In a state that often prides itself on leading the nation in progressive values, California now faces a sobering contradiction: the erosion of *equal protection under the law*—the cornerstone of American constitutionalism—is increasingly justified in the name of so-called democratic governance. While democracy is intended to guarantee fairness and representation, it becomes dangerous when weaponized to override individual rights, particularly among the state's most vulnerable citizens.
### **The Constitutional Foundation**
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that *“No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”* California’s Constitution echoes this principle in Article I, Section 7. These mandates ensure that every person—regardless of wealth, race, mental status, or political opinion—is entitled to the same legal safeguards and protections.
But recent developments in California’s criminal legal system, mental health adjudications, and public administration have revealed an alarming trend: the systematic suspension of constitutional protections under the guise of expediency, rehabilitation, or procedural technicalities.
### **The Competency Trap**
One of the clearest battlegrounds in this fight is the misuse of mental health diversion and competency evaluation statutes. In theory, programs like California Penal Code § 1001.36 (mental health diversion) and § 1368 (competency to stand trial) are meant to protect defendants with genuine impairments. But in practice, these legal tools are increasingly exploited to bypass defendants’ due process rights.
There are cases, including a current pending situation in Los Angeles County, where a sealed court order for a confidential mental health evaluation was disregarded. The result? A defendant was subjected to a competency assessment without proper judicial authority, leading to forced institutionalization and psychiatric medication—without a formal ruling of incompetency or the benefit of adversarial legal process. The defendant's appointed counsel failed to disclose the nature of the court order or defend the client’s rights, while prosecutors, court staff, and even judges appeared content to overlook the violations.
### **Weaponized Silence and Selective Protections**
This erosion of equal protection is made worse by what can only be described as systemic silence. When public defenders remain silent on violations of sealed judicial orders, when court clerks publicly file confidential documents without consequence, and when prosecutors fail to ask the most basic questions about the legal basis for a defendant's detention, the rule of law is not merely being bent—it is being abandoned.
Ironically, those most affected are often indigent defendants—people without money, political power, or public platforms. When the institutions charged with safeguarding justice violate the rights of those most dependent on the law’s protection, the principle of equal protection becomes a hollow promise.
### **Democracy’s Double-Edged Sword**
The troubling justification behind these patterns is often couched in democratic language: court backlogs must be cleared, mental health reform must be advanced, the public must be kept safe. But democracy that overrides individual rights is no democracy at all—it is mob rule under a polished name.
Public institutions are not allowed to sacrifice constitutional fidelity in the name of democratic efficiency. No majority vote can legitimize the forced medication of a defendant without due process. No administrative goal can excuse the concealment of court orders or the denial of conflict-free legal counsel. These are not political differences; they are constitutional crises.
### **The Call to Action**
California’s judicial and political leaders must be called to account. Equal protection is not a partisan issue—it is the essence of what it means to live in a lawful society. Oversight bodies like the California Judicial Council, the State Bar, the Attorney General’s Office, and local Public Integrity Divisions must act decisively when constitutional violations are brought to light.
The public, too, must demand transparency and accountability—not just when the cameras are rolling, but in the quieter, more bureaucratic moments where rights are too often buried under paperwork and sealed envelopes.
If California is to remain a beacon of justice, it must stop cloaking institutional misconduct in the robes of democracy. True democracy does not require the denial of individual rights—it requires their vigilant defense.
### **Democracy’s Double Standard: How Selective Enforcement Undermines Due Process and Equal Protection in Newsom’s California**
California, long regarded as a progressive stronghold, is now revealing serious structural contradictions within its administration of law and justice. Under Governor Gavin Newsom’s leadership, the state’s commitment to democracy and constitutional rights is being selectively applied, dangerously weakening the foundational guarantees of **due process** and **equal protection** for all persons within its jurisdiction. These contradictions are most visible in two areas: **immigration policy** and **criminal justice enforcement**.
### **1. Immigration, Constitutional Entry, and Due Process**
There is a prevailing legal and constitutional misunderstanding surrounding the rights of undocumented individuals who enter the United States outside of official ports of entry. While it is true that **undocumented presence** does not void a person’s right to *due process* under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, it is equally true that the **initial act of unlawful entry** represents a **violation of the constitutional structure** of immigration laws and due process requirements.
By **bypassing designated legal ports of entry**, undocumented persons violate the lawful mechanisms that define how one may constitutionally enter and reside within the United States. This unlawful presence does not strip them of constitutional protections outright, but it **does serve as the triggering violation** that justifies immediate **detainment** pending **deportation or asylum adjudication**—a process that itself must remain constitutionally sound.
This legal reality aligns with the **U.S. Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4**, which requires the federal government to **guarantee to every state a republican form of government**, including the rule of law and uniform application of justice. The failure to enforce lawful entry requirements not only undermines national sovereignty but compromises California’s ability to operate under a uniform legal framework for all residents—citizens and non-citizens alike.
In prioritizing non-enforcement of immigration law for political purposes, the state effectively **weaponizes due process**, using it selectively rather than consistently, and threatens the very republican structure the federal government is bound to protect.
### **2. Selective Enforcement in Criminal Justice and Civil Rights**
While advocating for sanctuary policies, California simultaneously displays selective negligence in ensuring that *all* residents—particularly indigent defendants—are equally protected by the criminal justice system. The case of **People v. Michael Taylor (Case No. XNEGA1111-32)** exposes systemic abuse wherein a **sealed court order was violated** by a public defender and court-appointed forensic evaluators, resulting in an involuntary psychological assessment, **forced institutionalization**, and **medication**—all **without valid legal authority**.
Judicial silence and prosecutorial inaction followed, indicating a breakdown not just of process, but of **constitutional duty**. Despite the court’s obligation to act on its own motion to correct unlawful proceedings, the bench remained silent, allowing the defendant’s rights under the **6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments**, as well as **California Welfare & Institutions Code § 6608**, to be trampled.
Notably, the defendant had to **inherit a bench warrant** and endure further violations just to compel disclosure of the violated court order. To this day, **no effective counsel** has been appointed to represent or raise these material violations on his behalf—demonstrating how democracy, even when professed in principle, is absent in practice for those without political leverage.
### **3. Newsom’s California and the Illusion of Equal Protection**
Under Governor Gavin Newsom, California’s democratic values are being distorted. The sanctuary state model has become a shield for selective enforcement, privileging certain groups while allowing others—often low-income, Black, or mentally ill defendants—to be dehumanized or legally discarded. Civil rights are not being denied *explicitly* but are being ignored *implicitly* through **discretionary enforcement**, bureaucratic silence, and corrupt institutional cultures.
This practice violates not only the **Equal Protection Clause** but **demolishes public trust** in the impartial administration of justice. It also materially affects the republican nature of California’s governance, as guaranteed by the federal Constitution.
### **Conclusion: When Democracy Becomes Performative**
California’s systemic failure to equally enforce due process and equal protection is **not democracy**—it is the politicization of rights. Whether through neglect of immigration enforcement or suppression of legal violations in court, state actors are increasingly deciding **whose rights matter**, instead of affirming that *everyone’s rights matter* equally.
The Constitution is not a weapon to be used selectively. It is a safeguard for all. And when any branch of government—judicial, executive, or legislative—abandons its duty to uphold it **uniformly**, democracy becomes a hollow shell, performative and fragile.
The federal government’s obligation to intervene, under Article IV, Section 4, becomes increasingly relevant in such a context. California may claim to be democratic in name, but when laws are applied unequally and rights are conditionally respected, the very definition of democracy is at risk.
Comments
Post a Comment