2challenging the validity, under the United States Constitution, of the initiativemeasure (Proposition 8) that added a section to the California Constitution
providing that ―[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California‖ (Cal. Const., art. I, §
7.5), the state law issue that hasbeen submitted to this court is totally unrelated to the substantive question of theconstitutional validity of Proposition 8. Instead, the question before us involves afundamental procedural issue that may arise with respect to
initiative measure,without regard to its subject matter. The same procedural issue regarding an
official initiative proponent‘s standing to appear as a party in a judicial proceeding
to defend the validity of a voter-approved initiative or to appeal a judgmentinvalidating it when the public officials who ordinarily provide such a defense orfile such an appeal decline to do so, could arise with regard to an initiativemeasure that, for example, (1) limited campaign contributions that may becollected by elected legislative or executive officials, or (2) imposed term limitsfor legislative and executive offices, or (3) prohibited government officials fromaccepting employment after leaving office with companies or individuals that have
benefited from the officials‘ discretionary gover
nmental decisions while in office.(Cf., e.g., Prop. 73 (Primary Elec. (June 7, 1988)), invalidated in part in
Kopp v.Fair Pol. Practices Com.
(1995) 11 Cal.4th 607 [campaign contribution limits];Prop. 140 (Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 1990)), upheld in
Legislature v. Eu
Cal.3d 492 [term limits]; City of Santa Monica‘s ballot measure Prop. LL
(Consolidated Gen. Mun. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2000)), upheld in
City of Santa Monica v.Stewart
(2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 43 [postgovernment employment limits].) Theresolution of this procedural question does not turn on the substance of theparticular initiative measure at issue, but rather on the purpose and integrity of theinitiative process itself.