A last minute maneuver to block evidence that could be harmful to Proposition 50 was hatched today by Newsom’s lawyers, on the basis of “Legislative Privilege.”
Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review
Just as the 5th Amendment allows a witness to avoid testifying in court on facts that might incriminate them, another legal privilege, known as the “Legislative Privilege,” is recognized in Federal Court, and allows an elected official to avoid testifying as to the thought processes and private advise received in casting a vote on a piece of legislation. In 1972, a Supreme Court case, Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, pondered the perimeters of “legislative immunity” and helped establish that it extends to a person who is not an elected official, but is acting like an “alter-ego” of the elected official, and thus is also shielded from having to spill the beans of the work they did for the legislator. But not everyone who works for the legislator gets the privilege.
Facts on whether race was used in numbers crunching for Proposition 50 is key to whether it will withstand constitutional scrutiny before the three-judge panel scheduled to hear the case next Monday in Los Angeles. But the legal roadblock was raised this morning during the pre-hearing deposition of Paul Mitchell by Department of Justice and Plaintiffs’ attorneys. Mitchell is central to the data and creation of Prop. 50’s lines, but when it was time to begin the examination, Newsom’s lawyers invoked “legislative immunity” to stop any testimony from him, which derails uncovering the facts the Plaintiffs need to show that race was a significant factor in the line drawing.
