sent back the legislature it’s not judicial activism?
Crotts: When they, when what now?

SoVo: Again, you said the reason why the redistricting ruling was not judicial activism was because they sent it back to the state legislature. In both Vermont and Massachusetts — in the marriage cases — they sent their decisions back to the state legislators. So I’m asking you, how is that judicial activism?
Crotts: I’m saying, if they do that, and they don’t make the law, then that’s OK. But if they do ultimately make the law, and they contradict what the legislative process has done, then that is wrong.

SoVo: And in Vermont, did they do that?
Crotts: No, they did not.

SoVo: So how is that judicial activism?
Crotts: I’m saying it could be. I didn’t say it is, I said it could be.

SoVo: ...