| California Attorney General Jerry Brown's office today filed briefs in response to the three lawsuits that have been filed to challenge Proposition 8. You can read the briefs in their entirety here here and here. In short, the AG's office asks the Supreme Court to: (1) hear the lawsuits, (2) deny petitioner's request to stay Prop 8 pending the Court's decision, and (3) expedite review of the cases. Three lawsuits have been filed with the California Supreme Court that challenge Proposition 8. The first was brought by six couples along with Equality California. The second was brought by two couples. The third was brought by the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Santa Clara, and the City of Los Angeles. All three lawsuit are variations on the same theme: that Proposition 8 is a "revision" to the California Constitution and a valid revision must be submitted to the voters by the Legislature. Since Proposition 8 did not originate in the Legislature, it is not a valid revision and it should be struck. Several groups have weighed in on the argument. Those arguing that Prop 8 should be invalidated by the Court include a group of 44 state lawmakers, the bar associations of several major cities, and the Anti-Defamation League. Those arguing that Prop 8 should be enforced include Kingdom of Heaven, the Pacific Justice Institute (a religious "legal defense group"), and the American Center for Law and Justice (Pat Robertson's group). Jerry Brown's office has appointed Senior Assistant Attorney General Christopher K. Krueger to defend Prop 8. This is the same attorney who argued (unsuccessfully) in favor of Prop 22 and against marriage equality in the In Re: Marriage cases. In the response that was filed today, the AG's office agrees that it's appropriate and preferable for the Supreme Court to address the lawsuits in the first instance (as opposed to requiring that the plaintiffs file in a trial court and the cases work themselves up to the Supreme Court.) At the same time, the AG's office opposes the plaintiffs' request that Proposition 8 be stayed pending the outcome of these cases. It argues that "a stay would change the status quo, allowing marriages that might later be invalidated, and would engender uncertainty about the legal status of same-sex marriages in California." The AG's office does not (because it does not need to at this juncture) oppose the petitions on the merits. The court, should it agree to hear the cases, will set a schedule for the AG to file its opposition papers. Also today, the Yes on 8 campaign filed a request to intervene in the cases and to file an opposition. Essentially they argue that they have a substantial interest in the lawsuit because they spent over $37 million to campaign for Prop 8's passage. It's opposition was written by Andrew Pugno, a solo lawyer in Folsom who specializes in wills and trusts. The Supreme Court will now make its decision about: (1) whether it wants to hear this case or if it is going to require that the plaintiff's first file in the Superior Court and (2) whether it will stay Proposition 8 pending the outcome of these cases. If the Court agrees to hear the cases, it will set a briefing schedule. My prediction is that the Court's order will mirror the AG's request exactly. It will agree to hear the case, it will deny the stay, and it will set a relatively quick briefing schedule. I predict we have a hearing on the cases before Valentine's Day. |
