Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty – No on Prop. 62, Yes on 66, the ballot measure committee that initiative proponent Kermit Alexander and a broad coalition of law enforcement, victims groups, and prosecutors led to campaign for Prop. 66 and against Prop. 62 filed a motion last Friday to intervene in the lawsuit, Briggs and Van De Kamp vs. Brown, that seeks to overturn the voter-approved measure designed to reform California’s death penalty process. The committee also filed their opposition arguments to the lawsuit with the California Supreme Court on Monday.
“It is a slap in the face to the voters of California and the families of murder victims that anti-death penalty zealots would use a frivolous lawsuit to try to block a measure designed to curtail the use of frivolous legal maneuvers to thwart capital punishment,” said Kermit Alexander, the former NFL great who had four family members brutally murdered and has waited thirty years to see the killer executed. “We’re intervening in this case as authorized by the voters to ensure that our voices are heard in this extraordinarily important case for victims.”
“We’re confident the Attorney General’s and Governor’s office will vigorously defend the will of the voters and Proposition 66,” added Anne Marie Schubert, Sacramento County District Attorney and Co-Chair of the No on 62, Yes on 66 campaign. “But Proposition 66 specifically called for the proponents of the measure to have a voice in defending it, and those of us who spent so much time on behalf of victims, peace officers and criminal prosecutors want to make sure that this latest victory for the death penalty as an option against the worst of the worst criminal offenders is upheld.”
Joining in the legal defense of Proposition 66, multiple Amicus Curiae or “Friend of the Court” briefs in support of the measure have also been filed or are anticipated to be filed by several associations of victims groups, peace officer associations, and deputy district attorneys. These briefs will further eviscerate the outrageous legal claims made by the plaintiffs in this case.
“We expected the opposition to file a lawsuit against Proposition 66, and we carefully crafted the measure to ensure it would pass legal muster,” said Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. “We believe this will be evident to the Court in the weakness of the plaintiffs’ claims and the strength of our defense.”
Note – The legal filings in defense of Proposition 66 are posted on the campaign website at https://noprop62yesprop66.com/resources/briggs-vs-brown-court-filings/ and at http://www.cjlf.org/program/briefs/BriggsR.pdf.