California, No. S189476February
2011Page 2Proponents rely on
State Personnel Board
(2006) 37 Cal.4th 1169, 1178-79 and
(2006) 37 Cal.4th 986,1007-08 for the unremarkableproposition that proponents
ballot initiatives have a state-recognized interest in thecampaign process itself. Prop. Letter p. 3;
see also Connerly,
37 Cal.4th at pp. 1178-79(discussing
Nuclear Free Zone
(1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 167).These decisions applying state law in state court are irrelevant to the question whetherproponents possess Article III standing to appeal an adverse judgment in federal court.
(1962) 369 U.S.
(standing in federal court "is,
course, a question
federal law"). In any event, those cases arose in a different posture from proponents'pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit, which is a challenge to the constitutionality
rather than to the process that placed the initiative on the ballot.Proponents also concede that this Court has never afforded initiative proponents theauthority under state law to represent the interest
Prop. Letter pp. 3-4. Infact, it is already well-settled under California law that initiative proponents do
possessthe authority to represent the
opposed to their own
See In re Marriage Cases
Cal.4th 757, 790-91. And, as theNinth Circuit observed in its certification request, nothing in
46 Cal.4th 364 suggests that proponents have either a particularized interest in the validity
Proposition 8 or the authority to assert the State's interest in its validity.
(9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2011, No. 10-16696) _ F.3d _ [at pp. 13-14]. In
this Court (like the district court here) merely permitted proponents to intervene toadvance their
interest in Proposition 8 in a proceeding in which the State was also aparty; that decision to permit intervention has no bearing on whether proponents possessArticle III standing to pursue an appeal in the absence
(1986) 476 U.S.
("Diamond's status as an intervenor below
does not conferstanding sufficient to keep the case alive in the absence
the State on this appeal.").
(1987) 484 U.S.
underscores this conclusion. In
theUnited States Supreme Court held that the Speaker
Jersey General Assembly andPresident
the New Jersey Senate possessed standing to pursue an appeal because theywere "authorize[d]" under "state law
to represent the State's interests."
(1997) 520 U.S. 43,
484 U.S. at
82). Oncethe legislators lost their leadership posts in the New Jersey Legislature, however, they"lack[ed] authority to pursue [an]
appeal" because "[t]he authority to pursue the lawsuiton behalf
the legislature belong[ed] to those who succeeded [them]
484 U.S. at pp. 77, 81.There is nothing in California law that authorizes proponents to represent the interest
the State in litigation challenging the constitutionality
a ballot initiative. Thus,proponents are in the same position as the former legislative leaders in