Cal Sup Ct Rules 7-0 Initiative Proponents Have Standing

The long-awaited decision by the California Supreme Court on the question of whether initiative proponents have the right to defend their measures in court when elected officials like the Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend them was released today.

The Court ruled unanimously that initiative proponents do have standing under state law to defend their ballot initiatives.

As usual, Chris Geidner of Metro Weekly has the best analysis:

The California Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, was very clear about its answer: 

[W]e 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. 

The decision came about resulting from a request by the Ninth Circuit in the ongoing challenge to Proposition 8 brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights. The case, in which the trial court judge struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional in August 2010, is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit appeals court sought to have the California Supreme Court assist it with the case by answering these questions about state law through the process of asking a certified question. The California Supreme Court accepted the invitation to answer the certified question and heard oral arguments on the question on Sept. 6.

As the California Supreme Court found the proponents to have a "particularized interest" and "the authority to assert the State's interest," the Ninth Circuit now is likely to find that the proponents do have standing under federal law to bring the appeal -- although the court need not do so. At that point, the appeal of the Perry trial court decision -- the "merits" decision from the trial court that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional -- could go forward.

It's unfortunate that the Court opened up the can of worms to allow all initiative proponents to defend their statutes under state law. Considering how many ballot measures we have in California, this is an incredibly important decision.

That being said, it is very exciting that now we basically must get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Perry v. Brown case which will give us a federal appellate court level ruling on the question of marriage equality.

WATCH: Prop 8 Oral Arguments in CA Sup Ct

There is also excellent analysis of yesterday's California Supreme Court oral arguments (featuring newly minted Justice Goodwin Liu) available at TowleRoad.

Goodwin Liu Likely To Join CA Sup Ct For Perry

2008's Proposition 8 is in court twice in the next two weeks. Last Monday, oral arguments were heard about whether the extant video tapes of testimony in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case should be released to the public. The judge, federal district court judge James Ware announced afterwards that he would not "delay very long" in issuing a ruling. Which the heterosexual supremacists will almost certainly appeal anyway.

Next Tuesday, September 6 oral arguments will be held before the California Supreme Court in a very important case which will determine who exactly has "judicial standing" under California law to defend a voter-approved initiative (like Proposition 8) when the executive branch officers (Governor and Attorney General) have declined to do so.

Happily, Governor Brown recently nominated marriage-equality supporting University of California, Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the California Supreme Court. It looks very likely that Professor Liu will join the court before Tuesday and participate in the oral arguments in the Perry v Brown case. There is no Republican neanderthal filibuster to prevent Liu from joining this court, unlike his unsuccessful path to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Instead he just needs to get the approval of the 3-member Commission on Judicial Appointments, and then he will be up for election for a 12-year term at the next statewide general election.

Cal Sup Ct Prop 8 Arguments To Be Televised Live

Last week I told you that the California Supreme Court had set oral arguments in "the Prop 8 case" (Perry v. Brown) for September 6, 2011 at 10am. This week comes news that those oral arguments will be televised live!

Online newspaper SF Appeal has the deets:

In January, a panel of the appeals court said that federal law, as defined in a 1997 Supreme Court decision, doesn't seem to allow sponsors to defend an initiative when state officials refuse to do so.

But the appeals panel said there might be a right under state law, and asked the California Supreme Court to step in and decide that issue.

The seven-member state high court will hear one hour of arguments in its State Building courtroom on Sept. 6 and then will have 90 days to issue a written ruling.

Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said that because of public interest in the case, the court has approved a live statewide television broadcast of the arguments on the California Channel, a public affairs network.

If the state court eventually rules that the sponsors have standing, or the right to appeal, the case will then go back to the 9th Circuit for review of Walker's decision, a process that might take several more months.

But the federal appeals court said earlier this year that if the sponsors lack legal standing, the federal court would be required to dismiss the appeal.

Hat/tip to Wonder Man

CA Sup Ct Sets Prop 8 Case Oral Arguments Date: 9/6/2011

Good news! The California Supreme Court has finally set a date of September 6 at 10:00am for the oral arguments in the Perry v. Brown lawsuit (informally known as "The Proposition 8 case") in which the question at hand is a very limited one. Namely,

Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

Although the question is limited, the stakes are not. If the state Supreme Court rules, most likely within 90 days of oral arguments, that the heterosexual supremacists who drafted and promulgated Proposition 8 now have no legal standing to defend its constitutionality, it is very likely a 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will follow that decision and rule that the Proposition 8 proponents have no standing to defend the measure in federal court, either.

In that case, the lower court's decision would go into effect and federal Judge Vaughn Walker's brilliant ruling determining that Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution would go into effect. Of course the bad guys would probably appeal to the Suprem Court but since the case would only be about California (and California law) it is unlikely that SCOTUS would take the case. There is a possibility that SCOTUS would take the appeal to try to clarify once and for all whether proponents of state ballot measures who are not named plaintiffs in lawsuits have a right to continue appeals when the named plaintiffs fail to appeal but there's already a decision called Arizona for Official English vs Arizona in which SCOTUS basically says you need a particularized interest under state law in order to pursue a federal appeal. And it is precisely that question of whether a particularized interest exists under California law that the California Supreme Court will decided, by the end of 2011.

Another wrinkle is that the 7-member Supreme Court has recently lost its most pro-gay member, Carlos Moreno, and Governor Brown only announced his replacement, Goodwin Liu, who is probably as similarly pro-equality as Moreno, this week. If Liu is not on the court by September 6th, the court will probably name a state appellate judge to hear oral arguments and participate in the decision.

Hang on to your hats, folks, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!

Brown Nominates Goodwin Liu To CA Sup Ct!

Charles Dharapak / AP Photo

Goodwin Liu, 40, was rejected by a Republican United States Senate filibuster for a coveted position on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals but has received a pretty nice consolation prize: a nomination by Governor Jerry Brown to the California State Supreme Court (from which he could still be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court before he's 50).

The Los Angeles Times reports:

Liu, a graduate of Yale Law School, is the son of Taiwanese immigrants. He was born in Georgia, grew up in Sacramento and has a history of public service.

“I’m deeply honored by Gov. Brown’s nomination and look forward to the opportunity to serve the people of California on our state’s highest court,” Liu said in a statement.

Before joining the Berkeley Law faculty in 2003, Liu was an appellate litigator at O'Melveny & Myers in Washington. He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and for Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He also served as special assistant to the deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Education and as senior program officer for higher education at the Corporation for National Service (AmeriCorps).

Brown has forwarded Liu’s name to the State Bar’s Commission of Judicial Nominees Evaluation. The appointment will not become final until the Commission on Judicial Appointments -- consisting of state Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris and Justice Joan Dempsey Klein, senior presiding justice of the state Court of Appeal -- confirms the nomination.

Liu will replace Associate Justice Carlos Moreno, who retired from the court earlier this year.

Justice Moreno was a very strong advocate for the LGBT community, voting with 4-3 majority to end marriage discrimination in California's landmark In Re Marriage cases in 2008 and was the lone dissenter in 2009's California Supreme Court decision which upheld Proposition 8 as not violating the California constitution.

Goodwin Liu has previously expressed his belief that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional so it will be interesting to see if he can get confirmed in time to participate in the case now before the case as to whether the heterosexual supremacist supporters of Proposition 8 have legal standing to defend it in court when the elected representatives of the people of California have decided not to defend a voter-approved ballot measure.

Another interesting feature that Liu, if confirmed will produce a court with an Asian American majority and no Black or Latino members, in a state which has Latino plurality in the population. Things that make you go Hmmmmmm! That being said, Liu is a great choice, since he can't get through the Senate to a federal judgeship while Republicans have more than 40 votes and no compunctions about filibustering extremely qualified judges purely based on ideology, a state supreme court seat is fantastic.