Prop. 8 campaign can't hide donors' names

01/30/09 SF Chronicle: "Proposition 8 proponents' complaint that a California campaign-finance disclosure law has led to harassment of same-sex marriage opponents failed to sway a federal judge, who refused Thursday (1/29/09) to throw out the law or shield donors' names."

For the docket and filings in the case, click on this link to ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal et al v. Bowen et al.

The State's Gay Workers Shouldn't Have to Promise to Defend a Document that Excludes Them

01/27/09 San Francisco Daily Journal [subscription required]: M. Katherine Baird Darmer is a Chapman University law professor who recently filed an amicus brief to invalidate Prop. 8. In this opinion article, she contends that Prop. 8, if upheld, would require California public employees who oppose it to "take an oath to a new Constitution that embodies discrimination." Gay and lesbian employees would be "forced to swear to uphold a Constitution that has enshrined second-class citizenship for themselves into the very fabric of the document that they are asked to support."

Equality Summit Interview: NCLR Executive Director Kate Kendell

01/26/09 Towerload.com: "Towleroad correspondent Brad Willis, who filed a report earlier today from Saturday's 'Equality Summit' in Los Angeles, sat down with Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, to discuss Proposition 8, Obama's civil rights agenda, and moving forward in the campaign for marriage equality."

Kendell had this to say about California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard, who voted to deny review of the Prop. 8 litigation except on the question of retroactive application:

"The vote that the Court took where Kennard was a lone voice was a petition asking the Court to take the case to review the validity of Prop 8. Kennard voted not to hear the case, meaning 'Go back to the trial court and start over again if you want to challenge Prop 8.' What does Kennard mean by that, because Kennard was one of the four votes voting to end the exclusion of same sex couples from the right to marry and to hold us to be a suspect class? I think it’s a perilous endeavor to try and figure out what votes like that might mean."

"The New York, Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland Dissenting Justices Understand That 'Same-Sex Marriage' is Not What Same-Sex Couples Are Seeking"

1/27/09 ADF Alliance Alert: This alert provides summarizing excerpts from the law review article by Barbara Cox, 45 Cal. W. L. Rev. 139 (2008).

Brown's Prop. 8 challenge may backfire

1/23/09 Sacramento Bee: This opinion article is by Peter Scheer, a lawyer and journalist, is the executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition. He contends that by reversing his position on Prop. 8, California Attorney General Jerry Brown has failed a fundamental (and quite objectionable) test of the Attorney General's duty. Brown has a duty "to defend California's laws unless they are so plainly invalid that no plausible defense can be offered." But Prop. 8 "is not legally indefensible." In fact, Brown's argument against Prop. 8 represents a "political gambit" that "creates doubts about the fairness of the [California] Supreme Court proceeding, and provides an opening for Proposition 8 supporters to argue that the case has been transformed from a legal to a political contest in which victory goes to the most powerful interest groups." Scheer believes that, under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, the Court may overturn Prop. 8 "without compromising its legitimacy."

Arguments in place as Prop. 8 hearing nears

01/26/09 SF Chronicle: Reporter Bob Egelko summarizes arguments that have been made in briefs by parties and amicus briefs. Former Chief Justice Malcom Lucas said that briefs (including amicus briefs) can show the California Supreme Court the range and importance of public opinion. He reprised a saying by Justice Stanley Mosk - that "we should take wisdom from wherever it comes." But Dennis Maio, a former research attorney for Justice Mosk, said that "the issues are framed by the parties," not by filers of amicus briefs.

California State Bar Meeting Plan Won't Change

01/26/09 The Recorder and 1/26/09 Daily Journal [subscription required]: The California State Bar's Board of Governors has decided not to act on the Beverly Hills Bar Association's request to change the venue of the State Bar's meeting in September. The meeting will take place at at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego. Doug Manchester, owner of Manchester Financial Group, gave the Prop. 8 campaign $125,000. In a letter to State Bar President Holly Fujie, Beverly Hills Bar Association President Nancy Knupfer objected that the meeting "will be held at a location whose ownership — despite supporting the repudiation of basic human rights — would profit from our members."

Lawrence Yee, the State Bar's acting general counsel, and Fujie have determined that Keller v. State Bar of California , 496 U.S. 1, would raise an unacceptable risk of litigation if the State Bar acted on the Beverly Hills Bar Association's request. The Keller Court barred use of membership dues to fund political or ideological activities. According to The Recorder, Yee said that "Proposition 8 is a fairly political issue." And Fujie told the Daily Journal that "the State Bar is not allowed to take any political action. We know that if we took action to move the State Bar meeting, it would result in a lawsuit for sure."

In July 2008, Californians Against Hate called for a boycott of the Manchester Grand Hyatt (and other Manchester hotels) to protest Manchester's contribution. But well before then, in 2004, the State Bar selected the Hyatt for its 2009 meeting. The State Bar has a $500,000 cancellation fee. "If we were to cancel and paid [Manchester] $500,000, he makes more money," Fujie said, "because he'd have the cancellation fee and what he can rent the rooms out for. We line the pockets of this gentleman."

The State Bar also booked the Manchester Grand Hyatt for the annual meeting of the Conference of Delegates of California Bar Associations, which has planned to share the venue with the State Bar. According to executive director Laura Goldin, the Conference's board will consider its options on February 7th. "Our decision will have to include a review of the legal implications of any step we might or might not be able to take," Golden told the Daily Journal. "We might not be able to do anything," despite the Conference's resolution that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.