Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Amicus Brief-- Prop 8 Copy

Amicus Brief-- Prop 8 Copy

Ratings: (0)|Views: 28 |Likes:

More info:

Published by: Judicial Watch, Inc. on Sep 07, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
This book can be read on up to 6 mobile devices.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/05/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
 NO. S189476
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
En BancKRISTIN M. PERRY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff, Intervenor andRespondent;v.EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., as Governor, etc. et al., Defendants,DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Defendants, Intervenors andAppellants.On Request from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for Answer to the Certified Questions of California Law
BRIEF OF
 AMICUS CURIAE
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. INSUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS
Julie B. Axelrod (SBN 250165)JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.425 Third Street, SW, Suite 800Washington, DC 20024Tel: (202) 646-5172Fax: (202) 646-5199
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Judicial Watch, Inc.
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Authorities
............................................................................... iii
 Identity and Interest of Amicus Curiae
.................................................... 1
 Introduction
............................................................................................ 2
 Argument
............................................................................................... 2
 A. Refusing to Grant Proponents Standing to Defend InitiativesWhich the Attorney General Does Not Defend in Court WouldUndermine the Initiative Process.
.................................................. 2
 B. Plaintiffs‟ Arguments that the Rights of State OfficialsSupersede Those of the People Do Not Accurately Reflect the Rightsof Californians.
............................................................................. 4
C. Proponents Have a Particularized Interest in Defending theInitiative They Sponsored.
............................................................ 8
 Conclusion
............................................................................................. 9
Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to Rule 8.204
and 8.520(c) ............. 10
Proof of Service
 
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases
 Associated Home Builders of the Greater East Bay, Inc. v. City of  Livermore
(1976) 18 Cal. 3d 582
.......................................................... 3,5
 
 Building Industry Assn. of Southern California, Inc. v. City of Camarillo
 (1986) 41 Cal. 3d 810
.............................................................................. 4
 
Connerly v. State Personnel Board 
(2006) 37 Cal. 4
th
1169, 1178
............. 8
 
 Independent Energy Producers Assn. v. McPherson
(2006) 38 Cal. 4
th
 1020
...................................................................................................... 4
 
 Municipal Court v. Bloodgood 
(1982) 137 Cal. App. 3d 29
...................... 8
 
People ex rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino
(1984) 36 Cal. 3d 476
4
 
People v. Kelly
(2010) 47 Cal. 4th 1008
................................................... 5
 Strauss v. Horton
(2009) 46 Cal. 4th 364
................................................. 3
 
Constitutional Materials
Cal. Const., art II, § 1
.............................................................................. 5
 Cal. Const., art II, § 10
............................................................................ 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->