A group of Washington state activists that includes former U.S. Attorney John McKay are campaigning for ballot initiative 502. The initiative would legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana, allowing its possession by people 21 years old and older.

Over the weekend, the Washington state Democrats’ Central Committee passed a resolution endorsing the initiative. The resolution says the state is “wasting millions of dollars” on resources that “could be directed to more important public safety priorities;” therefore, the party is endorsing the legalization of marijuana as outlined in Initiative 502:

WHEREAS thousands of Washington adults are arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for simple marijuana possession each year, wasting millions of dollars in police, court, and jail resources that could be redirected to more important public safety priorities; [...] THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Washington State Democratic Central Committee, endorse and stand in support of Initiative Measure No. 502 to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana for adults 21 and over.

Earlier this year, the Washington State House of Representatives Office Of Program Research estimated that the state would save $240 million every year from marijuana legalization, both from savings to law enforcement agencies and new revenues generated by taxes.

Alaska law permits older married couples to take a property tax deduction that is as much as twice as generous to married couples as it is to unmarried couples who own their home together. Because gay couples are unable to marry in Alaska, this means that people in committed gay relationships are excluded from the favorable tax treatment enjoyed by straight married couples.

Yesterday, however, a trial judge in Anchorage, Alaska struck down this law for violating the Alaska Constitution’s guarantee of that “all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law”:

The court finds that the legislation fails to pass even the minimal scrutiny that economic burdens trigger. [...] If the policy underlying the Tax Exemption’s additional benefit to married couples is the recognition that people in long term, committed relationships build their lives together, then there is no reason to distinguish between married couples and couples who would make the marital commitment but for their sexual orientation.

If this decision is upheld on appeal — and there is good reason to believe that it will be — it could have sweeping implications for gay rights in Alaska. Because the court concluded that one anti-gay law does not survive the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny under the state’s constitution, the court’s rationale provides a powerful precedent suggesting that any law that discriminates against gay couples cannot survive scrutiny.

That is, of course, except for one. Alaska’s constitution expressly forbids marriage equality — although it does not forbid gay couples from enjoying the package of legal rights normally associated with marriage. Nevertheless, there is nothing in Alaska law that prevents the state courts from recognizing the right of gay couples to join together in civil unions.

Understanding the law can be hard, and no one proves that more than Rep. John Culberson (R-TX). During his last foray onto the national stage, Culberson confused a room full of high school students with a Billy Madison-like ramble about how marriage equality is self-evidently wrong. And also is fundamental. And also would require the government to provide “civil rights protection to any other type of private sexual behavior.” And also may or may not have something to do with interstate commerce.

Culberson’s latest foray into the law is no less muddled, but could be far more dangerous than one embarrassing rant. Last week, Culberson introduced the “Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act,” which appears to be nothing more than a license for state lawmakers to harass the federal government with frivolous litigation:

(1) In addition to any other remedy which may exist, in order to protect the State’s sovereign authority to determine for itself the appropriate means to preserve and protect the safety, security, and property of the citizens of the State, the chief executive or a member of the legislature of a State may, in a civil action in that chief executive’s or member’s official capacity, obtain declaratory or injunctive relief–

(A) to remedy any action taken by a Federal authority that attempts to interfere with the State’s sovereign authority…

(2) The plaintiff commencing a civil action under this subsection is immune from civil liability resulting from the plaintiff’s participation in that civil action, including liability for any attorney fees, costs, and sanctions that may be awarded in connection with the civil action.

The first part of this bill authorizes every single member of a state’s legislature to decide on their own when the think the federal government is “attempt[ing] to interfere with the State’s sovereign authority,” and to file a lawsuit dragging federal officials into court. The second provision of the bill contains Culberson’s new license to harass.

Federal civil procedure rules enable a court to sanction parties that file endless streams of frivolous lawsuits, at least when they file those cases on their own instead of through an attorney. Culberson’s bill, however, completely immunizes state lawmakers from any kind of sanctions for bringing lawsuits intended solely to harass the United States into submission. This means that any state lawmaker anywhere in the country could unleash hundreds of Cuccinelli-like witch hunts against the United States — forcing the American taxpayer to foot the bill — and the courts would be powerless to stop the harassment.

Worse, while the federal courts strain under the weight of a growing vacancy crisis, Culberson’s bill would divert precious judicial resources away from people seeking justice — and away from businesses hobbled by the specter of looming litigation — in order to handle the wave of harassment suits. In other words, it’s clear Culberson hasn’t thought this bill through any more than he did his incoherent rant taking at least four different positions on marriage equality.