Monday, August 17, 2009

Recent news on the Perry case, scheduled for a hearing on August 19th

On August 19th, Judge Vaugn Walker will hold a case-management hearing in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 3:09-cv-02292, filed May 22, 2009), the federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8. Judge Walker will determine how the case should proceed. He is expected to resolve a dispute among the parties on whether the case warrants a trial of facts about the issues he identified in in his June 30th order. (For more on the dispute, see my earlier posts here and here.) He is also expected to determine whether other parties may intervene. These include not just proposed plaintiff parties that the ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Lamda Legal represent, but also a proposed defendant - the Campaign for California Families - that Liberty Counsel represents. He has ordered counsel on both sides to submit clarifications by noon today. This week I will monitor blogs and the news for posts and articles that I consider interesting.

08/17/09 San Jose Mercury News / ADF Alliance Alert:

Mea culpa. On August 8th, I looked for a Yes on 8 filing by the Alliance Defense Fund in opposition to the intervention motion by Campaign for California Families. The San Jose Mercury clearly indicates that there was a filing, which I just as clearly overlooked. Below you will find what the San Jose Mercury News says about it. Given my attention to this issue, I trust my readers won't mind if I devote a separate post to the relevant filings.
Proposition 8 backers, however, are also trying to keep an anti-gay marriage group, the Campaign for California Families, out of the case. Among other things, they note that the campaign originally "was an outspoken critic" of Proposition 8, undercutting their ability to defend the law.
08/16/09 SF Chronicle:
"[The parties have] more than just a quibble over procedure. If Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker decides against a trial, some issues will be taken off the table, including any examination of the Prop. 8 campaign, its ads and ballot arguments, and the motives of its backers. That could prove to be the critical issue in the case. The plaintiffs hope to prove that Prop. 8, promoted as a measure to preserve traditional marriage, was actually motivated by its backers' moral and religious disapproval of homosexuality. That's not a legitimate basis for a state law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a Colorado case in 1996. [Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620]"
08/16/09 SF Chronicle:

Here you will find a profile of Judge Walker. Reporter Bob Egelko notes that as attorney, Walker represented the "U.S. Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prevented a local group from calling its athletic competition the Gay Olympics."

1 comment:

Unite the Fight! said...

Thanks for your continual coverage on the case. I continue to read your blog which informs my own reporting.

Keep up the great work. I know it takes a lot of time. Believe me, I know.

Commentators, Subjects and Cases