TM NOTE: This post has been front-paged from “In the News,” which was originally posted at 2:55 pm today. Joyce will begin a weekly posting this Saturday entitled “Queer Talk.” As you’ll see in the comment section, she took part in a Q&A by Adam Bink’s “Courage Campaign,” with updates added there.
Via JoeMyGod, news that the court decision on California’s Prop 8 has been punted, and sent to the California State Supreme Court. Another one step at a time in the slow process of achieving equality.
The link at the top is to a pdf of the 9th Court decision. Excerpt:
“REINHARDT, HAWKINS, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Before this panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is an appeal concerning the constitutionality under the United States Constitution of Article I, Ã‚Â§ 7.5 of the California Constitution (“Proposition 8″). Because we cannot consider this important constitutional question unless the appellants before us have standing to raise it, and in light of Arizonans for Official English v Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (“Arizonans”), it is critical that we be advised of the rights under California law of the official proponents of an initiative measure to defend the constitutionality of that measure upon its adoption by the People when the state officers charged with the laws’ enforcement, including the Attorney General, refuse to provide such a defense or appeal a judgment declaring the measure unconstitutional. As we are aware of no controlling state precedent on this precise question, we respectfully ask the Supreme Court of California to exercise its discretion to accept and decide the certified question below.
I. Question Certified
Pursuant to Rule 8.548 of the California Rules of Court, we request that the Court answer the following question:
Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so. We understand that the Court may reformulate our question, and we agree to accept and follow the Court’s decision.”