Does Recent Prop 8 Ruling Allow An Appeal Of 187?

[Ayatollahgondola]

the California State Supreme Court has issued a ruling that basically allows for the proponents of an initiative to defend its' validity in court when the state's elected constitutional officers refuse to do so.

So the big question of the month is, are the proponents of prop 187 now cleared to defend it in court as well? This could be the real McCoy as far as reviving interest and substance in California's immigration law enforcement movement. The refusal to defend it by then Governor Gray Davis put the measure in permanent suspense, and left us all wondering what may have been. If parts of Arizona's, Alabama's and other state's similar laws have been upheld or at least not halted, surely some parts of 187 would be allowed the same. The legalities concerning the possibilities need immediate exploration. I propose we as those involved, as well as solicit legal opinions in our circles.

An excerpt from the prop 8 ruling that goes to the heart of this question:

We have cautioned that in most instances it may well be an abuse of discretion for a court to fail to permit the official proponents of an initiative to intervene in a judicial proceeding to protect the people‘s right to exercise their initiative power even when one or more government defendants are defending the initiative‘s validity in the proceeding. (See Building Industry Assn., supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 822.) Thus, in an instance — like that identified in the question submitted by the Ninth Circuit — in which the public officials have totally declined to defend the initiative‘s validity at all, we conclude that, in light of the nature and purpose of the initiative process embodied in article II, section 8 of the California Constitution (hereafter article II, section 8) and the unique role of initiative proponents in the constitutional initiative process as recognized by numerous provisions of the Elections Code, it would clearly constitute an abuse of discretion for a court to deny the official proponents of an initiative the opportunity to participate as formal parties in the proceeding, either as interveners or as real parties in interest, in order to assert the people‘s and hence the state‘s interest in the validity of the measure and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure. In other words, because it is essential to the integrity of the initiative process embodied in article II, section 8 that there be someone to assert the state‘s interest in an initiative‘s validity on behalf of the people when the public officials who normally assert that interest decline to do so, and because the official proponents of an initiative (in light of their unique relationship to the initiative measure under art. II, § 8 and the relevant provisions of the Elec. Code) are the most obvious and logical persons to assert the state‘s interest in the initiative‘s validity on behalf of the voters who enacted the measure, we conclude that California law authorizes the official proponents, under such circumstances, to appear in the proceeding to assert the state‘s interest in the initiative‘s validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure. Neither the Governor, the Attorney General, nor any other executive or legislative official has the authority to veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters. It would exalt form over substance to interpret California law in a manner that would permit these public officials to indirectly achieve such a result by denying the official initiative proponents the authority to step in to assert the state‘s interest in the validity of the measure or to appeal a lower court judgment invalidating the measure when those public officials decline to assert that interest or to appeal an adverse judgment.Accordingly, we respond to the question posed by the Ninth Circuit in the affirmative. In a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state‘s interest in the initiative‘s validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so.

For the entire ruling, visit the supreme courts PDF download:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ts/S189476.PDF

[kjmta]

but illegal immigration laws will eventually end up in Supreme Court as we have to many seperate laws due to the federal goverment failure to enforce their own laws. And with Obama back door ammesty its going to be a fight. Thats why STOP AB131 so importent right now. AB131 is a end game to ammesty next.