Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California

No, I think that's what led to the removal of Prop 8 (ABE: apparently that was DOMA). But then some other citizens wanted to challenge that removal. Now the courts are saying they don't have any standing to challenge it. I was just wondering what their reasoning for challenging the removal was.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

After the courts ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional, didn't some people come in to challenge that ruling? What were their reasons for challenging it?

From Carlin to me - we've all done a bit slightly similar to this. It's one of those shared premises in the biz.- Oni

Gays are gross.- Oni

It helps to remember the entire history of gay marriage in California. The state supreme court declared laws banning same sex marriage unconstitutional. A group of hate-filled bigots got Proposition 8 on the ballots as a referendum to in effect undo that decision. The Proposition passed.Under this situation, it's easy to see that state authorities might be disinclined to defend the Proposition. In order to ensure that the will of the people as expressed by the passage of Proposition 8 is adequately defended in court, California law gives the proponents of a given Proposition the authority to represent the state in court.They are not representing their interests, they are representing the interests of the state as expressed by the will of the people.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

The people that defended the proposition actually participated as representatives of the state's interests at the district court level. They were defending the proposition because the then governor disagreed with the proposition and refused to defend it.

Ah, okay, that makes sense. Thanks. And thanks for the other explanation too.

That was the wrong case. That one was the DOMA case, where because the feds did not see her marriage as 'legal', she had to pay an extra 383K in inheritance tax when her partner passed. ... and they were legally married in NYS.

Sure. I agree with that. Here I disagree. Standing before the federal court is simply not a question of state law. If the governor, or his designee (say the state attorney general) or says that citizen Y can represent the state, that's would pose a much closer question. But in this case we have something different. We have a CA court saying that some ordinary citizens can represent California. Well it turns out that for federal standing, the California court was incorrect. Ordinary citizen Y does not represent California for the purpose of pursuing a matter in federal court, they only represent themselves.

No. We have the state supreme court holding that California law provides as follows:

quote:

---

In a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state‘s interest in the initiative‘s validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so.

---

52 Cal. 4th 1116, 265 P.3d 1002, 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499 (2011)This is THE authoritative construction of California law, proponents have the right to assert the state's interest. The only way to get around this is to ignore it.It is of particular importance to note that, under California law, ballot initiative proponents are not simply "some ordinary citizen." The court explained:

quote:

---

As we discuss more fully below, in the past official proponents of initiative measures in California have uniformly been permitted to participate as parties either as interveners or as real parties in interest in numerous lawsuits in California courts challenging the validity of the initiative measure the proponents sponsored. Such participation has routinely been permitted (1) without any inquiry into or showing that the proponents‘ own property, liberty, or other personal legally protected interests would be specially affected by invalidation of the measure, and (2) whether or not the government officials who ordinarily defend a challenged enactment were also defending the measure in the proceeding. This court, however, has not previously had occasion fully to explain the basis upon which an official initiative proponent‘s ability to participate as a party in such litigation rests.

​

As we shall explain, because the initiative process is specifically intended to enable the people to amend the state Constitution or to enact statutes when current government officials have declined to adopt (and often have publicly opposed) the measure in question, the voters who have successfully adopted an initiative measure may reasonably harbor a legitimate concern that the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged state law in court may not, in the case of an initiative measure, always undertake such a defense with vigor or with the objectives and interests of those voters paramount in mind. As a consequence, California courts have routinely permitted the official proponents of an initiative to intervene or appear as real parties in interest to defend a challenged voter- approved initiative measure in order ―to guard the people‘s right to exercise initiative power‖ (Building Industry Assn. v. City of Camarillo (1986) 41 Cal.3d 810, 822 (Building Industry Assn.)) or, in other words, to enable such proponents to assert the people’s, and hence the state’s, interest in defending the validity of the initiative measure. Allowing official proponents to assert the state‘s interest in the validity of the initiative measure in such litigation (along with any public officials who may also be defending the measure) (1) assures voters who supported the measure and enacted it into law that any residual hostility or indifference of current public officials to the substance of the initiative measure will not prevent a full and robust defense of the measure to be mounted in court on the people‘s behalf, and (2) ensures a court faced with the responsibility of reviewing and resolving a legal challenge to an initiative measure that it is aware of and addresses the full range of legal arguments that reasonably may be proffered in the measure‘s defense. In this manner, the official proponents‘ general ability to appear and defend the state‘s interest in the validity of the initiative measure and to appeal a lower court judgment invalidating the measure serves to enhance both the fairness of the judicial process and the appearance of fairness of that process.

---

In California. But I don't see how that affects the Supreme Court.Take a parallel instance. Suppose the state of Georgia (for example) amended its Constitution to do away with the requirements for standing altogether. Would the Supreme Court then be bound to agree that anyone at all from Georgia has locus standi before the S.C? No. Georgia can change its own Constitution all it likes, it doesn't affect federal law.

There are two separate issues here.Nobody doubts that the state of California has standing to pursue this matter. The only question is who has the authority to protect California's interests. States have the inherent authority to delegate who has that authority.Obviously, the state itself cannot do it. The state is an abstract governmental entity. It acts through the actions of people, its agents. In the vast majority of cases, that agent is going to be the attorney general (or someone in his office). In this particular case, since the challenged constitutional amendment was enacted by a referendum, it's reasonable to consider the possibility that the attorney general or governor might not want to defend it if they disagree with it. Thus, it's in the interests of those who voted the initiative into law to have someone who supports it defending it. That's why California law specifically authorizes the proponents to do so.Nobody is arguing that California is trying to get around the standing requirement or eliminate it as suggested by your hypothetical. Instead, they are trying to meet it by designating a certain class of people who have the authority to assert the state's interests.Standing in federal court is and always will be a question of federal law for federal courts to construe. However, the identity of the person or persons that a state designates to represent its interests is a question of state law.

As I write this, same sex marriages in California have resumed.

You are simply asserting the point that is in dispute and are repeating the same argument as if it has not been responded to. I'll respond with a two fold argument.1. I don't doubt that California officials could designate someone to represent its interest, but that's not exactly what happened here. A CA court simply ruled that the defendant's represented California. Well federal law does not allow that option. It is particularly farcial because the CA executives refused to defend the law. Under those circumstance, where does a CA court derive the ability to circumvent federal law.2. The federal rules still apply. Just as the state cannot force the Supreme Court to accept a disbarred attorney as their chosen representative, the state cannot circumvent federal standing rules by designating an ineligible party as their representative. Regardless of what the CA Supreme Court said, it was pretty clear that at best the parties represented part of the electorate, but the electorate is NOT the state. The state is represented by CA executive and legislative branch, and neither of those parties picked someone to represent them.

The legislative branch in effect did pick someone to represent the state. They drafted a statute that gave the proponent of a ballot initiative the authority to represent the state's interest when the initiative in challenged. The state is an abstract political entity. No one person could ever represent all the interests of the state all the time. But that's not what's at issue. What's at issue is a constitutional amendment drafted by a small group of dedicated supporters and passed by a majority of voters.The basic purpose served by the standing requirement is to ensure that the person advocating for the position has sufficient interest in the issue to provide zealous and effective advocacy in support of the issue. In the case of a citizen initiative, there's every reason to suppose that the duly elected officials of the state might not have that interest. The very purpose of the citizen initiative is to provide the citizenry a course for changing the law under circumstances where their elected representatives, for whatever reason, will not. To then say that those elected representatives, and only those elected representatives, can adequately represent the state's interests is perverse and irrational. In the abstract, which ultimately is where most laws are written, I can think of no person or group of people who would be better suited to zealously represent the interests of the state, as expressed by a majority of the voting population, than the proponents of the initiative.