Case: 10-16696 02/03/2011 Page:

R E1 of
c 7E ID:
1V7642122
e D DktEntry: 301
MOLLYc.DWYER.CLERK Gibson,Dunn&CrutcherLLP
GIBSON DUNN u,s.c0tJqToFA#pE#LS
1050ConnecticutAvenue,N.W.
FEB1)2011 Washington,DC20036-5306
TeI202.955.8500
www.gibsondunn.
com
FILED -
= KO bjTE jyAk TheodoreB.Olson
Dired:202.955.8668
February2,2011 Fax:202.520.9575
Tol
son@gi
bsondunn.com
HonorableFrederickK.Ohlrich Cl
ient:T30330.0:601
ClerkoftheCourt
SupremeCourtofCalifornia
350McAllisterStreet
SanFrancisco,CA 94102-4797 lo-llùsù
Re:Perryv.Schwarzenegger,No.S189476
DearMr.Ohlrich:
PursuanttoRule8.548/)(2)oftheCalifomiaRulesofCourt,IoristinM.Pen' y,
SandraB.Stier,PaulT.Katami,andJeffreyJ.Zanillo(t çplaintiffs''
)respectfullysubmitthis
letterinreplytotheletterfiledbyDennisHollingsworth,GailJ.Knight,MartinF.Gutierrez,
MarkA.Jansson,andProtectMarriage.com(collectively,ûû proponents').Proponents
concedethatûçArticle111standingisaquestionoffederallaw''andthatthisCourthasnever
affordedinitiativeproponentstheauthorityunderstatelaw torepresenttheinterestofthe
State.SeeProp.Letterpp.2,3-4.Becauseansweringthecertitiedquestionthuswouldnot
resolvetheissueofproponents'Article1IIstandingandwouldnotclalifyanyunsettled
issuesofCalifomialaw,theCourtshoulddenytherequestforcertitication.
IftheCourtgrantstheNinthCircuit'scertificationrequest,itshouldsetthecasefor
acceleratedbriefingandargument.Inlightoftheirreparableharm thatplaintiffssuffereach
daythatProposition8continuestodenythem therighttoman'y,eachcoul' tthathas
consideredthiscasehasrecognizedtheneedfortheexpeditiousresolutionofplaintiffs'
claims.ThisCourtshoulddothesnme.
TheCertifiedQuestionRaiseslssuesOfFederalLawAndSettledStateLaw
ThatDoNotRequireElucidationByThisCourt.
Asproponentsthemselvesrecognizepwhetherproponents'interestsinthe
constitutionalityofProposition8aresufficientlyCdparticularized''todistinguishthem.from
themillionsofotherCalifomiavoterswhosupportedtheinitiativeisamatteroffederallaw.
SeeProp.Letterp.2(ti
Art
icleI11standingisaquestionoffederal1aw7'
).Indeed,ifastate
court'stindingthataparticularlitigantorclassoflitigantshadasufticientlyttparticularized''
interesttocreatestandingunderstate1awweresufficienttoconferArticlell1standingunder
federallaw,thenfederalstandingwouldnecessarilybeatleastcoextensivewiththestanding
1awoftheStateinwhichthecasdoriginated.Thatisnotthelaw.SeePhillipsPetroleum
Co.v.Shutts(1985)472U.S.797,804(çûstandi
ngtosueinanyArt icle1Ilcourtis,ofcourse,
afederalquestionwhichdoesnotdependontheparty'spriorstandinginstatecourt.'l.

Brussei
sœCentur
yCity.Dall
as@Denver.Dubai.London*LosAngelesœMuni
ch.NewYork-OrangeCounty
Pal
oAlto.Pari
s.SanFrancisco-SàoPaul
o*Slngapore.Washington,D.
C.
 Case: 10-16696 02/03/2011 Page: 2 of 7 ID: 7642122 DktEntry: 301

GIBSON DUNN

SupremeCourtofCalifornia,No.5189476
Febnzary2,2011
Page2

ProponentsreiyonConnerlyv.StatePersonnelBoard(2006)37Ca1.4th1169,1178-
79andCostav.SuperiorCourt(2006)37Ca1.4th986,1007-08fortheunremarkable
propositionthatproponentsofballotinitiativeshaveastate-recognizedinterestinthe
campaignprocessitself.Prop.Letterp.3, 'seealsoConnerly,37Cal.4thatpp.1178-79
(discussingSonomaCo.NuclearFreeZone' 86v.Super.Ct.(1987)189Cal.App.3d167).
Thesedecisionsapplyingstatelaw instatecoul' tareirrelevanttothequestionwhether
proponentspossessArticleIIlstandingtoappealanadversejudgmentinfederalcourt.See
Bakerv.Carr(1962)369U.S.186,204(standinginfederalcourtçt is,ofcolzrse,aquestion
offederallaw').Inanyevent,thosecasesaroseinadifferentposturefromproponents'
pendingappealintheNinthCircuit,whichisachallengetotheconstitutionalityof
Proposition8,ratherthantotheprocessthatplacedtheinitiativeontheballot.
PropcmentsalsoccmcedethatthisCourthasneveraffordedinitiativepzoponentsthe
authorityunderstate1aw torepresenttheinterestoftheState.SeeProp.Letterpp.3-4.ln
fact,itisalreadywell-settledunderCalifornialawthatinitiativeproponentsdonotpossess
theauthoritytorepresenttheState'sinterest-asopposedtotheirowninterest-regardingan
initiative'svalidity.SeelnreMarriageCases(2008)43Cal. 4th757,790-91.And,asthe
NinthCircuitobservedinitscertificationrequest,nothinginStraussv.Horton(2009)
46Cal.4th364suggeststhatproponentshaveeitheraparticularizedinterestinthevalidityof
Proposition8ortheauthoritytoasserttheState'sinterestinitsvalidity.SeqPerryv.
Schwarzenegger(9thCir.Jan.4,2011,No.10-16696) F. 3d (atpp.13-141.In
Strauss,thisCourt(likethedistrictcourthere)merelypermittedproponentstointerveneto
advancetheirtpwninterestinProposition8inaproceedinginwhichtheStatewasalsoa
party;thatdecisiontopermitinterventionhasnobearingonwhetherproponentspossess
ArticlelIIstandingtopursueanappealintheabsenceoftheState.SeeDiamondv.Charles
(1986)476U.S.54,68(t GDinmond'sstatusasanintervenorbelow...doesnotconfer
standingsufficienttokeepthecasealiveintheabsenceoftheStateonthisappeal.').
Karcherv.May(1987)484U.S.72underscoresthisconclusion.lnKarcher,the
UnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthattheSpeakeroftheNew JerseyGeneralAssemblyand
PresidentoftheNew JerseySenatepossessedstandingtopursueanappealbecausethey
wereli authorizegdl''undertlstatelaw...torepresenttheState'sinterests.''Arizonansfor
Of/3cftzfEngli shv.Ari zona(1997)520U.S.43,65(citingKarcher,484U.S.atp.82).Once
thelegislatorslosttheirleadershippostsintheNew JerseyLegislature,however,they
lslackged)authoritytopursueganl...appeal''becauseçtgtlheauthoritytopursuethelawsuit
onbehalfofthelegislaturebelongledjtothosewhosucceededgthem)...inoftice.''
Karcher,484U.S.atpp.77,81.
ThereisnothinginCalifolmia1aw thatauthorizesproponentstorepresenttheinterest
oftheStateinlitigationchallengingtheconstitutionalityofaballotinitiative.Thus,
proponentsareinthesamepositionastheformerlegislativeleadersinKarcher--khzyareno
 Case: 10-16696 02/03/2011 Page: 3 of 7 ID: 7642122 DktEntry: 301

GIBSON DUNN

SupremeCourtofCalifornia,No.5189476
February2,2011
Page3

differentfrom themillionsofotherCalifomiavoterswhosupportedProposition8andwho
lackstandingtorepresenttheState'sinterestinthevalidityoftheinitiative.
Proponentsneverthelesscontendthat,iftheyarenotpennittedtopursueanappealin
thiscase,lûthevalidityofinitiativemeasureswillrestsolelyinthehandsoftheverypublic
ofticialstheinitiativeprocesswasmeanttocontrol,andwhoverywellmaybehostiletothe
initiative.''Prop.Letterp.4.Butproponentshavealreadybeenaffordedtheopportunityto
mountavigorousdefenseofProposition8duringthetwelve-daybenchtrialconductedby
thedistricicourt.Withoutoppositionfrom anyparty,thedistrictcourtpermittedproponents
tointerveneinthatproceedingtodefendProposition8.Thus,thedefenseofProposition8
clearlydidnotûçrestsolelyinthehandsof'theGovernorandtheAttorneyGeneral.
Proponentsforcefullydefendedtheirinitiativeinthedistrictcourt-andlost.
Proponentsnow seektocirctmwentthediscretionthattheCaliforniaConstitutionand
statelaw granttotheGovernorandAttorneyGeneraltodeterminewhethertoappeala
judgmentthathasinvalidatedastateenactment.See,e. g.,Gov.Code,j12511(the
ltAttorneyGeneralhascharge,asattorney,ofa1llegalmattersinwhichtheStateis
interested'
l;Statev.Super.Ct.(1986)184Cal.
App.3d394,397-98.ThisCourthasalready
madeclear,however,thatballotinitiativeproponentsandotherprivatepartieslackthe
authoritytosecond-guessthatdiscretionarydetermination.SeeBeckleyv.Schwarzenegger,
No.5186072(Sept.8,2010).
1l. IfCertificationIsGranted,ExpeditedTreatmentOfThisCaseIsWarranted.
Becausethecertiticationrequestraisesonlyissuesoffederal1awandsettledissuesof
statelaw,certificationwouldneedlesslyprolongthedenialofplaintiffs'constitutionalrights.
IntheeventthattheCourtdecidestogranttheNinthCircuit'srequest,plaintiffsrespectfully
requestthattheCourtexpediteitstreatmentofthiscasetothegreatesteytentpossible.
Aseverycourtconsideringthiscasehasconcluded,expeditedtreatmentiswarrantedbecause '
plaintiffssuffergrievous,irreparablehanneachdaythatProposition8continuestodeny
themtherighttoman' y.SeeDistrictCourtD. E.76atp.9(June30,2009)((&Thejust,speedy
andinexpensivedeterminationoftheseissueswouldappeartocallforproceedingpromptly
totrial.'
l;NinthCircuitD.
E.14atp.2(Aug.16,2010)(sett
ingexpeditedbrietingschedule).
Onadailybasis,plaintiffsaretoldbytheStateofCaliforniathattheyarenotgoodenoughto
enterintothefundnmentalinstitutionofmarriageandthattheirrelationshipsaresomehow
inferiorto,andlessworthythan,thoseofheterosexualindividuals.Thatinvidious
discriminationcalmotbeundoneandinflictsenduringandirremediableharm onplaintiffs.
SeeNelsonv.NASA(9thCir.2008)530F. 3d865,882(çtgclonstitutionalviolationsèannotbe
adequatelyrerilediedthroughdamagesandthereforegenerallyconstituteirreparableharm.
''
).
 Case: 10-16696 02/03/2011 Page: 4 of 7 ID: 7642122 DktEntry: 301

GIBSON DUNN

SupremeCourtofCalifomia,No.5189476
February2,2011
Page4
Accordingly,iftherequestforcertificationisgranted,plaintiffsrespectfullyrequest
thattheCourtsignificantlyexpeditethesejroceedingssothatthiscasecanbereturnedtothe
NinthCircuitattheearliestconceivablepolnt.Theseissueshavealreadybeenthesubjectof
substantialbrietingintheNinthCircuit,andintheparties'letterbriefsbeforethisCourt.ln
lightoftheparties'experienceinproceedinjonanexpeditedbasisthroughoutthiscase,and
inlightofthesettlednatureofthestatelawlssuespresented,thecaseshouldbeexpeditedto
theutmostextentpossible.
Respectfullysubmitted,

VX z - /
Theodore1j.Olson
V-c /*
CounselforPlaintiffs
Case: 10-16696 02/03/2011 Page: 5 of 7 ID: 7642122 DktEntry: 301

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
ldeclarethatInm,andwasatthetimeofservicehereinaftermentioned,at
least18yearsofageandnotapartytotheabove-entitledaction.1am employed
intheCityandCotmtyofSanFrancisco.Mybusinessaddressis555Mission
Street,Suite3000,SanFrancisco,California94105.OnFebl'ual'y2,2011,
1causedtobeservedthefollowingdocuments:
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES'REPLYLETTER REGARDING
THENINTH CIRCUIT'SCERTIFICATIONREQUEST
byplacingatruecopythereofinanenvelopeaddressedtoeachofthepersons
hamedbelow attheaddressshown,inthefollowingmanner:
SEESERVICELISTBELOW
(U BYMAIL:1placedatruecopyinasealedenvelopefordepositinthe
U.S.PostalServicethroughtheregulazmailcollectionprocessatGibson,
Dllnn& CnztcherLLPonthedateindicatedabove.lam familiarwiththe
firm'spracticeforcollectionandprocessingofcorrespondenceformailing
withtheU.S.PostalService.ItisdepositedwiththeU.S.PostalService
withpostageprepaidonthatsamedayintheordinarycourseofbusiness.
Iam awarethatonmotionofapartyserved,serviceispresumedinvalidif
thepostalcancellationdate(jrthepostagemeterdateismorethanoneday
afterthedateofdepositformailinginthedeclaration.
E
W BYEMAIL:Byagreementoftheparties,acopywasemailedtotheemail
addresseslistedbelow.
Counsel AttornevsFor
CharlesJ.Cooper AttorneysforDefendants-
DavidH.Thompson lntervenors-Appellants
HowardC.Nielson,Jr.
PeterA.Patterson
Cooper& Kirk,PLLC
1523NewHampshireAvenue,N.W.
Washington,DC20036
ccooper@cooperkirk.
com
dthompson@cooperkizk.com
Andrew P.Pugno AttorneysforDefendants-
Law OfficesofAndrew P.Pugno Intervenors-Appellants
101ParkshoreDrive,Suite100
Folsom,CA 95630
andrew@pucnolaw.com
 Case: 10-16696 02/03/2011 Page: 6 of 7 ID: 7642122 DktEntry: 301

BrianW.Raum AttorneysforDefendants-
JamçsA.Cnmpbell lntefvenors-Appellants
AllianceDefenseFund
15100North90thStreet
Scottsdale,AZ 85260
braum@telladf.orc
icampbell@telladf.ora
DennisJ.Herrera AttorneysforPlaintiff-lntervenor-
ThereseStewart AppelleeCityandCountyofSan
CluistineVanAken Francisco
SanFranciscoCityAttorney'sOftice
CityHall234
OneDr.CarltonB.GoodlettPlace
SanFrancisco,CA 94102-4682
therese.stewart
@sfs
qov.om
christine.van.
aken@sfgov.
ora
TamarPachter AttorneysforDefendantEdmundG.
DanielPowell Brown,Jr.,inhisofticialcapacityas
DeputyAttolmeyGeneral AttorneyGeneralofCalifoznia
CaliforniaDepadmentofJustice
455GoldenGateAvenue,Suite11000
SanFrancisco,CA 94102
tamar.
pachter@doi.
ca.cov
KennethC.Mennemeier,Jr AttomeysforDefendantsArnold
Andrew W.Stroud Schwarzenegger,inhisofticial
Mennemeier,Glassman& StroudLLP capacityasGovernorofCalifornia;
9809thStreet,Suite1700 MarkB.Horton,inhisofficial
Sacramento,CA95814 capacityasDirectoroftheCalifornia
kcm@mgslaw.com DepartmentofPublicHea1th& State
stroud@mgslaw.
com RegistrarofVitalStatistics'
,and
LinetteScott,inherofficialcapacity
asDeputyDirectorofHea1th
lnfonnatlon& StrategicPlnnningfor
theCaliforniaDepartmentofPublic
Hea1th(thelç
Administration
Defendants''
)
ClaudeFranklinKolm AttorneysforDefendantPatrick
OfficeofCountyCounsel O'Colmell,inhisofficialcapacityas
1221OakStreet,Suite4f0 Clerk-RecorderfortheCotmtyof
Oakland,CA94612-4296 Alameda
claude.kolm@acqov.or:
Case: 10-16696 02/03/2011 Page: 7 of 7 ID: 7642122 DktEntry: 301

JudyW.Whitehurst AttorneysforDefendantDeanC.
PrincipalDeputyCountyCounsel Logan,inhisofticialcapacityas
LosAngelesCountyCounsel Registrar-Recorder/countyClerkfor
648KennethHnhnHallof theCotmtyofLosAngeles
Administration
500WestTempleStreet,61 Floor
LosAngeles,CA 90012-2713
iwhi
tehurst@çousel.
lacounl.gov
OfficeoftheGovernor AtlorneysfortheGovemor
Attn:LegalDepartment EdmtmdG.Brown,Jr.
StateCapitolBuilding
Sacramento,CA 95814
(VIAU.S.MAILONLY)
OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral AttorneysfortheAttorneyGeneral
455GoldenGateAvenue,Suite11000 KamalaD.Harris
SanFrancisco,CA 94102-7004
(VIAU.S.MAILONLY)
Ms.MollyC.Dwyer UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfor
ClerkoftheCourt theNinthCircuit
UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals
fortheNinthCircuit
JamesBrowningCourthouse
957thStreet
SanFrancisco,CA 94103
(VIAU.S.MAILONLY)
1certifyunderpenaltyofperjurythattheforegoingistraeandcorrect,that
theforegoingdocumentts)wereprintedonrecycledpaper,andthatthis
CertificateofServicewasexecutedbymeonFebruary2,2011,atSanFrancisco,
California.
@
L gChiou