Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Motion Intervene CA Ssm

Motion Intervene CA Ssm

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,190|Likes:

More info:

Published by: smayer@howardrice.com on Nov 11, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

06/16/2009

pdf

text

original

 
Case No. S168047I
N THE
S
UPREME
C
OURT OF THE
S
TATE OF
C
ALIFORNIA
 _____________________________________________________________ 
Karen L. Strauss, Ruth Borenstein, Brad Jacklin, Dustin Hergert, EileenMa, Suyapa Portillo, Gerardo Marin, Jay Thomas, Sierra North, CeliaCarter, Desmund Wu, James Tolen and Equality California,Petitioners,v.Mark D. Horton, in his official capacity as State Registrarof Vital Statisticsof the State of California and Director of the California Department of Public Health; Linette Scott, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., in his official capacity asAttorney General for the State of California,Respondents. _____________________________________________________________ 
MOTION BY CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES TOINTERVENE AS RESPONDENT WITH SUPPORTINGMEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
 
ANDDECLARATION OF RANDY THOMASSON IN SUPPORT
 _____________________________________________________________ LIBERTY COUNSELMary E. McAlister CA Bar No. 148570Post Office Box 11108Lynchburg, VA 24506100 Mountain View RdSuite 2775Lynchburg, VA 24502(434) 592-7000 telephone(434) 592-7700 facsimileCounsel for Proposed Intervenor 
 
Motion to Intervene as Real Parties In Interest - Page 2Proposed Intervenor-Respondent Campaign for California Families,hereby moves this Court, pursuant to Rule of Court 8.54, for an order grantingit leave to intervene in this writ action.The motion for leave to intervene is made on the grounds thatCampaign for California Families (the “Campaign”) has direct and immediateinterests in the writ action that are not adequately represented by the parties tothe action. This motion is based on section 387(a) of the Code of CivilProcedure, and is made on the grounds that intervention is appropriate. Thismotion is based on this notice, the supporting Memorandum of Points andAuthorities, Declaration of Randy Thomasson and on any oral anddocumentary evidence duly considered at any hearing of this motion. 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESINTRODUCTION
As Petitioners state, the expression of the people’s will evidenced by passage of the constitutional provisions permitting amendment by initiative “isentitled to the highest respect from the courts of our state.” (Petition for Relief at p. 22). While Petitioners were using that statement to support their contention that Proposition 8 should be classified as a revision instead of anamendment, it suitably summarizes why it is critical that the Campaign be
 
Motion to Intervene as Real Parties In Interest - Page 3 permitted to intervene in this action. Petitioners argue that the effect of Proposition 8 transcends its immediate effect on a particular group (Petitionat p. 16), which also aptly summarizes why the Campaign should be permittedto intervene.Petitioners’ action is about much more than the validity of Proposition8. It is about the people’s right to amend the Constitution by initiative, andwhether that right is going to continue to have any meaning in California.More than 1 million California voters initially exercised that right when theysigned petitions to put Proposition 8 on the ballot. (Secretary of State tally,http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init_sample_1298.pdf (Last visited November 6, 2008)). More than 5.3 million, or 52 percent of, California votersexercised that right when they approved Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008.(
See
California General Election Results, California Secretary of State Website, http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/allprops.htm,(Last visited November  6, 2008)). Among those voters are members of the Campaign, which providededucational materials, support and other information regarding Proposition 8and which supported this amendment and sponsored earlier versions of marriage amendments which did not qualify for the ballot.The Campaign and its members were similarly involved in educationand advocacy for 2000's Proposition 22, in which the people of California

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->