Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Amicus Brief Prop 8 Copy

Amicus Brief Prop 8 Copy

Amicus Brief Prop 8 Copy

Page 1: Amicus Brief Prop 8 Copy

Category:General

Number of Pages:13

Date Created:May 4, 2011

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:proponents, defend, proposition, Respondents, Initiative, governor, officials, rights, Plaintiffs, people, Attorney, California, watch, plaintiff, State, judicial, Supreme Court, court, EPA, IRS, ICE, CIA


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

NO. S189476 THE SUPREME COURT THE STATE CALIFORNIA Banc 
 
 
 
KRISTIN PERRY al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, 
CITY AND COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff, Intervenor and Respondent; 
EDMUND BROWN, JR., Governor, etc. al., Defendants, 
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, al., Defendants, Intervenors and Appellants. Request from the U.S. Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for  
Answer the Certified Questions California Law 
 
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. SUPPORT DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS  
 
 
 Julie Axelrod (SBN 250165) 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
425 Third Street, SW, Suite 800 
Washington, 20024 
Tel: (202) 646-5172 
Fax: (202) 646-5199 
 
 
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Judicial Watch, Inc. 
  
TABLE CONTENTS 
Table Authorities ............................................................................... iii 
Identity and Interest Amicus Curiae  .................................................... 
Introduction ............................................................................................ 
Argument ...............................................................................................  Refusing Grant Proponents Standing Defend Initiatives Which the Attorney General Does Not Defend Court Would Undermine the Initiative Process. ..................................................  Plaintiffs Arguments that the Rights State Officials Supersede Those the People Not Accurately Reflect the Rights Californians. ............................................................................. Proponents Have Particularized Interest Defending the Initiative They Sponsored. ............................................................ 
Conclusion ............................................................................................. 
Certificate Compliance Pursuant Rule 8.204 and 8.520(c) ............. 
Proof Service 
 
  
TABLE AUTHORITIES 
Cases 
Associated Home Builders the Greater East Bay, Inc. City Livermore (1976) Cal. 582 .......................................................... 3,5 
Building Industry Assn. Southern California, Inc. City Camarillo (1986) Cal. 810 .............................................................................. 
Connerly State Personnel Board (2006) Cal. 4th 1169, 1178 ............. 
Independent Energy Producers Assn. McPherson (2006) Cal. 4th 1020  ...................................................................................................... 
Municipal Court Bloodgood (1982) 137 Cal. App. ...................... 
People rel. Deukmejian County Mendocino (1984) Cal. 476 
People Kelly (2010) Cal. 4th 1008 ................................................... 
Strauss Horton (2009) Cal. 4th 364 ................................................. 
 
Constitutional Materials 
Cal. Const., art II,  .............................................................................. 
Cal. Const., art II,  ............................................................................
 
Identity and Interest Amicus Curiae 
        Judicial Watch, Inc. (Judicial Watch) non-partisan educational foundation which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards ethics and morality our nation's public life and seeks ensure that political and judicial officials not abuse the powers entrusted them the American people.  The motto Judicial Watch Because one above the law.  The issue presented this case whether the official proponents successful initiative ballot have the authority defend the constitutionality initiative upon its adoption appeal judgment invalidating the initiative when the public officials charged with that duty refuse so.  This issue goes the core Judicial Watchs mission. stake this case the ability Californias public officials thwart the will the people California, expressed through the initiative process, failing defend initiative court when challenged. this Court finds that the proponents initiative have such recourse when elected officials fail defend initiative court, Californias political officials will given clear opening abuse the powers entrusted them the people California manner that not transparent and not accountable.  
Introduction 
        This Court must hold that Defendants-Intervenors Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail Knight, Martin Gutierrez, Mark Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com (Proponents) have standing defend the constitutionality Proposition court, because California government official who ordinarily would defend the laws constitutionality was willing so.  The very point the initiative process give the people the opportunity pass laws that their elected representatives are not willing pass. there were contradiction between what the people California desire and what their elected representatives are willing pass, then there would initiative process the first place. the Proponents initiative not have standing defend court the constitutionality initiative that the elected and appointed officials California refuse defend, the basic premise the initiative California fundamentally undermined.   
Argument Refusing Grant Proponents Standing Defend Initiatives Which the Attorney General Does Not Defend Court Would Undermine the Initiative Process. 
The initiative movement was conceived specifically give power the peoples choices when their elected government officials are inclined 
ignore them. The amendment the California Constitution 1911 provide for the initiative and referendum signifies one the outstanding achievements the progressive movement the early 1900s. (Strauss Horton (2009) Cal. 4th 364, 420, quoting Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. City Livermore (1976) Cal. 582, 591.)   The impetus for direct democracy California came from the belief that trusting the legislature carry out the will the people was not enough.  The progressive movement, both California and other states, grew out widespread belief that moneyed special interest groups controlled government, and that the people had ability break this control.  (Strauss, Cal. 4th 420.)  The initiative was viewed one means restoring the peoples rightful control over their government, providing method that would permit the people propose and adopt statutory provisions and constitutional amendments.  (Id.)  Initiatives therefore take precedence over laws passed the legislature and cannot overruled the Governor the Attorney General repealed amended the legislature.  (See Cal. Const., art. II,  10.) 
Because the initiative process was designed precisely allow the people step when their elected legislators failed follow their wishes, courts must particularly careful protect the right the people pass initiatives when elected officials seek nullify them.  The courts have 
repeatedly declared their duty jealously guard this right the people and that has long been our judicial policy apply liberal construction this power whenever challenged order that the right not improperly annulled.  (Building Industry Assn. Southern California, Inc. City Camarillo (1986) Cal. 810, 821.)  (See also, Associated Home Builders Cal. 591; Independent Energy Producers Assn. McPherson (2006) Cal. 4th 1020, 1032; People rel. Deukmejian County Mendocino (1984) Cal. 476, 479.)  Thus, most instances, the trial court should allow intervention proponents the initiative. (Building Industry Cal. 822.) circumstances where there underlying opposition the ordinance, only the availability intervention can ensure the defense will carried out with vigor. (Id.)  When the states elected officials refuse defend initiative entirely, the Courts duty allow proponents the initiative intervene even more clear.  Plaintiffs Arguments that the Rights State Officials Supersede Those the People Not Accurately Reflect the Rights Californians. 
Rather than trying demonstrate that the initiative process does not require the proponents initiative granted standing state officials refuse defend initiative court, Plaintiffs argue that the prerogatives the Governor and Attorney General are paramount.  
Plaintiffs position ignores the fact that the rights the people California are paramount, not the rights the state apparatus.  
Under the California Constitution, [a]ll political power inherent the people.  Government instituted for their protection, security and benefit. (Cal. Const., art. II,  1).  [A]ll power government ultimately resides the people, the amendment [to the California Constitution 1911] speaks the initiative and referendum, not right granted the people, but power reserved them.  (Associated Home Builders, Cal. 591.)  California goes farther than any other state protect the peoples power initiative:  [n]o other state the nation carries the concept initiatives written stone such lengths. (People Kelley (2010) Cal. 4th 1008, 1030.)  The prerogatives the Governor and the Attorney General cannot trump the rights the people participate their governance. 
None Plaintiffs arguments challenge the fact that denying standing initiative proponents such circumstances would mean denying the people California this power which they have right.  Plaintiffs contention that the Peoples veto the Executive Branchs litigation decisions properly exercised the ballot boxby voting out office state officials who decline defend initiativemisses the point the initiative process, which give voice the people specific 
issues through more direct means than simply the opportunity vote obstructionist state officials out office the end their terms. (Plaintiffs-Respondents Answering Brief 13).  Aside from the obvious shortcoming this solution, namely, that the elected officials terms will probably not expire moment precisely timed allow voters save initiative from being abandoned court, elections for statewide office often not turn single issue. election, voters not have the luxury choosing candidate who will agree with them every issue: they must choose from very limited selection candidates the one who they believe will agree with them the most often.  The inherent limitations this process mean that, even the best circumstances, there may well specific issues which majority Californians disagree with the position the winning candidates for governor attorney general.  One the virtues direct democracy that allows the people transcend this limitation representative government and express their will single issues.  Proposition was such issue. 
Allowing the Governor and the Attorney General unbridled power prevent any defense initiative that has been challenged court does indeed nullify the advantages the initiative process. attacking not only the constitutionality Proposition but also the standing its 
proponents defend the initiative when Plaintiffs chosen defendants will not, Plaintiffs also attack the initiative process itself, try they might seem though they are not.  Plaintiffs may believe that system with initiative process would preferable, and they are entitled devote themselves fighting for different system.  However, Plaintiffs are the wrong forum seek this reform: the Courts function not overturn the initiative process. 
Plaintiffs give some support the notion that allowing proponents defend Proposition appropriate stating with approval that proponents had their day court with full and fair trial the merits.  (Plaintiff-Respondents Answering Brief 14).  But presuppose the fullness and fairness trial simply assumes away the very need for appeal.  Plaintiffs point out that, under federal law least, the right trial has been given more constitutional protection than the right appeal.  (Id.)  However, Plaintiffs have offered reason why, under these circumstances, Proponents should have standing defend the law for the duration trial but should lose soon the trial judges ruling subject review for legal errors.  The circumstance law passed the people being declared unconstitutional court does not seem like prime candidate for more deference the trial court than usual our judicial system, which generally allows for appellate review.  When the 
judgment the trial court results overturning law that applies the whole state California rather than just the parties the case, the desirability appellate review even greater. Proponents Have Particularized Interest Defending the Initiative They Sponsored. 
Plaintiffs claim that, under California law, the interests initiative proponents the constitutionality already-enacted initiative are not materially different from those any other California who supported the measure false.  (Brief Plaintiff-Respondents 21).  Under California law, real party interest has special interest served some particular right protected over and above the interest held common with the public large.  Connerly State Personnel Board (2006) Cal. 4th 1169, 1178.  Plaintiffs claims imply that proponents have such interest only the pre-enactment setting.  (Brief Plaintiff-Respondents 23).  However, the interest that the proponents have the pre-enactment setting does not disappear once initiative has been successful becoming law.  Plaintiffs falsely suggest this interest disappears because the Attorney General and the Governor now have interest defending the initiative well.  Plaintiffs argue there can only one real party interestthe State.  However, there are many cases where there may more than one real party interest.  Municipal Court Bloodgood (1982) 137 Cal. App. 29, 44. anything, the interest Proponents had the pre-
enactment stage has only become stronger: their possibility passing their initiative majority the voters became certainty, and their desire defend the law should become even stronger than before.  
Conclusion 
For the reasons stated above, the Court should hold that the official proponents initiative measure may defend the constitutionality initiative upon its adoption may appeal judgment invalidating the initiative when the public officials charged with carrying out these duties fail refuse so.  
May 2011    Respectfully Submitted, 
     ________/s/_________ 
Julie Axelrod  
SBN 250165 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
425 Third Street, SW, Suite 800 Washington, 20024 
Tel: (202) 646-5172 
Fax: (202) 646-5199 
 
    Counsel for Amicus Curiae Judicial Watch, Inc. 
 
  
CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE PURSUANT RULE 8.204 and 8.520(c) 
 
Pursuant Rule 8.204 and 8.520(c), certify that the attached brief was prepared computer using Microsoft Word, and that, according the program, contains 1958 words. 
May 2011     ________/s/_______ 
      Julie Axelrod