« Ladies Nights? | Main | Eavesdropping on Police? »

September 1, 2010

Petition to Mandate California Governor File an Appeal in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (Proposition 8) Decision

UPDATE: THE PETITION HAS BEEN DENIED.  Brief Order here.

The possibility that the "proponents" of Proposition 8 who participated in the trial but may nevertheless lack standing to appeal has provoked a petition in state court to require the  Governor or the Attorney General to appeal.

490px-Arnold_Schwarzenegger The petition and supporting memorandum in Beckley v. Schwarzenegger, filed in a California state appellate court, seeks an alternative writ of mandamus to compel Governor Schwarzenegger (pictured right) and State Attorney General Jerry Brown to file a notice of appeal by the deadline of September 11, 2010.  

The petition argues that under state law and the state constitution, the defendants have a duty to defend Proposition 8.  The petition argues that defending a law challenged on the basis of its constitutionality is required, unlike the decision whether or not to enforce a law.  The petition also contends that filing a notice of appeal is a "ministerial" duty that cannot be evaded and is subject to a writ of mandamus.

The memorandum argues that the failure to perform the "minimal acts necessary" to ensure jurisdiction in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is tantamount to a "constructive pocket veto" of a constitutional amendment, which "does violence to the State's constitutional form of government."   This, the petition alleges, is "taking on a power which violates the social contract between the people and the governed, memorialized in the Constitution."  (Petition and Memo, at 27). 

RR

September 1, 2010 in Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, State Constitutional Law | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef013486a5f3ec970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Petition to Mandate California Governor File an Appeal in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (Proposition 8) Decision:

Comments

What was the outcome of the petition for writ of mandate? It seems there should be some merit to the petition. Otherwise, an attorney general effectively can veto voter-approved initiatives/constitutional amendments by simply refusing to defend legal challenges to such voter-enacted laws. Is there any precedent in California for an attorney general refusing to advocate on behalf of a statewide voter-approved law?

Posted by: Observer | Dec 6, 2010 6:52:46 PM

The UPDATE at the beginning of the post provides the brief Order denying the writ.

Posted by: RR | Dec 8, 2010 3:42:39 PM

Post a comment