David Skaggs: “Given that we have a tradition in comparable areas of especially impaneled three-judge courts to deal with civil rights…”

“Given that we have a tradition in comparable areas of especially impaneled three-judge courts to deal with civil rights cases and other constitutional matters, clearly there is precedent for that and I do not have any problem with this body debating the relative wisdom of having more than a single member of the bench rendering judgment in certain very, very important matters. I would add, however, that the number of people that happen to vote for a referendum, while lending itself to effective rhetoric, does not really get to the question of whether the underlying issue is clearly one that implicates protections guaranteed by the Constitution. As the gentleman well knows, one of the underlying objectives of our constitutional system is to make sure that we have a government of law, that it is not subject to the popular passions of the time which can sometimes manifest themselves in referendums that may pass. Whether 5 million votes or more, it may nonetheless be in violation of basic constitutional requirements.”