Thursday, August 12, 2010

Prop 8 Supporters Have asked for Emergency Stay from the 9th Circuit Court

This just in...full text of proponents emergency stay request can be found below. In their request, the proponents of Prop 8 give the generic reasons why they should be able to appeal...basically saying that Judge Walkers decision ignored almost all of human history, voter feeling, and Supreme Court decisions on the matter. They then claim that because of the certainty of repeal by both the Ninth Circuit as well as the Supreme Court that there should be a stay, saying...
 For all of these reasons, as well as others elaborated more fully below, the district court’s decision will almost certainly be reversed by this Court.It is thus imperative that a stay pending appeal be entered on or before August 18, 2010 at 5p.m. Pacific Time (the time the district court’s judgment is set to go into effect,see Doc. No. 727 at 11), to avoid the confusion and irreparable injury that would surely flow from the creation of a class of purported same-sex marriages entered in reliance on the district court’s decision but in direct contravention of a lawful provision of the California Constitution and the manifest will of the people of that State
They also claim that they have the authority to appeal the ruling that Judge Walker made, stating...
Contrary to the district court’s suggestion, see Doc. No. 727 at 3-6, Proponents’ standing to appeal is no obstacle to staying the district court’s judgment. Proponents have standing to appeal the district court’s judgment because they have“authority under state law,” Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72, 82 (1987), to defend the constitutionality of an initiative they have successfully sponsored “as agents of the people of [California] . . . in lieu of public officials” who refuse to do so, Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 65 (1997).
Proponents also have standing to appeal because of their own particularized interest in defending an initiative they have successfully sponsored, an interest that is created and secured by California law. See, e.g., Diamond v. Charles, 476 54, 65 n.17 (1986) (state law may “create new interests, the invasion of which may confer standing”).Under California law, the right to “propose . . . constitutional changes through the initiative process” is a “fundamental right,” Costa v. Superior Court, 128 P.3d 675, 686 (Cal. 2006), that affords proponents a “special interest” and “particular right to be protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large,” an interest that is “directly affected” when an initiative they have sponsored is challenged in litigation, Connerly v. State Personnel Bd., 129 P.3d 1, 6-7 (Cal. 2006) (quotation marks omitted). For all of these reasons, California courts have repeatedly allowed proponents to intervene to defend initiatives they have sponsored.8

Perry v. Schwarzennegger - 9th Cir. - Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts with Thumbnails