S189476 77

No. S189476

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTIN M. PERRY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff, Intervenor and Respondent,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., as Governor, etc. et al., Defendants,

DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH et al., Defendants, Intervenors and Appellants.

Question Certified from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The Honorable Stephen R. Reinhardt, Michael Daly Hawkins,
and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges, Presiding
Ninth Circuit Case No. 10-16696

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS’ REPLY TO
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS

DAVID BOIES* THEODORE B. OLSON, SBN 38137

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Counsel of Record
333 Main Street MATTHEW D. MCGILL*
Armonk, NY 10504 AMIR C. TAYRANI, SBN 229609
(914) 749-8200 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
JEREMY M. GOLDMAN, SBN 218888 Washington, D.C. 20036
THEODORE H. UNO, SBN 248603 (202) 955-8500
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900 THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR., SBN 132099
Oakland, CA 94612 CHRISTOPHER D. DUSSEAULT, SBN 177557
(510) 874-1000 ENRIQUE A. MONAGAS, SBN 239087
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
* Pro hac vice 333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 229-7000

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Respondents

Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.........................................................................ii

REPLY TO AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS.......................................................1

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................6

i
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES 
Citizens for Jobs & the Economy v. County of Orange
(2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1311 ....................................................................4
Reycraft v. Lee
(2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1211 ..................................................................5
W. Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink
(9th Cir. 2011) 632 F.3d 472 ...................................................................4

STATUTES 
Code Civ. Proc., § 902.1 ...............................................................................5

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS 
Cal. Const. art. V, § 13 ..................................................................................3
U.S. Const. art. III .................................................................................3, 4, 5

ii
 REPLY TO AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS

Nothing in the amicus curiae briefs filed in support of proponents

alleviates the fundamental flaw in proponents’ effort to defend Proposition

8 on appeal: The California Constitution grants the Attorney General the

exclusive authority to ascertain and articulate the position of the State of

California in the Judiciary and to represent the State’s interest in judicial

proceedings. From a jurisprudential standpoint, the interest of initiative

proponents in the constitutionality of an already-enacted ballot initiative is

indistinguishable from that of any other Californian who supported, and

voted in favor of, the measure. Indeed, the amicus curiae briefs supporting

proponents are most remarkable for what they do not say. None of them

identifies a case in which initiative proponents have been permitted to

represent the interest of the State—as opposed to their own interest—in the

constitutionality of an initiative. Similarly, none of the briefs identifies any

provision of California law that affords initiative proponents a

particularized interest in the constitutionality of a ballot initiative that

distinguishes the proponents from the millions of other Californians who

supported the measure.

Proponents’ amici instead fall back on the same undisguised and

unpersuasive policy arguments—and the same inapposite case citations—as

proponents themselves. They argue, for example, that failing to grant

proponents the right to represent the interest of the State in the

1
constitutionality of Proposition 8 “would undermine the initiative process”

and grant elected officials an “effective veto over initiatives.” Judicial

Watch Br. at p. 2 (capitalization altered); Center for Constitutional

Jurisprudence Br. at p. 12. But, despite the decision of the Attorney

General and Governor that it was not in the interest of the State of

California to defend Proposition 8, the measure was afforded a full-throated

(albeit substantively anemic) defense by proponents themselves during a

twelve-day bench trial. The Attorney General and Governor did not—and

could not—exercise a unilateral veto over Proposition 8, but they have

determined that the interest of California and its citizens is best served by

accepting the thorough, well-grounded, and overwhelmingly persuasive

decision of the trial court striking down Proposition 8 as an unconstitutional

denial to Californians of due process and equal protection. They have

nevertheless enforced and continue to enforce Proposition 8 statewide

without regard to their own views on its wisdom or constitutionality. When

the enforcement of this discriminatory constitutional amendment comes to

an end, it will be because the federal courts have deemed it constitutionally

infirm after a full and fair trial on the merits, not because the Attorney

General or Governor “vetoed” it.

The fact that proponents lack the authority to continue their defense

of Proposition 8 on appeal is a direct result of the decision of the People of

California to afford the Attorney General the authority to represent the

2
State’s interest in litigation (Cal. Const. art. V, § 13), as well as the decision

of the Framers of the United States Constitution to impose certain

limitations on the jurisdiction of federal courts. U.S. Const. art. III. While

the initiative power is undeniably an important constitutional right, it does

not displace the other provisions of the California Constitution—including

those that prescribe the procedures for the representation of the State’s

interest in litigation. See Att’y Gen. Br. at p. 10 (“The Constitution,

statutes, and decisions of this Court lead to the conclusion that proponents

have no right to assert the state’s interest in defending the validity of an

adopted initiative measure . . . .”). The initiative power enables citizens to

initiate legislation and to bring such proposals to fruition, but it does not

displace the vital fundamental authority of the State’s constitutional

officials. And, it certainly cannot in any way modify, diminish, or override

the jurisdictional requirements of Article III.

Like proponents themselves, proponents’ amici attempt to

manufacture Article III standing by emphasizing decisions in which ballot

initiative proponents have been permitted to intervene to defend the

constitutionality of already-enacted initiatives (as proponents were

permitted to do here). See, e.g., Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence Br.

at pp. 15-16. As discussed in plaintiffs’ answering brief, however, none of

those decisions permitted proponents to represent the interest of the State—

as opposed to their own interest in the initiative’s constitutionality.

3
Plaintiffs-Respondents’ Answering Br. at p. 14; see also W. Watersheds

Project v. Kraayenbrink (9th Cir. 2011) 632 F.3d 472, 482 (“An interest

strong enough to permit intervention is not necessarily a sufficient basis to

pursue an appeal abandoned by the other parties.”).

Moreover, none of those decisions affords initiative proponents a

privileged status under state law that distinguishes them from other

supporters of a ballot initiative in a manner sufficient to create a

“particularized” interest for Article III purposes. Like other persons who

have an interest in the validity of a ballot initiative, proponents have been

permitted to intervene in state court litigation when, in the exercise of its

discretion, the court deems intervention appropriate. See, e.g., Citizens for

Jobs & the Economy v. County of Orange (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1311,

1316 & fn.2 (trial court granted intervention by both proponents of a ballot

initiative and other groups that supported the measure). Ballot initiative

proponents are thus no different from other supporters of a ballot initiative

in possessing the ability to intervene in initiative-related litigation where

the trial court deems intervention to be appropriate.

Coincidentally, the California Senate recently rejected a bill that

would have authorized ballot initiative proponents to intervene as of right

in all state court litigation challenging the constitutionality of a ballot

initiative. See Senate Bill 5 (proposing to add § 387.5 to the Civil

Procedure Code, which would have provided that “[t]he proponent of a

4
state initiative statute or constitutional amendment that has been approved

by the voters shall have the right to intervene and participate in any court

action challenging the constitutionality of that initiative statute or

constitutional amendment”), available at http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-

12/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_5_bill_20110412_amended_sen_v98.html.

Accordingly, even if a state legislature could modify state law to grant a

litigant an interest that is sufficiently “particularized” to create Article III

standing—which it plainly cannot (see Plaintiffs-Respondents’ Answering

Br. at p. 19)—the California Legislature has squarely rejected any effort to

afford procedural rights to initiative proponents that are different from

those possessed by every other Californian who supported, donated money

to, and voted for the measure. In contrast, the California Legislature has

granted the Attorney General the “right to intervene and participate in any

appeal taken” from a decision invalidating a state law. Code Civ. Proc.,

§ 902.1 (emphasis added).*

*
The Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence also relies on cases in
which initiative proponents appealed decisions regarding the validity of a
ballot initiative, and asserts that these cases are instructive because “the
relevant California standing rules parallel those applied by the federal
courts under Article III.” Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence Br. at p.
17. In fact, California law is clear that, “[i]n assessing standing, California
courts are not bound by the ‘case or controversy’ requirement of article III
of the United States Constitution.” Reycraft v. Lee (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th
1211, 1217 (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted). In any
event, in none of the cited cases did the court address the initiative
[Footnote continued on next page]

5
 * * *
Proposition 8 was robustly defended in a twelve-day trial. After a

full and fair trial on the merits, a federal court concluded that the measure is

irrational, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. Under the California

Constitution, the Governor and Attorney General-not private

individuals-possess the authority to decide whether Californians should

continue to suffer irreparable constitutional injury during a prolonged

appeal. Proponents lack the authority under state law to displace and

override the considered judgment of these elected officials that Proposition

8 does not warrant further defense.

CONCLUSION

The Court should answer the Certified Question in the negative.

DATED: May 9, 2011 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

By: I~ (3. ~ /~
THEODOREB. OLSON

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Respondents

KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B.
STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI,
AND JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO

[F ootnote continued from previous page]

proponents' standing to appeal. See Plaintiffs-Respondents' Answering Br.
at p. 19.

6
 CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT

Pursuant to Rule 8.204(c)(1), California Rules of Court, the

undersigned hereby certifies that Plaintiffs-Respondents' Reply to Amicus

Curiae Briefs contains 1,340 words, excluding tables and this certificate,

according to the word count generated by the computer program to produce

this brief.

By: -[~a3. c'JkM.. / l&-

THEODORE B. OLSON

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Respondents

KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B.
STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI,
AND JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO

7
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I declare that I am, and was at the time of service hereinafter mentioned, at
least 18 years of age and not a party to the above-entitled action. I am employed
in the City and County of San Francisco. My business address is 555 Mission
Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, California 94105. On May 9, 2011, I caused to
be served the following documents:

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS’ REPLY TO AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS

by placing a true copy thereof in an envelope addressed to each of the persons

named below at the address shown, in the following manner:

SEE SERVICE LIST BELOW

 BY MAIL: I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope for deposit in the

U.S. Postal Service through the regular mail collection process at Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP on the date indicated above. I am familiar with the
firm’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing
with the U.S. Postal Service. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service
with postage prepaid on that same day in the ordinary course of business.
I am aware that on motion of a party served, service is presumed invalid if
the postal cancellation date or the postage meter date is more than one day
after the date of deposit for mailing in the declaration.

 BY EMAIL: By agreement of the parties, a copy was emailed to the email

addresses listed below.

Counsel Attorneys For

Charles J. Cooper Attorneys for Defendants-
David H. Thompson Intervenors-Appellants
Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
Peter A. Patterson
Cooper & Kirk, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
ccooper@cooperkirk.com
dthompson@cooperkirk.com

Andrew P. Pugno Attorneys for Defendants-

Law Offices of Andrew P. Pugno Intervenors-Appellants
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
andrew@pugnolaw.com
Brian W. Raum Attorneys for Defendants-
James A. Campbell Intervenors-Appellants
Alliance Defense Fund
15100 North 90th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
braum@telladf.org
jcampbell@telladf.org

Terry L. Thompson Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor

Law Office of Terry L. Thompson Hak-Shing William Tam
P.O. Box 1346
Alamo, CA 94507
tl_thompson@earthlink.net

Dennis J. Herrera Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor-

Therese Stewart Appellee City and County of San
Christine Van Aken Francisco
San Francisco City Attorney’s Office
City Hall 234
One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4682
therese.stewart@sfgov.org
christine.van.aken@sfgov.org

Tamar Pachter Attorneys for Defendant Edmund G.

Daniel Powell Brown, Jr., in his official capacity as
Deputy Attorney General Attorney General of California
California Department of Justice
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102
tamar.pachter@doj.ca.gov

Kenneth C. Mennemeier, Jr Attorneys for Defendants Arnold

Andrew W. Stroud Schwarzenegger, in his official
Mennemeier, Glassman & Stroud LLP capacity as Governor of California;
980 9th Street, Suite 1700 Mark B. Horton, in his official
Sacramento, CA 95814 capacity as Director of the California
kcm@mgslaw.com Department of Public Health & State
stroud@mgslaw.com Registrar of Vital Statistics; and
Linette Scott, in her official capacity
as Deputy Director of Health
Information & Strategic Planning for
the California Department of Public
Health (the “Administration
Defendants”)
Claude Franklin Kolm Attorneys for Defendant Patrick
Office of County Counsel O’Connell, in his official capacity as
1221 Oak Street, Suite 450 Clerk-Recorder for the County of
Oakland, CA 94612-4296 Alameda
claude.kolm@acgov.org

Judy W. Whitehurst Attorneys for Defendant Dean C.

Principal Deputy County Counsel Logan, in his official capacity as
Los Angeles County Counsel Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for
648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of the County of Los Angeles
Administration
500 West Temple Street, 6th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2713
jwhitehurst@counsel.lacounty.gov

Office of the Governor Attorneys for the Governor

Attn: Legal Department Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
(VIA U.S. MAIL ONLY)

Office of the Attorney General Attorneys for the Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 Kamala D. Harris
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
(VIA U.S. MAIL ONLY)

Ms. Molly C. Dwyer United States Court of Appeals for

Clerk of the Court the Ninth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit
James Browning Courthouse
95 7th Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
(VIA ECF ONLY)

Harold Johnson Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Damien M. Schiff Pacific Legal Foundation, et al.
Pacific Legal Foundation
3900 Lennane Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95834
(VIA U.S. MAIL ONLY)
Cynthia Tobisman Attorneys for Amicus Curiae League
Greines Martin Stein & Richland, LLP of Women Voters of California
5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90036
(VIA U.S. MAIL ONLY)

Eric A. Isaacson Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Coughlin Stoia et al. LLP California Faith for Equality, et al.
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
(VIA U.S. MAIL ONLY)

Miguel A. Marquez Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Office of the County Counsel County of Santa Clara, et al.
70 W. Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
(VIA U.S. MAIL ONLY)

James J. Lynch Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Attorney at Law Margie Reilly
P.O. Box 4144
Sacramento, CA 95821-8802
(VIA U.S. MAIL ONLY)

Laura W. Brill Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Kendall Brill & Klieger, LLP Jon Eisenberg and Laurie Levenson
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite
1725
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(VIA U.S. MAIL ONLY)

David C. Codell Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Caldwell Leslie & Proctor, PC Equality California, National Center
1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600 for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal
Los Angeles, CA 90017 Defense and Education Fund, Inc.
(VIA U.S. MAIL ONLY)

Jon W. Davidson Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Lambda Legal Defense & Education Equality California, National Center
Fund, Inc. for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal
3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300 Defense and Education Fund, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA 90010
(VIA U.S. MAIL ONLY)
Shannon P. Minter Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
National Center for Lesbian Rights Equality California, National Center
870 Market Street, Suite 370 for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal
San Francisco, CA 94102 Defense and Education Fund, Inc.
(VIA U.S. MAIL ONLY)

Julie B. Axelrod Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Judicial Watch, Inc. Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 Third Street, SW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20024
(VIA U.S. MAIL ONLY)

Kevin T. Snider Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Pacific Justice Institute Joshua Beckley
212 Ninth Street, Suite 208
Oakland, CA 94607
(VIA U.S. MAIL ONLY)

John C. Eastman Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Center

Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence for Constitutional Jurisprudence
c/o Chapman University School of Law
One University Drive
Orange, CA 92866
(VIA U.S. MAIL ONLY)

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct,
that the foregoing document(s) were printed on recycled paper, and that this
Certificate of Service was executed by me on May 9, 2011, at San Francisco,
California.

mg ChIOU
 9th Circuit Case Number(s) 10-16696

NOTE: To secure your input, you should print the filled-in form to PDF (File > Print > PDF Printer/Creator).

*********************************************************************************
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
When All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system
on (date) .

I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be
accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.

Signature (use "s/" format)

*********************************************************************************
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
When Not All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system
on (date) .
May 9, 2011
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the appellate
CM/ECF system.

I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered CM/ECF users. I
have mailed the foregoing document by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, or have dispatched it
to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days to the following
non-CM/ECF participants:

Please see attached service list.

Signature (use "s/" format) /s/ Enrique A. Monagas

 SERVICE LIST

Thomas Brejcha Mathew D. Staver

THOMAS MORE SOCIETY LIBERTY COUNSEL
29 S. La Salle Street, Suite 440 1055 Maitland Center Commons
Chicago, IL 60603 2nd Floor
Maitland, FL 32751
Anthony R. Picarello, Jr.
Michael F. Moses Hon. Vaughn Walker
UNITED STATES CATHOLIC c/o PILLSBURY WINTHROP
CONFERENCE SHAW PITTMAN LLP
3211 Fourth Street, N.E. 50 Fremont Street
Washington, DC 20017 San Francisco, CA 94105-2228

Lincoln C. Oliphant Hon. Vaughn Walker

COLUMBUS SCHOOL OF LAW c/o BERKELEY LAW
The Catholic University of America 215 Boalt Hall
3600 John McCormack Road, NE Berkeley, CA 94720-7200
Washington, DC 20064
Thomas R. Burke
Arthur Bailey, Jr. Rochelle L. Wilcox
HAUSFELD LLP DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
44 Montgomery Street 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94111
San Francisco, CA 94104

Anita L. Staver
LIBERTY COUNSEL
P.O. Box 540774
Orlando, FL 32854