Court to hear challenge to speed up California executions

U.S. Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday over a ballot initiative designed to speed up executions that could fundamentally change the way the court handles death penalty appeals.

Death penalty opponents are challenging a ballot measure passed by a slim majority of voters in November that aimed to reform a dysfunctional system that hasn't executed a condemned killer in more than a decade.

Foes of capital punishment argue that Proposition 66 was unconstitutional because it would take power away from the state's high court to decide how it handles cases and it would disrupt the court system, cost the state more money and undermine the appeals process.

If allowed to take effect, the measure would require more lawyers to take death penalty appellate cases, some trial court judges would be assigned appeals and all state appeals would have to be completed in five years, which is about a third of the time it typically takes.

With a backlog of 380 death penalty appeals, there's concern judges would be overwhelmed trying to speed through appeals, said Elisabeth Semel, a law professor at University of California, Berkeley, who consulted for death penalty opponents on the case.

"There's an enormous ripple effect to that," said Semel, who directs the school's death penalty clinic. "The attention the justices can pay to each individual case is significantly diminished. When you're talking about life and death, that's important."

The ballot initiative supported by 51 percent of voters was designed to "mend not end" capital punishment in California, where nearly 750 inmates are on Death Row and only 13 have been executed since 1978.

A competing measure to repeal capital punishment lost by a slightly wider margin. Both sides acknowledged the current system is broken.

Related listings

  • Trump Administration Seeks Appeal to Pause White House Ballroom Halt Order

    Trump Administration Seeks Appeal to Pause White House Ballroom Halt Order

    U.S. Supreme Court 04/07/2026

    The Trump administration is arguing that a judge's order to halt construction of a $400 million ballroom creates a security risk for President Donald Trump as it asks a federal appeals court to pause the ruling.In a motion filed Friday, National Park...

  • Tax reform may grow donor base but shrink overall nonprofit contributions

    Tax reform may grow donor base but shrink overall nonprofit contributions

    U.S. Supreme Court 03/17/2026

    Millions more Americans will likely donate to nonprofits following changes in tax laws passed by Congress last summer, but those changes will also likely reduce the overall amount of money given to charity, according to new research.The report from t...

  • Federal judge leaves CDC evictions moratorium in place

    Federal judge leaves CDC evictions moratorium in place

    U.S. Supreme Court 08/13/2021

    A federal judge is refusing landlords’ request to put the Biden administration’s new eviction moratorium on hold, though she made clear she thinks it’s illegal. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich on Friday said her “hands ar...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.