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
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
4:14-cv-04081 #1 South Dakota Marriage Case Complaint

4:14-cv-04081 #1 South Dakota Marriage Case Complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,751|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 1 - Complaint
Doc 1 - Complaint

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on May 22, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/28/2014

pdf

text

original

 
FÏIEN
MAY
2
2
2s1\
UNrrBo
Srarps
Drsrnlcr
Counr
DrsrRrcr
oF
Souru
Dnrora
ff*{frt
Court File
No.
I41V_
Case
Type:
Civil
nignts
ft
tlSf
Jennie
and
Nancy Rosenbrahn;Jeremy
Coller
and
Clay
Schweitzer;
Lynn
and
Monica
Serling-Swank;
Krystal
Cosby
and
Kaitlynn
Hoerner;Barbara
and
Ashley
Wright;
and
COMPLAINT
FOR
PERMANENTINJUNCTION
AND
Greg
xninln
^uy::;,, o,
DECLARAT'RY
RELTEF
v,s.
Dennis
Daugaard, in
his
official
capacity
as
Governor;
Marty
Jackley, in
his
official
capacity
as
Attôrney
General;
Doneen
Hollingsworth,
in her
official
capacity
as
Secretary
of
Health;
Trevor
Jones,
in
his
official
capacity
as
Secretary
of Public
Safety;
I)onna Mayer,
in
her
official
capacity
as
Pennington County
Register
of
Deeds;
Carol
Sherman,
in her
official
capacity
as
Brown
County
Register
of
Deeds;Defendants.
Case 4:14-cv-04081-KES Document 1 Filed 05/22/14 Page 1 of 49 PageID #: 1
 
INTRODUCTORY FACTS
1.
During the
infancy
of
the United
States,
John Adams,
James
Madison,
Alexis
de
Tocqueville,
and others,
wamed
of tyranny of
the
majority.
Concerned that
a
direct
democracy
would allow
a simple
majority
to
stampede
the rights
and
dignity
of
minorities,
our
nation's
founders created
a
constitutional
representative
democracy,
establishing
a
system
of
government
with
several super-majoritarian checks
on
simple
majorities
and
myriad institutional
checks and balances
pursuant and subordinate
to
the
Constitution.
2.
In
1898, South
Dakota
became
the
first
State
in
the
nation to
allow
a
simple
majority
of
its voting-eligible
citizenst
to
initiate and
enact
constitutional
amendments.
Since
that time,
and particularly
in
the last
half
century,
our
country has
seen
an
explosion
in
the
use
of
such
statewide
popular votes
to
circumvent
the
traditional
legislative
process and
to
override
the
judiciary
-
often
in
a
manner
that tramples
on the
dignity
and
cquality of
minorities.
3.
In
1992, a
53Yo
majority
of
Colorado voters approved
a
ballot
measure that
added
Amendment
2
to
the
Colorado Constitution.
The
amendment
prohibited
every
county,
city,
and
town
within
Colorado
from
protecting gay
and
lesbian
individuals fromdiscrimination.
In
1996,
the
United
States
Supreme
Court reviewed the
amendment
in
Romer
v.
Evans,
517 U.S. 620 (1996).
In
the
Court's
opinion,
Justice
Kennedy
wrote,
 laws of
the
kind...
raise
the inevitable
inference that the
disadvantage
imposed
is
born
of
animosity toward the
class
of
persons
affected,
and
concluded that
the
ballot
measure
I
South
Dakota did not
allow
women to
vote
until
1918.
2
The Proposal,
YouTube
(May
21,
201
4),http
:/þoutu.belTKkSMnlxWnU
Case 4:14-cv-04081-KES Document 1 Filed 05/22/14 Page 2 of 49 PageID #: 2
 
was
born
of
a
bare...
desire
to
harm a
politically
unpopular
group.
Id. at
634.
The
Court
added,
[i]f
the constitutional
conception
of
equal
protection
of
the laws
means
anything,
it
must
at
the very
least mean
that
a bare...
desire
to
harm
a
politically
unpopular
group
cannot constitute
a legitimate
governmental
interest.
Id.
(emphasis
in
original)
(internal citations omitted).
4.
With
the adoption
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
in
1868,
our
Constitutionprovided
not only
a
more
expansive
definition
of
citizenship,
but
also
the framework
for
assuring
our Founders'
self-evident truth
of
liberfy
and
equality:
No
State
shall
make
or
enforce
any
law which
shall
abridge the
privileges
or
immunities
of
citizens
of
the
United
States;
nor
shall any
State
deprive
any person
of life,
liberty,
or property,
without
due process
of
law; nor
deny
to
any
person
within
its
jurisdiction
the
equal
protection
of
the
laws.
5.
Guided
by this
framework,
the
United
States Supreme
Court
has declaredthe
right
to
marryr as
fundamemtal
and one
of
the
basic
civil
rights
of
ntan.
Loving
v.
Virginia.
388
U.S.
I,
12
(1967).
Its
decisions
have
made
clear
that
the
freedom
of
personal choice
in
matters
of
marriage
and
family life
is
one
of
the
liberties
protected
by
the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Zablocki v.
Redhail.
434
U.S.
374,393
(1978).
6.
In
United
States
v.
Windsor.
133
S. Ct. 2675 (2013),
the
Supreme Court
repeatedly
emphasized
that
although
the
States
may
generally
define and
regulatemarnage, that such
laws,
of
course, must respect the
constifutional rights of persons. Id.at
2691.
In striking down
Section 3
of
the Defense
of
Marriage
Act,
the Court
recognized
that the
avowed purpose
and practical
effect
of
the
law...
[was]
to
impose
a
Case 4:14-cv-04081-KES Document 1 Filed 05/22/14 Page 3 of 49 PageID #: 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

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