Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    California Sup. Ct.: Prop 8 defenders have standing to defend marriage law

    California Sup. Ct.: Prop 8 defenders have standing to defend marriage law

    The California Supreme Court has just resolved a major procedural issue as to Prop. 8, which codified the “one man, one woman” definition of marriage into the California Constitution after the California Supreme Court held that there was a state constitutional right for same-sex marriage.

    The opponents of Prop. 8 sued in federal court, and the California AG Jerry Brown refused to defend Prop. 8, leading other groups to step in.  The federal district court ruled against Prop. 8, and one of the issues on appeal was whether the defenders of Prop. 8 had standing.  The federal appeals court asked for an advisory opinion from the California Supreme Court as to California law, and the Supreme Court just ruled that the defenders did have standing to defend Prop. 8.

    As reported at Volokh Conspiracy, this means that the 9th Circuit will decide the case on the merits, and not throw out Prop. 8 on procedural grounds:

    The California Supreme Court has just decided that the official proponents of an enacted initiative — the group that got it onto the ballot — may, under California law, assert the state’s interest in defending the initiative when state officials refuse to do so.  This means, given the Ninth Circuit earlier analysis of the matter, that the proponents of Prop. 8 have the legally required “standing” to appeal the trial court’s decision holding Prop. 8 unconstitutional.  And that in turn means that the Ninth Circuit (and likely eventually the Supreme Court) can consider whether Prop. 8 is indeed constitutional.

    As I have written before, the attempt to prevail on Prop. 8 on the standing ground not only was suspect on the merits, but was a stupid litigation tactic which caused substantial delay in resolution of the ultimate issue.  It was too cute by half.

    Update:  Here is the key portion of the ruling:

    Neither the Governor, the Attorney General, nor any other executive or legislative official has the authority to veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters. It would exalt form over substance to interpret California law in a manner that would permit these public officials to indirectly achieve such a result by denying the official initiative proponents the authority to step in to assert the state‘s interest in the validity of the measure or to appeal a lower court judgment invalidating the measure when those public officials decline to assert that interest or to appeal an adverse judgment.

    Accordingly, we respond to the question posed by the Ninth Circuit in the affirmative. In a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state‘s interest in the initiative‘s validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.



    el polacko | November 17, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    this decision is the best case scenario for proponents of marriage equality. had the standing isssue gone the other way, the entire case would have gone back to square one. with this question resolved, the 9th can proceed with hearing the case on the merits (which we know, from the testimony in the original case, were made of thin gruel)and, most likely, determine that the proposition to deny one group of citizens their access to civil rights and responsibilities that are afforded to other citizens is unconstitutional.

      aguyfromjersey in reply to el polacko. | November 17, 2011 at 8:11 pm

      They have the same rights and responsibilities as everybody else. Marriage, as defined, one man, one woman. As Tina Turner said “What love got to do with it?”

    EllisWyatt | November 18, 2011 at 9:59 am

    Although I disagree with the policy encodified by this initiative, I agree that private citizens should be able to defend initiatives in court if state officials refuse to do so. I’ve seen state officials play these games before. The citizens pass an amendment to a state constitution that the government opposes. People opposed to the initiative sue to overturn it, and the government refuses to defend the initiative in court in the hopes of letting it die on procedural grounds. Today it’s an initiative on gay marriage. Tomorrow it could be an amendment to overturn the Kelo decision.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend