The California Supreme Court was prepared to announce its decision tomorrow on Proposition 8, but has delayed the opinion at the request of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, because an announcement on Thursday would coincide with the thirtieth anniversary of the conviction of Supervisor Dan White for the murders of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk on the lightest charges possible, and the subsequent White Night riots, according to the website Towleroad with exclusive sources in City Hall.
Confidential sources close to San Francisco City Hall told Towleroad’s Corey Johnson that the California Supreme Court was prepared to release its opinion on Proposition 8 tomorrow, but decided to delay the ruling after a call from Mayor Gavin Newsom.
"Newsom reached out to the Supreme Court and asked them to hold off releasing their decision so it did not coincide with the White Night riots," said our source.
Towleroad provides further explanation of the White Night Riot here, along with striking photographs and video from the event thirty years ago:
A California Supreme Court Proposition 8 decision tomorrow would fall on the 30th anniversary of the White Night riots, which were set off when the court handed down the most lenient decision possible (voluntary manslaughter) against Dan White for the murders of supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone. The ensuing riots in San Francisco on May 21, 1979 caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage. May 22 also happens to be a significant date. It would have been Milk’s 79th birthday.
The Supreme Court’s remaining days for announcing their opinion are Tuesday, May 26th; Thursday, May 28th; or Monday, June 1st. If the ruling is ready but has been delayed per Newsom’s request, the Court may announce on Friday that an opinion should be expected on Tuesday, May 26th.
The Newsom for Governor campaign also has a kickoff planned for tomorrow at the Palace Hotel in San Francisco, sure to be marred by protestors unhappy with a ruling upholding Prop 8.
UPDATE: Statement from the Mayor’s Office:
STATEMENT FROM NATHAN BALLARD COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR,
MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM
Today a website posted an item that quoted a false allegation from an unnamed source: "Mayor [Gavin] Newsom reached out to the Supreme Court and asked them to hold off releasing their decision so it did not coincide with the White Night riots."
This allegation is not true. We have asked the website to correct the item immediately.
UPDATE 2: Towleroad provides this late update Wednesday evening:
UPDATE: Towleroad received this tip from a highly credible source who did the interview on the condition that they remain anonymous. We have been working to get additional sources.
Gavin Newsom’s office has issued a release denying the story.
San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty spoke with Towleroad late this afternoon, saying he doubted the claims. Said Dufty: "It is implausible if not impossible to imagine that the Mayor could reach out to the California Supreme Court. Any thinking person would know that he would be radioactive to the justices given his leadership on the issue. His father is a retired federal judge. The Mayor’s courage on this issue is unimpeachable. He would not intrude in what we’ve been waiting for."





32 Comments
Spotlight




Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Advanced search
Wow. 30 years? Doesn’t seem that long.
I quoted an LA Times article the other day that said a decision was expected next week. Don’t know what relevance that plays in this story.
And, why is this a Campaign Silo story? It’s also a human rights story. To my way of thinking.
Meaning Prop H8 will be upheld?
Sounds crazy doesn’t it?
What other reason would Newsom request a postponement. If the SC were going to trash Prop H8, then he’d want it out.
Oweee, I can hardly wait. Obama’s gonna ’spain military tribunals tomorrow.
Isikoff sez Obama was not pleased as being characterized as W-3 in today’s meeting.
Obama whined that it’s all cause what W did.
Certainly sounds ominous doesn’t it?
Obama sez he doesn’t want to get distracted by violations of the law.
Yep. Wonder if Newsom knows. Sounds like it.
Obama is gagging Holder.
Who called Obama W-3? I missed that.
I hope that explanation gets frontpaged.
In the meantime, I’d like someone to explain Reid, especially after his terribly incoherent interview on Gitmo and terra-ists.
nobody can “explain” Reid. he just IS, like mold.
Well mold can be explained!
Yes, but it appears out of nowhere and does icky stuff.
Honestly, I don’t think I ever heard of Reid until he became Majority Leader (using term loosely).
It would be rather extraordinary for Newsom to have been told the actual opinion prior to the announcement, considering he is a party to the suit. So, I think this allegation (since denied by the Mayor’s Communications Director) is that he was told in his capacity as executive of the City that the opinion was coming down and that he asked that it be postponed. Not that he was told the disposition of the suit itself.
Teddy, if Newsom asked that it be delayed, do you think he was right? I can’t decide whether it was political or respectful.
Reid is terrified of recent polling in Nevada showing his constituents don’t want to re-elect him. His allowance of the guns-in-parks amendment as well as his cowering on terrorists-in-your-neighborhood show that he’s most worried about his re-election. As Majority Leader, this makes him an even worse leader, if that’s possible. Senate Democrats never should have an at-risk redstate leader, but they do so over and over.
Harry Reid is also anti-choice, terrible optics for a Democratic leader of the Senate.
If our Supremes come out against us on Prop. 8, it ain’t going to be pretty.
Mr TeddyP, I’m gonna guess, as Gavin moves more and more into State politics, he’s gonna start leavin the LGBT community behind . . . like DIFI did, and Nancy has . . .
I’m sure you know this . . .
If he did, I imagine it had more to do with his big $1000 per person gala tomorrow night than anything else.
I find it hard to believe that the Chief Justice wouldn’t be aware of the coincidence of the date on his own, without Boy Mayor’s reminder.
I wonder which staffer clued the mayor in on the coincidental dates.
God knows he’s not bright enough to have figured it out himself.
I am reminded by an onsite Castro correspondent that all the excitement about police barricades in the neighborhood may have been prompted by the new Farmers’ Market starting up today at the intersection of 16th and Market, necessitating police barricades.
Yeah, I think it’s pretty disrespectful of Newsom to hold his big kickoff event at the Palace Hotel on the thirtieth anniversary of the White Night riot, regardless of any Prop8 decision.
Great summary. Thanks.
I’m hoping that Reid’s admitted error regarding Ted Kennedy’s cancer “remission” today will have offended enough members of his caucus to get them thinking about replacing him, and soon.
Yes the “frightened inner bunny” amendment.
I never miss JG. Always makes me laugh. Also The Rude Pundit.
Sorry, but… “W-3?” The Innertoobz don’t seem to know what that means, and neither do I.
You don’t know what W-3 means? Why you ignorant… um… NEITHER DO I! Would some insider care to clue us what W-3 signifies? It’s germane to the discussion, I think.
Bush III. Bush the Greater, Bush the Lesser, and . . . the Black Irish Bush.
Ah, thanks sailmaker. But it still only makes sense if you think of GHWB as ‘W-1′… which is a stretch. Anyway, you can understand my confusion.
And bobo, you almost had me going at first glance. Nice play.