[EL] Standing for Prop. 8 sponsors

[David A. Holtzman]

Well put, Tom.

And as blogger Bazelon put it, "isn't it odd to think that a majority of 
the voters could pass a law, and then just because the governor and the 
attorney general don't like it, no one gets to stand up for it on appeal?"

So it's ironic that the League of Women Voters of California filed 
<http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/action/letters/2011-05-02-league-files-amicus-brief-marriage-equality.pdf> 
a brief OPPOSING standing for Prop. 8 proponents 
<http://www.ca.lwv.org/lwvc/action/letters/2011-04-29-amicus-brief-marriage-equality.pdf> 
(the League supports same-sex marriage).

I wonder if the state League, which has a new president, can be 
persuaded that a no-standing precedent would be contrary to the League's 
(and voters') long-term interests (and if the state League might 
therefore withdraw its brief).

- dah

P.S.for some background on California standing law, people might want to 
see the CA Supreme Court ruling here 
<http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S180720.PDF> that was 
the subject of the a little jousting recently between two 
<http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/libertarians-for-environmental-red-tape/> 
bloggers 
<http://plf.typepad.com/plf/2011/08/vituperation-watch-legal-planet.html>.
Both bloggers agreed that "citizen suit standing ... under California 
law is much broader than [U.S. Constitution] Article III standing [for 
federal courts]."



On 9/5/2011 4:43 PM, Thomas J. Cares wrote:
> I don't think it passes the laugh test to have an initiative system 
> for remedying misalignment between state government and the state's 
> electorate, while allowing only elected state officials to defend 
> initiatives against legal challenges.
>
>
> Thomas Cares
> Tom at TomCares.com
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu 
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>
>
>         "Prop. 8 sponsors' arguments go before California high court;
>         The court's ruling will determine whether initiative sponsors
>         in California are entitled to defend their measures in state
>         court if the governor and the attorney general refuse."
>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22608>
>
>     Posted on September 5, 2011 10:53 am
>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22608> by Rick Hasen
>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
>     The /LA Times/reports
>     <http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-california-20110905,0,2303003.story>.
>     I'm with Emily Bazelon <http://www.slate.com/id/2263943/> on this one.
>
>     Share
>     <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D22608&title=%E2%80%9CProp.%208%20sponsors%E2%80%99%20arguments%20go%20before%20California%20high%20court%3B%20The%20court%E2%80%99s%20ruling%20will%20determine%20whether%20initiative%20sponsors%20in%20California%20are%20entitled%20to%20defend%20their%20measures%20in%20state%20court%20if%20the%20governor%20and%20the%20attorney%20general%20refuse.%E2%80%9D&description=>
>     Posted in direct democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62> |
>     Comments Off
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> -- 
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> david at holtzmanlaw.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110906/f7624b22/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110906/f7624b22/attachment.png>