Last week's historic high voter turnout alternately helped and hindered the passage of two propositions supported by California bishops, and contributed to the defeat of a third measure opposed by Catholic leaders and a statewide coalition of community organizations.

The passage of Prop. 8, which amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid, and the failure of Prop. 4, a measure seeking greater parental notification for minors seeking abortions, had much to do with the highest turnout in decades from members of all racial, religious and ethnic groups.

"The high turnout, which brought out more Democrats in proportion to Republicans, contributed to the failure of Prop. 4," said Fernando Guerra, associate professor of political science at Loyola Marymount University and director of the Leavey Center for the Study of Los Angeles.

The difference in outcome between Prop. 4 and Prop. 8 as revealed by voter exit polling conducted by the Leavey Center, said Guerra, is due to some members of the Democratic liberal electoral coalition deviating from partisan voting.

"A certain proportion of African American and Latinos defected from the coalition's 'No on 8' position," explained Guerra. He noted local exit polling suggests that liberal Democratic whites voted against Prop. 8 to about the same degree they supported Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, whereas Latinos and African Americans did not.

Exit polls showed that whites in Los Angeles voted 79 percent for Obama and 73 percent against Prop. 8, while Hispanics voted 81 percent for Obama and 48 percent in favor of Prop. 8 with 42 percent voting against the measure. African Americans participating in the Leavey Center exit polling voted 98 percent for Obama and 45 percent in favor of Prop. 8 with 41 percent against the proposition. (When totals don't add up to 100 percent, it's because not all polled participants voted on the issue or revealed their vote.)

"We always knew Prop. 8 would be close," said Bill May, state chair of Catholics for ProtectMarriage.com. "The only reason it won was the outpouring of grassroots support from tens of thousands of Catholics and people from every race, ethnicity and religion. It was a new coalition with many of its members never having been involved in politics before."

Marvin Hayes, state pro-life chair for the Knights of Columbus, attributed the proposition's passage to heavy grassroots support. "Proposition 8's success was due to a lot of hard work in the precincts that was very well organized. We had a lot of volunteers," estimated at 100,000 interdenominational supporters in the state, said Hayes.

In a Nov. 5 statement, Stockton Bishop Stephen Blaire, president of the California Catholic Conference, thanked "all our colleagues in the Protect Marriage coalition as well as thousands of donors and volunteers who worked tirelessly to bring about this victory. It is our hope that more people will come to see how important traditional marriage between a man and a woman is to the fabric of human society and the strength of the family."

Prop. 8 lawsuit
Responding to a lawsuit filed Nov. 5 by the ACLU and Equality California to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California's constitution, Andrew Pugno, general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, said the Yes on 8 campaign will "vigorously" defend the electorate's decision to enact Prop. 8, which passed by a vote of 52-48 (in percentages).

"It is as if [No on 8 supporters] just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity," said Pugno. "Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself.

"The right to amend California's Constitution is not granted to the People, it is reserved by the People. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the reserved power of the People to use the initiative process to amend the Constitution," Pugno said.

"The distinction made by the ACLU between a 'revision' and an 'amendment' to the Constitution under Article 18 in this case is unfounded. It has no basis in law," commented William Bassett, professor emeritus of law from the University of San Francisco.

"To claim now that Proposition 8 is invalid because of a procedural defect," he said, "is, in reality, a veiled challenge to the legal competency of the Attorney General himself who personally certified it for the ballot."

According to Bassett, the state has always regulated the conditions and requirements of persons to marry, such as prohibiting common law marriage and requiring capacity and licensing. "That's a legitimate example of the state acting on behalf of the public good," said Bassett.

In an election-day statement, Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 called the voters' decision in favor of Prop. 8 "a great day" for marriage. "Proposition 8 has always been about restoring the traditional definition of marriage. It doesn't discriminate or take rights away from anyone. Gay and lesbian domestic partnerships will continue to enjoy the same legal rights as married spouses," Prentice said.

"This has been a hard-fought campaign on both sides," he acknowledged. "Now that the people of California have decided this issue, we hope there can be a healing among all and a continued respect for the diverse views that have been expressed during this campaign."

"The success of Prop. 8 is not meant in any way to disparage those who disagree," Bishop Blaire emphasized. "Under California law, same sex couples who register as domestic partners will continue to have 'the same rights, protections, and benefits' as married persons. Prop. 8 simply recognizes that there is a difference between traditional marriage and a same sex partnership."

Prop. 4: 'Deep disappointment'
The failure of Prop. 4 brought different sentiments.

"We are deeply disappointed that the voters of California chose not to pass Prop. 4 [which] was a common sense initiative that affirmed parental involvement in the medical and moral decisions of their minor daughters," said Bishop Blaire. "Polls had consistently shown that the citizens of California approve this responsible restriction, which would have placed abortion law in concert with other laws that grant parents oversight of and responsibility for their minor children."

May of ProtectMarriage.com called it "a tragedy that family notification lost. It's an important parental rights issue --- the protection of children."

Bob Cielnicky, founder of Life Priority Network, said the "vast" financial resources of Planned Parenthood underwriting No on 4 ads impacted important undecided voters. "They ran deceitful ads diverting the issue to communication between parent and child when it was about communication between doctors and parents," he said.

Prop. 4's passage, Cielnicky added, would have been the first time since abortion was legalized in 1973 that there would have been any legal protection for minors. The measure's defeat on a statewide 52-47 percentage vote was the third time in the last four years that a similar parental notification initiative failed at the California polls.

Prop. 6: 'Breakthrough' defeat
The defeat of Prop. 6, which opponents said would have criminalized and targeted immigrants, youth (as young as 14 who would have been tried as adults) and low-income people of color, represented a "breakthrough in the movement against draconian and discriminatory 'tough on crime' laws," according to a statement released Nov. 7 by a coalition of community organizations against the measure.

"With record numbers of young people, immigrants and communities of color voting, historic unity was built among different generations and communities to reject this 'lock-'em-up and throw away the key' proposal," said the statement on behalf of Prop. 6 opponents, including local groups that included the Labor/Community Strategy Center, the Coalition for the Humane Rights of Immigrants (CHIRLA), and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

Speaking on behalf of California's bishops, Bishop Blaire said: "We are gratified that the voters of California voted 'no' on Prop. 6, which would have created multiple new crimes and additional penalties, curtailed the participation of nonprofit organizations and cost Californians billions of dollars without increasing public safety.

"Although Prop. 6 was introduced in good faith by those with legitimate concerns about safe neighborhoods, it offered more of the same criminal justice policies which have failed in the past. We believe that only by addressing the issue from the perspective of 'restoration' can neighborhoods truly be safe [and] therefore encourage those who deal with criminal justice to join together to craft wise, humane and effective policies which encompass restorative justice rather than retributive justice."