California marriage-equality advocates saw a setback last week as the antigay supporters of the ballot effort to overturn the state’s same-sex marriage law were given the green light to back the initiative in court.
The California Supreme Court ruled last Thursday that the Protect Marriage coalition had standing to challenge a lower court judge’s ruling that overturned Proposition 8.
The backers intervened in Perry v. Brown, filed by a group of same-sex couples, after the state’s attorney general and governor declined to defend Prop. 8.
District Judge Vaughn Walker last year ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional and the initiative’s supporters appealed, but the 9th Circuit appellate court requested guidance from the California Supreme Court on whether the coalition had standing to defend the measure, as marriage-equality advocates argued the law’s personal impact on the coalition was tenuous.
In its ruling, written by Justice C.J. Cantil-Sakauye, the court cited numerous instances of case law that have allowed official initiative proponents to be a party to legal challenges in addition to or in lieu of governmental representatives.
“The initiative power would be significantly impaired if there were no one to assert the state’s interest in the validity of the measure when elected officials decline to defend it in court or appeal a judgment invalidating the measure,” Cantil-Sakauye wrote, noting that official initiative proponents have the unique responsibility and authority to “manage and control” the ballot-qualifying and petition-filing process, as well as the content of the arguments in favor of the initiative that appears in the state’s official voter guide. “Thus, regardless of the initiative’s effect on their personal and particularized legally protected interests, the official proponents are the most logical and appropriate choice to assert the state’s interest in the validity of the initiative measure on behalf of the electors who voted in favor of the measure.”
David Codell, counsel for Equality California, suggested that the court’s finding sets a dangerous standard.
“Handing the authority and decision-making power of the state to a small group of citizens with an extremist agenda sets an extraordinary precedent that could complicate efforts to challenge future unconstitutional initiatives and prolong the harm suffered by Californians impacted by those initiatives,” Codell said.
While the court ruling applied to state law, Marriage Equality USA legal director John Lewis also noted in a statement last week that federal law dictates “a person can continue to litigate a lawsuit only if they have suffered tangible harm.”
“The simple fact of the matter is that marriage-equality opponents suffer no harm from the freedom to marry being extended to all loving, committed couples,” he said. “Accordingly, despite today’s statement by the California Supreme Court about state law, marriage-equality opponents lack standing under federal law to continue their litigation.”
However, with the standing question addressed, the appellate court will now consider the actual constitutional principles at issue and decide whether or not to uphold Walker’s ruling that would nullify Prop. 8.
The next proceeding in the case is scheduled for Dec. 8, as the defendants argue their case for appealing the district court’s unsealing of the videotape of last year’s trial.