You are on page 1of 39
 
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No.10-16696IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUITKRISTIN PERRY, ET AL.,
 Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL.,
 Defendants,
and
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, ET AL.,
 Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants
On Appeal From The United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaCase No. 09-CV-2292 VRWThe Honorable Vaughn R. Walker 
BRIEF OF PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE EQUALITY CALIFORNIAIN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-APPELLEE AND IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE
CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR,PCDavid C. Codell,
Of Counsel 
, State Bar No. 200965Linda M. Burrow, State Bar No. 194668Albert Giang, State Bar No. 224332Benjamin A. Au, State Bar No. 2378541000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600Los Angeles, California 90017-2463Telephone: (213)629-9040Facsimile: (213)629-9022
 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Equality California
Case: 10-16696 10/25/2010 Page: 1 of 37 ID: 7522213 DktEntry: 200-1
 
1
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the undersigned states that Amicus Curiae Equality California is not a corporation that issues stock or has a parent corporation that issues stock.DATED: October 25, 2010Respectfully submitted,CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR,PCDAVID C. CODELL,
Of Counsel 
LINDA M. BURROWALBERT GIANGBENJAMIN A. AUBy /s/ David C. CodellDAVID C. CODELL,
Of Counsel 
Attorneys for Amicus CuriaeEQUALITY CALIFORNIA
Case: 10-16696 10/25/2010 Page: 2 of 37 ID: 7522213 DktEntry: 200-1
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
INTEREST OF PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE....................................................1ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................3I.PROPONENTS DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO APPEAL.......................7A.California Law Does Not Authorize an Initiative Proponent to Pursue an Appeal in Federal Court in Defense of An Initiative In Lieu of State Officials....................................................................8B.California Law Creates No Particularized Interest that Would Confer Standing on Proponents...........................................................20II.IF THE COURT REACHES THE MERITS, THE COURT SHOULD CONCLUDE THAT PROPOSITION 8 VIOLATES THE FEDERAL QUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE..................................................................22II.IF THE COURT REACHES THE MERITS, THE COURT SHOULD CONCLUDE THAT PROPOSITION 8 VIOLATES THE FEDERAL QUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE..........................22CONCLUSION........................................................................................................28CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.......................................................................30
Case: 10-16696 10/25/2010 Page: 3 of 37 ID: 7522213 DktEntry: 200-1

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505