Part of the Bay Area News Group

State Supreme Court to rule on Prop. 8 standing

By Josh Richman
Wednesday, November 16th, 2011 at 12:29 pm in ballot measures, same-sex marriage.

The California Supreme Court has just announced it will file a written opinion at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, Nov. 17, in Perry v. Brown, the same-sex marriage case.

The case involves whether an initiative measure’s official proponents have standing to defend that measure’s constitutionality when the public officials charged with that duty decline to do so. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – which is considering the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that amended the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman – had asked the state Supreme Court to rule on this particular issue; the court heard oral arguments on it Sept. 6 in San Francisco.

The ruling will be publicly available online.

UPDATE @ 12:37 P.M. THURSDAY: Read the full story on today’s ruling here, and read the ruling itself here.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Elwood

    The court has ruled UNANIMOUSLY that the backers of Prop 8 have the constitutional right to defend it in court.

    As an aside what gives the governor and the AG the right to decide not to defend a vote of the people? See also Prop 187

  • John W

    Google “outside the” “presidential decisions not to defend the constitutionality of Federal law.”

    In some cases mentioned, the executive branch didn’t just decline to defend the law in question. They actually argued that the law was unconstitutional. The governor and AG didn’t go that far in the case of Prop. 8, but they could have, given their belief that Prop. 8 is indeed unconstitutional. If you want Prop. 8 defended, you should be glad the gov and AG declined. Their heart wouldn’t be in it. But, by not defending it, the cleared the way for the Prop. 8 fan club to defend the law to their hearts content.

    I’m sure there are plenty of examples at the state level in various states, in addition to the Federal cases described by