Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
Cooper & Kirk
Lawyers
A Professional Limited Liability Company
Charles J. Cooper
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
(202) 220-9600
 
(202) 220-9660
Washington, D.C. 20036
Fax (202) 220-9601
 
ccooper@cooperkirk.com
May 9, 2011
VIA ELECTRONIC CASE FILING
Office of the Clerk United States Court of AppealsFor the Ninth CircuitJames R. Browning Courthouse95 7
th
StreetSan Francisco, CA 94103Re:
Perry v. Brown
, No. 10-16696 (9th Cir.)Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk of the Court,Attached please find a courtesy copy of the Defendant-Intervenors and Appellants’Reply to Amicus Briefs filed in the Supreme Court of California, Case No. S189476.Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Charles J. Cooper
Case: 10-16696 05/09/2011 Page: 1 of 1 ID: 7745459 DktEntry: 356-1
 
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, as Governor, etc. et al., Defendants;DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Defendants, Intervenors and Appellants.On Request from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit forAnswer to Certified Questions of California Law
DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS AND APPELLANTS’REPLY TO AMICUS BRIEFS
Andrew P. PugnoL
AW
O
FFICES OF
A
NDREW
P.
 
P
UGNO
 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100Folsom, California 95630(916) 608-3065; (916) 608-3066 FaxBrian W. Raum*James A. Campbell*A
LLIANCE
D
EFENSE
F
UND
 15100 North 90th StreetScottsdale, Arizona 85260(480) 444-0020; (480) 444-0028 Fax*Admitted
Pro Hac Vice
 Charles J. Cooper*
 
David H. Thompson*
 
Howard C. Nielson, Jr.*
 
Nicole J. Moss*Peter A. Patterson*C
OOPER AND
K
IRK
,
 
PLLC1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 220-9600; (202) 220-9601 Fax*Admitted
Pro Hac Vice
 
 Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors and Appellants Hollingsworth, Knight,Gutierrez, Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com
Case: 10-16696 05/09/2011 Page: 1 of 40 ID: 7745459 DktEntry: 356-2
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………...….iiARGUMENT…………………………………………………………3I.
 
Official Proponents Have Authority under California Law ToDefend Their Initiatives as Agents of the People in Lieuof Public Officials Who Refuse To Do So. ...……………...3A.
 
Allowing Official Proponents To Vindicate the People’sInterest in the Validity of Initiatives Preserves theSovereign People’s Rightful Controlof Their Government. …………….............................4B.
 
Well-Settled California Case Law Upholds theAuthority of Official Proponents To Represent thePeople’s Interest in the Validity of Initiatives. ……10C.
 
Reaffirming That Official Proponents May DefendTheir Initiatives Would Not Infringe the AttorneyGeneral’s Authority Or Violate Separation of PowersPrinciples…………………………………………...16II.
 
Official Proponents Have a Personal, ParticularizedInterest in the Validity of Their Initiatives..........................26
Case: 10-16696 05/09/2011 Page: 2 of 40 ID: 7745459 DktEntry: 356-2
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more