Case: 10-16696 01/24/2011 Page: 1 of 7 ID: 7624058 DktEntry: 298

RMOL
ELYcc.DEWYI VED
ER.CLERK
U.s.
COURTOFAPPEALS
Cooper& Kirk JAh2i2911
Lawyers FILED
AProferx XCKGED
sionalLimitedLiabilityCompany
1323New HampshireAvenue,N.W. DATE S
NITI
AL
CharlesJ.Cooper Washington,D.C.20036 (202)220-9600
ccooperêcooperkirk.com Fax(202)220-9601

FEDERALEXPRESS Ip-lloùnù
January21,2011
OfficeoftheClerk
SupremeCourtofCalifornia
350McAllisterStreet
SanFrancisco,CA94102-4783
Re: Perryv.Schwarzenegger(Holli
ngsworth)
SupremeCourtCaseNo.5189476
TotheHonorableJusticesoftheSupremeCourtofCalifornia:
Introduction
PursuanttoCaliforni
aRuleofCourt8.548(e)(1),Defendant-lntervenor-Appellants
DennisHollingsworth,GailJ.Knight,MartinF.Gutierrez,MarkA.Jansson,and
ProtectMarri
age.
cbm(collectively,lç
proponents''
)submi
tthi
sletterinsupjortoftheUnited
StatesCourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuit'sJanuary4,2011OrderCertlfyingaQuestionto
theSupremeCourtofCalifornia(hereinafter,(Order''
).Proponentsrespectfullyrequestthatthis
CourtaccepttheNinthCircuit'srequest.
Background
ProponentsareofficialproponentsofProposi tion8(nowcodifi edasCal.Const.art.I.,j
7.5)andthepri marilyformedballotmeasurecommitteedesi gnatedbytheofficialproponentsas
theofficialYeson8campaign.ThismatterSd concernsasubjectthatisfamili
artotheSupreme
CourtofCalifornia:''theconstitutionalityofthetraditionaldetinitionofmarriageastheunionof
amanandawoman.Order3.ThisCourthashadseveraloccasionstoconsi derthissubject
underStatelaw,seeStraussv.Horton,207P. 3d48(Cal.2009);InreMarriageCases,183P.3d
384(Cal.2008). ,Lockyerv.C/fy&Count yofsanFranci sco,95P.3d459(Cal.2004),and
Proposition8'sconstitutionalityundertheUnitedStatesConstitutionisnowpendingbeforethe
NinthCircuit,seeOrder5-7(explainingfederalcourtproceedingstodate).AstheNinthCircuit
explai nsinitscertificationrequest,i
tsjurisdictionoverProponents'appealturnsontheanswer
tothequestionofCalifornialawithascertifiedtothisCourt.Seeid.at7-9(explainingwhy
fçgtlhecertifiedquestion...isdispositiveofourveryabili tytohearthiscase''
).
 Case: 10-16696 01/24/2011 Page: 2 of 7 ID: 7624058 DktEntry: 298

SupremeCourtofCalifornia
January2l,20l1
Page2of5
QuestionCertified
WhetherunderArticlell,Section8oftheCaliforniaConstitution,orotherwiseunder
CaliforniaIaw,theofficialproponentsofaninitiativemeasurepossesseitheraparticularized
interestintheinitiative'svalidityortheauthoritytoasserttheState'sinterestintheinitiative's
validity,whichwouldenablethemtodefendtheconstitutionalityoftheinitiativeuponits
adopti onorappealajudgmentinvalidatingtheinitiative,whenthepublicofficialschargedwi
thatdutyrefusetodoso.
th
TheQuestionisProperlyCertified
ThisCourtmaydecideaquestionofCalifornialawontherequestofaUnitedStates
CourtofAppealsifûiltlhedecisioncoulddeterminetheoutcomeofamatterpendinginthe
requestingcourt'andSûltjhereisnocontrollingprecedent.'Cal.R.Ct.8.
548(a).Becausethese
requirementsaremetinthiscase,andbecauseoftheoverridingimportanceoftheissues
presentednotonlytothefutureofmarriageinCaliforniabutalsototheveryintegrityofthe
State'sinitiativeprocess,thisCourtshouldaccepttheNinthCircuit'srequesttoanswerthe
certifiedquestion.
A.
TheNinthCircui tandûçltqhepartiesagreethatProponents'standing andthereforegthe
NinthCircuit's)abilitytodecidethisappeal risesorfallsonwhetherCalifornialawaffords
themtheinterestorauthori tydescribed''inthecertifiedquestion.Order9(quotationmarks
omitt
ed).
Tohavestandingtoappeal,anappellantinfederalcourtSdmustestablishthatthedistrict
court'sjudgmentcauses(it)aconcreteandparticularizedinjurythatisactualorimminentandis
likelytoberedressedbyafavorabledecision.''WesternWatershedsProjectv.Kraayenbrink,
620F. 3d1187,1196(9thCir.2010).AndwhileArti clelIIstandingisaquestionoffederall
aw,
whetherthenecessarypredicatesforstandingareestablishedinaparticularcasemayturnon
StateIaw.Thisissuchacase.
Asaninitialmatter,underfederallawûûaStateclearlyhasalegitimateinterestinthe
continuedenforceabilityofitsown'l aws,Mainev.Taylor,477U. S.131,137(1986),anda
Statethusûçhasstandingtodefendtheconstitutionality''ofthoselawsandtoappealadverse
judgmentsfi ndingthemunconstitutional,Diamondv.Charles,476U.S.54,62(1986).Anda
litigantseekingtoinvokeaState'sinterestindefendingitslawsmusthavetheauthorityunder
Statelawtodoso.
ThisprincipleisdemonstratedbyKarcherv.May,484U. S.72(1987).There,theUnited
StatesSupremeCourtheldthattheSpeakeroftheNewJerseyGeneralAssemblyandthe
PresidentoftheNewJerseySenatehadstandi ngtoappealadistrictcourtjudgmentstriking
 Case: 10-16696 01/24/2011 Page: 3 of 7 ID: 7624058 DktEntry: 298

SupremeCourtofCalifornia
January21,2011
Page3of5
downaNewJerseylaw,inlieuofexecutiveofficialswhodeclinedtodoso,becauseS'understate
law(theyhadauthori
tyqtorepresenttheState'sinterestsin...theCourtofAppeals.
''1d.at82.
Insoholding,theSupremeCourtreliedonInreForsythe,91N. J.141,450A.
2d499(1982),a
decisionbytheNewJerseySupremeCourtaffirminginterventionbytheSpeakerandPresident
todefendthevalidityofastatelaw instatecourtproceedings.Thisprincipleplainlyextendsto
thedeterminationofwhetherProponentshaveauthoritytorepresentCalifornia'sinterestinthe
validityofProposition8.
lnadditiontodeterminingwhohasauthoritytorepresenttheState'sinterests,StateIaw
mayalsoçtcreatenew interests,theinvasicmofwhichmayconferstanding.''Diamond,476U.S.
at65n.17.lnotherwords,theexistenceofadtconcreteandparticularized''interestthatisa
necessarypredicateforfederalcourtstandingmayturnonStatelaw,andatissueinthiscaseis
whetherCalifornialaw vestssuchaninterestininitiativeproponentsindefendingthevalidityof
themeasurestheysponsor.
B.
ThisCourt'sprecedentgoesalongwaytowardansweringtheisstlespresentedbythe
certifiedquestionintheaffirmative.
WithrespecttoProponents'authoritytoasserttheState'sinterestinProposition8's
validity,thisCourt'sdecisionpermittingProponentstointervenetodefendProposition8in
Straussv.Horton,207P.3d48(Cal.2009),isatleasthi ghlyprobative,ifnotdispositive.Seeid.
at69.Asexplainedabove,aStateSupremeCoul' tdecisionpermittinginterventionisprecisely
thetypeofStatelawtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtlookedtoinKarchertodeterminethatthe
appellantsinthatcasehadûiauthorityunderstatelawtorepresenttheState'sinterests.''484U.S.
at82(ci tingInreForsythe,91N. J.141,144,450A. 2d499,500(1982)).AndwhilethisCourt
didnotexplainwhyitpermittedProponentstointerveneinStrauss,ithaselsewhereexplained
thatitmaybenecessarytopermitproponentstointervenetodefendinitiativestheyhave
sponsoredwhengovernmentofficials(smightnotdosowithvigor''inorderçitoguardthe
people'srighttoexerciseini
tiati
vepower,arightthatmustbejeal
ousl
ydefendedbythecourts.
''
BuildingIndus.Ass'nv.Cit yofcamarillos718P.2d68,75(Cal.l986).
ThisCourthasalsorecognizedthatCalifornialawvestsininitiativeproponentsa
concreteandparticularizedinterestinthevalidityofthemeasurestheysponsor.Under
Californialaw,therighttoSspropose...constitutionalchangesthroughtheinitiativeprocess''isa
(ç
fundamentalright,'Costav.SuperiorCourt,128P. 3d675,686(Cal.2006),whichaffords
proponentsadcspecialinterest''andSsparticularrighttobeprotectedoverandabovetheinterest
heldincommonwiththepublicatlarge,''aninterestthatisksdirectlyaffected''andthusmakes
proponentsSdrealpartiesininterest''whenaninitiativetheyhavesponsoredischallengedin
li
tigation,Connerl
yv.StatePersonnelBd,129P.
3d1,6-7(Cal.2006).
 Case: 10-16696 01/24/2011 Page: 4 of 7 ID: 7624058 DktEntry: 298

SupremeCoul' tofCalifornia
January21,2011
Page4of5
Thisparticularizedinterestisnotextinguishedbyaninitiative'senactmentintolaw,as
demonstratedbyHotelEmployeesdrRestaurantEmployeesInternationalUnionv.Davis,981
P.2d990(Ca1.l999).Inthatcase,petitionerssoughtawri tofmandateinthisCourtall eging
thatarecentlyenactedinitiativestatuteviolatedtheCaliforniaConstitution.Thepetitioners
designatedtheinitiative'sproponentasarealpartyininterest,andtheproponentproceededto
defendtheIaw inthisCourtinlieuoftherespondentStateofficials,whorefusedtodoso,See
id.at995.
lnsum,whilethisCourt'sprecedentcertainlysupportsanaffirmativeanswertothe
certifiedquestion,thisCourthasnotexpresslyaddressedinitiativeproponents'authorityand
interestsunderStatelawwhenatrialcourtinvalidatesaninitiativeandtheinitiative'sproponent
istheonl
ypartyappealingthejudgment.

Thecertifiedquestionisofoverridingimportance,andthisCourtshouldexerciseits
discreti
ontoresol veit.AsthisCourthasS semphasizeldsl...marriageisaninsti tutioninwhi
ch
societyasawholehasavitalinterest.''InreMarriageCases,183P.3dat424.TheNinth
Circuit'sjurisdictiontoreviewthemeritsofthedistrictcourt'sdecisionstrikingdown
Proposition8dependsuponProponents'standingtoappealthatdecision.Surelythemomentous
issueofProposition8'svalidityundertheFederalConstitutionshouldnotbedeterminedbyan
unreviewedtrialcourtdecision.
Furthermore,theimportanceofthequestionpresentedtothisCourtextendsbeyondthe
specificcontextofProposition8totheveryintegrityoftheinitiativeprocessitself.Stg-
flhe
sovereignpeople'sinitiati
vepower''i
s(s
oneofthemostpreci ousrightsof(California's)
democraticprocess,Brosnahanv.Brown,65lP.2d274,277(Cal.1982),andi tlsisonewhich
thecourtsarezealoustopreservetothefullesttenablemeasureofspiritaswellasletter,''
Strauss,207P. 3dat107.lndeed,çslnlootherstateinthenationcarri estheconceptofinitiati
ves
asçwritleninstone'tosuchlengths'asCalifornia.Peoplev.Kell y,222P.3d186,200(Cal.
20l0)(quotationmarksomitted).
Theabilit'
yofinitiativeproponentstodefendincourtthemeasurestheysuccessfully
sponsorisessentialtomaintainingtheintegrityofthepreciousinitiativeright.Otherwise,asthis
casedemonstrates,thevalidityofinitiativemeasureswillrestsolelyinthehandsofthevel' y
publicofficialstheinitiativeprocesswasmeanttocontrol,andwhoverywellmaybehostileto
theinitiative.SurelyStateofficialswhoarenotpermittedtovetoorreverseaninitiativedirectly
shouldnotbeabletoachievethesameresultindirectlybyrefusingtodefendthatinitiativein
court.SeeOrderl1-12.
ThepeopleofCaliforniaareentitledtoaclearanswertothecertifiedquestion.If
initiativeproponentsdohavetheauthoritytodefendincourtthemeasurestheysuccessfully
sponsor asthisCourt'scasessuggest thepeoplecanrestsecureintheknowledgethattheir
 Case: 10-16696 01/24/2011 Page: 5 of 7 ID: 7624058 DktEntry: 298

SupremeCourtofCalifornia
January21,201l
Page5of5
exerciseoftheirpowerofinitiativewillbevigorouslydefendediftheState'selectedofficials
declinetodoso.Aclearanswerthalinitiativeproponentslacksuchauthority,ontheotherhand,
willputthepeopleonnoticethattheymayneedtotakeadditionalactiontosecuretheeffective
defenseofinitiativesfrom legalattack.
Conclusion
Forthesereasons,thisCourtshouldaccepttheNinthCircuit'srequesttoanswerthe
certifiedquestion.

Respectfullysubmitttd,

AndrewP.Pugno
/ .
Charles ooper
LAwOFFICESOFANDREWP.PUGNO DavidH,Thompson
l01ParkshoreDrivc,Suite100 HowardC.Nielson,Jr.
Folsom,California95630 PeterA.Patterson
(916)608-3065;(916)608-3066Fax COOPERANDKIRK,PLLC
l523NewHampshireAve.,N.W.
BrianW.Raum Washington,D,C.20036
JamesA.Campbell (202)220-9600;(202)220-9601Fax
ALLIANCEDEFENSEFUND
15100North90thStreet
Scottsdale,Arizona85260
(480)444-0020)(480)444-0028Fax
AttorneysjbrDe#ndant-lntervenor-AppellantsHollingsworth,Knight,Gutierrez,Jansson,
andProtectMarriage.com
Cc:
UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuit
(CaseNo.10-16696)
CounselofRecord
OfficeofGovclmorEdmundG.Brown
OfficeofAtîorneyGeneralKamalaD.Harris
 Case: 10-16696 01/24/2011 Page: 6 of 7 ID: 7624058 DktEntry: 298

PROOFOFSERVICE
AtthetimeofserviceIwasover18yearsofageandnotapartytothisaction.Mybusiness
addressis1523New HampshireAve,N.W.,Washington.D.C.20036.OnJanuary21,2011,l
served1hefollowingdocument:
LetterinSupportoftheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuit'sJanuary4,2011
OrderCtrtifyingaQuestiontotheSupremeCourtofCalifomia.
Iservedthedocumentsonthepersonorptrsonsbtlow,asfollows:
OffsceoftheClerk TamarPachter
JamesR.BrowningCourthouse DanielPowell
U.S,CourtofAppeals OffictoftheAttorneyGvneral
95SeventhStreet 455GoldenGateAvenue.Suite1l000
SanFrancisco.CA94103-1526 SanFrancisco.CA94102
UnîtedStatesCourtqfAppealsfor AttorneysforDefendantEdmundG.Brown
//1:NinthCircuit
TerryLThompson
ClaudeF.Kolm AttorneyatLaw
OfficeoftheAlamedaCountyCounsel POBox1346
1221OakStreet.Suite450 Alamo,CA94507
Oakland,CA94612
AltorneyforDçjèndanl-lntervenor
AttorseyforDefendantPatrickO'
C.
(
)rl
neP William Tam Hak-shing
JudyWelchWhitthurst DennisJ.Herrera
OfficeoftheCountyCounsel ThereseStewart
500WestTempleStreet,6thFloor VinceChhabria
LosAngeles,CA 90012 MollieMindesLee
OfficeoftheCityAttorney
AttorneyforDe
fendantDeanC.Logan CityHall,Room 234
1Dr,CarltonB,GoodlettPlace
AndrewW.Stroud SanFrancisco,CA 94l02
KennethC.Mennemeier
MenntmtierGlassman& StroudLLP ErinBernstein
9809thStreet//1700 DannyChou
Sacramento,CA 95814 RonaldP.Flynn
ChristineVanAken
AttorneysforDejèndantsArnol
Schwarzenegger,MarkHorton
d OftkeoftheCityAttomey
1390MarketStreet,7thp'
joor
,andLi
nette
Scott SanFrancisco,CA94102
zt
ttorneysforPlainlff-RespondentC7l
,
p
andCbl/n?
.pq
fSanFrancisco
 Case: 10-16696 01/24/2011 Page: 7 of 7 ID: 7624058 DktEntry: 298

OfficeoftheGovernor
OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral
1300ttI''Street c/oStateCapitol,Suite1173
Sacramento,CA 95814 Sacramento,CA95814
OffîceofAtlorneyGeneralKamalaD, OfhceofGovernorEdmundG.Brown
iiarris
TheodoreJ.Boutrous
TheodoreOlson ChristopherDeanDusseault
Matthew McGill TheanoEvangelisKapur
AmirC.Tayrani Gibson,Dunn&Crutcher,LLP
Gibson,Dunn&Crutcher,LLP 333S.GrandAvenue
1050ConnecticutAvev,NW LosAngeles,CA90071
Wmshington,DC20036
TheodoreH.Uno
DavidBoies Boies,Schiller& Flexner,LLP
RosanneC.Baxter 2435HollywoodBoulevard
Boies,Schilltr,& Flexner,LLP Hollywood.FL33020
333MainStreet
Armonk,NY 10504 JoshualrwinSchiller
RichardJasonBettan
EthanDouglasDettmer Boies,Schiller& Flexner,LLP
SarahElizabethPiepmeier 575LexingtonAve,,5thFloor
EnriqueAntonioMonagas NewYork,NY 10022
Gibson,Dunn& Crutcher,LLP
555MissionStreet,Suite3000
SanFrancisco,CA94105 AttorneysforPl
aintlftà-RespondentsKri
stin
M Perry,SandraB.Slier,PaulTKatami,
JeremyMichaelGoldman andJé///p.
yJ.Zarri
llo
Boies,Schiller& Flexner,LLP
1999HanisonSt#900
Oakland,CA94612

Thedocumentswereservedbyenclosingthem inanenvelopeorpackageprovidedbyan
overnightdeliverycarrierandaddressedtothepersonsabove. Iplacedtheenvelopeorpackage
forcollectionandovernightdeliveryatanofticeoraregularlyutilizeddropboxoftheovernight
deliverycarrier.
ldeclareunderpenaltyofper
juryunderthelawsoftheStateofCaliforniathattheforegoingis
trueandcorrect,
ExecutedonJanuary21,20I1atWashington,D.C.
%
KelsieHanson