when the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged state law or appeal a judgment invalidating the law decline to do so, under article II, section 8 of the California Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Elections Code, the official proponents of a voter-approved initiative measure are authorized to assert the state‘s interest in the initiative‘s validity, enabling the proponents to defend the constitutionality of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative.Justice Kennard also filed a concurring opinion. The court's decision came in response to a question certified to the California Supreme Court by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality under the U.S. Constitution of Proposition 8. The federal district court held that Proposition 8 violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. State officials refused to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and official proponents of Proposition 8 sought to intervene to defend the measure. (See prior posting). AP reports on yesterday's opinion.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Friday, November 18, 2011
California High Court Tells 9th Circuit: Initiative Proponents Have Standing
The California Supreme Court yesterday gave a substantial boost to backers of Proposition 8-- the initiative that amended the state constitution to bar recognition of same-sex marriage. In a lengthy and unanimous decision in Perry v. Brown, (CA Sup. Ct., Nov. 17, 2911), the state's high court held that: