CaliforniaJanuary 21, 2011Page 2
Whether under Article II, Section 8
the California Constitution,
otherwise underCalifornia law, the official proponents
an initiative measure possess either a particularizedinterest
the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the
the initiative'svalidity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality
the initiative upon itsadoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged withthat duty refuse to do so.
This Court may decide a question
California law on the request
decision could determine the outcome
a matter pending
therequesting court" and "[t]here
controlling precedent." Cal.
Ct. 8.548(a). Because theserequirements are met
this case, and because
the overriding importance
the issuespresented not only to the future
California but also to the very integrity
initiative process, this Court should accept the Ninth Circuit's request to answer thecertified question.
The Ninth Circuit and "[t]he parties agree that Proponents'
therefore [theNinth Circuit's] ability to decide this
or falls on whether California law affordsthem the interest
the certified question. Order 9 (quotation marksomitted).To have standing to appeal, an appellant
establish that the district
causes [it] a concrete and particularized injury that
likely to be redressed by a favorable decision."
Western Watersheds Project
620 F.3d 1187, 1196 (9th Cir. 2010). And while Article III standing is a question
federal law,whether the necessary predicates for standing are established
a particular case may turn onState law. This is such a case.As an initial matter, under federal law
State clearly has a legitimate interest
477 U.S. 131, 137 (1986), and aState thus
standing to defend the constitutionality"
those laws and to appeal adversejudgments finding them unconstitutional,
476 U.S. 54, 62 (1986). And alitigant seeking to invoke a
defending its laws must have the authority underState law to do so.This principle
484 U.S. 72 (1987). There, the UnitedStates Supreme Court held that the Speaker
Jersey General Assembly and thePresident
Jersey Senate had standing to appeal a district court