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!

Judge Ware To Rule On Prop 8 Motion To Vacate Tomorrow

Federal judge James Ware, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, says he will rule tomorrow on a desperate motion to vacate last year's decision in Perry v. Schwarznegger striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional because the federal judge who issued it, Vaughn Walker, is openly gay and should have disclosed that fact at the time. Walker was previously chief judge of the same district but retired at the end of February 2011.

The motion by the heterosexual supremacist proponents of Proposition 8 has been widely ridiculed by the vast majority of legal experts and on the editorial pages of major newspapers.

It should be a delightful to read Judge James Ware's decision tomorrow. In other news, the judge has also said that he will deny the motion of the proponents to attempt to collect all the videos of the trial's witnesses and order them destroyed. Our side is arguing that the testimony is  a public record (the transcripts are available from the court) and that the entire video record should be released. There is some important, powerful testimony from expert witnesses explaining the nature of marriage and demolishing the arguments of the heterosexual supremacists that they would dearly not like to get into public view. I dearly hope the videos of the Prop 8 trial "leak" at some point in the future.

WATCH: Olson/Boies Tribute To Loving v. Virginia

June 12 is the 44th anniversary of the unanimous Loving v. Virginia United States Supreme Court case which overturned all state-enacted bans on interracial marriages. David Boies and Ted Olson are the lead attorneys in the federal lawsuit against Proposition 8, a 2008 California ballot measure which bans same-sex marriage. They have recorded a special video tribute acknowledging the significance of the Loving decision, and its potential impacyt on the Perry v. Brown case.

Hat/tip to TowleRoad.

LA TIMES Editorial Eviscerates ProtectMarriage Argument

Dismissing an argument that even heterosexual supremacists should have been ashamed to make in their increasingly desperate attempts to not lose the Perry vs. Brown lawsuit, today's Los Angeles Times op-ed titled "Prop. 8: Who's fit to judge?" eviscerated the motion to vacate filed by Protect Marriage attorney Charles Cooper on Monday:

Married judges rule on divorce cases all the time. So do single judges. And divorced ones. Their rulings aren't challenged on the grounds of their marital status; that would obviously be ridiculous.


Yet ProtectMarriage, the group that sponsored Proposition 8, is challenging last year's ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker that declared the same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. The group's lawyers argue that because Walker has a longtime male partner, he was unfit to render a decision on Proposition 8. If one day he should want to marry, the argument goes, he might benefit from his own decision, assuming it survives the scrutiny of higher courts.


This claim is absurd on many levels, especially when you remember that ProtectMarriage's case against same-sex marriage is that it threatens the institution of heterosexual marriage. In fact, the group says, that damage gives it the legal status to challenge the initiative, because any married heterosexual is allegedly harmed by same-sex unions. But if that's the case, then by the group's own logic, married heterosexual judges would also be forced to recuse themselves; the integrity of their own marriages could be damaged by the matter before them.


According to this line of argument, former Chief Justice Ronald M. George, a married heterosexual, would not have been able to preside over the California Supreme Court case in which same-sex couples sued to overturn an earlier ban on same-sex marriage. George wrote the majority opinion setting out the reasons why the ban violated the state Constitution.


So then, perhaps, only an unmarried judge who has sworn never to wed could hear cases about same-sex marriage. Or any marriage at all. An African American judge could never hear a race-discrimination case. And no female judge could decide a lawsuit on gender discrimination. Or a male one either.


The guidelines for judicial recusal can be unclear at times, but generally the bar is a high one. The rules call for judges to disqualify themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, but they are not supposed to back away from cases because of who they are — their ethnicity, gender, marital status, affluence, political leanings or, yes, sexual orientation. It's another matter if they are directly and materially affected, or if they have previously displayed a deep-seated bias on the issue at hand. A judge who drives a gas guzzler can still hear a lawsuit against an oil company, but not if his or her spouse works for the oil company.


Had Walker been one of the activists fighting Proposition 8, or if he had repeatedly sought a marriage license and been rejected, ProtectMarriage would have valid claims of conflict of interest. The group's assertion that a gay judge in a relationship is less able than a heterosexual married judge to render a fair decision on a sexual-orientation case says more about the pervasiveness of discrimination against homosexuals than it does about Walker's fitness to hear the matter.

Heterosexual Supremacists File Motion Over Prop 8 Judge's Sexuality

Charles Cooper, lead counsel for "Protect Marriage" (sic)
 in the Propositiopn 8 federal lawsuit 

Charles Cooper, the virulent heterosexual supremacist who has been arguing against marriage equality for nearly two decade, filed a motion late on Monday with the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals to vacate Judge Vaughn Walker's historic decision striking down Proposition 8 on federal constitutional grounds because Walker revealed recently that he has been in a same-sex relationship with a man for 10 years.

Of course, this is a ridiculously bigoted motion. The implication is that an open;y gay judge can not fairly judge a case involving gay rights, a Black or Latino jurist could not judge a civil rights case fairly and female judges could not make decisions about abortion rights!

Lambda Legal  released a press release in response:

"Proponents of Proposition 8 certainly are getting desperate."

(San Francisco, April 25, 2011) — In reaction to today's filing of a motion
to vacate last year's historic decision by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn
Walker declaring California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional, Jon Davidson,
Legal Director for Lambda Legal, issued the following statement.

"Proponents of Proposition 8 certainly are getting desperate.  This reeks
of a hail-Mary attempt to assail Judge Walker's character because they are
unable to rebut the extremely well-reasoned ruling he issued last year.
It's becoming a sadly typical move of the right:  don't like the ruling;
attack the referee."

To say that Judge Walker's should have disclosed his ten-year relationship
with another man or that it made him unfit to rule on Proposition 8 is like
saying that a married heterosexual judge deciding an issue in a divorce
proceeding has to disclose if he or she is having marital problems and
might someday be affected by legal rulings in the case.  Or that any judge
who professes any religious faith is unable to rule on any question of
religious liberty or, at a minimum, must disclose what his faith teaches.
Much like a suggestion that a female judge could not preside over a case
involving sexual harassment or an African American judge could not preside
over a case involving race discrimination, Proposition 8's supporters
improperly are suggesting that a judge will rule in favor of any litigant
with whom he shares a personal characteristic.

Judges hold a special and respected place in our society. Every day, they
are called upon to administer justice – in routine contract or traffic
court disputes, gut-wrenching child custody decisions, complex criminal
proceedings, and, as in this case, disputes about the basic human rights
that our Constitution is designed to protect. There may be judges who
betray their responsibilities and act with bias, but such a grave
accusation must be supported by evidence. Simply disagreeing with a
decision is not evidence that it was the result of bias. And assuming that
being in a same-sex relationship renders some judges unable to interpret
the law and do the job they have sworn to do insults both judges and
America's system of justice."

American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization promoting the lawsuit, also has a response to Cooper's ridiculous motion:

“This motion is yet another in a string of desperate and absurd motions by Prop 8 Proponents who refuse to accept the fact that the freedom to marry is a constitutional right.  They’re attempting to keep secret the video of the public trial and they’re attacking the judge because they disagree with his decision.  Clearly, the Proponents are grasping at straws because they have no legal case.”

National Center for Lesbian Rights attorney Shannon Minter also responded:

"This is a desperate and ill-advised move that underscores their inability to defend Prop 8 on the merits. This is not likely to win them any points with the courts, who understandably do not appreciate having the integrity of judges called into question based on such outrageous grounds. This is part and parcel of the underhanded way the Prop 8 campaign itself was run-based on lies, insinuations, and unsupported innuendo."

The 9th Circuit announced there will be hearing in San Francisco on July 11 in San Francisco before District Court judge James Ware.

UPDATE 04/27/2011: The hearing on Cooper's motion has been expedited to June 13.

Hat./tip to LGBTPOV

9th U.S. Circuit Refuses To Lift Stay On Prop 8

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling today refusing to lift Judge Vaughn Walker's stay on the enforcement of Proposition 8 while the ruling is appealed. Currently the California Supreme Court is considering a question of whether official proponents of a ballot measure can defend an initiative in court when the state's official representatives refuse to do so.

Here's the official text of the order from the 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals:

Having considered all of the factors set forth in Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2009), and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal, as well as the standard for vacatur set forth in Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 472 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006), we deny Plaintiffs’ motion at this time.

The ruling means that Proposition 8 will remain in effect until after the California Supreme Court rules later in 2011 on the standing question and the 9th Circuit panel issues a ruling either accepting the standing determination from the California Supreme Court (which it does NOT have to do, since there are very different standards for standing under federal and state law) and issues its own ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8.