Kristin Perry, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 291

Filed (ECF) Appellee City and County of San Francisco citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 12/28/2010. [7594414] (CV)

Kristin Perry, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al

Doc. 291

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
THERESE M. STEWART CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
Direct Dial: Email: [phone] [e-mail]

Electronically Filed Molly C. Dwyer Clerk of Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit P.O. Box 193939 San Francisco, CA 94119-3939 Re:

December 28, 2010

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. 10-16696 Argued December 6, 2010

Dear Ms. Dwyer: Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(j), appellee and plaintiff-intervenor City and County of San Francisco submits this letter advising the Court of a memorandum opinion issued on December 20, 2010, in LaRoque v. Holder, Civ. Action No. 10-0561 (JDB), U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a copy of which is attached. LaRoque holds that the proponents of a referendum establishing a nonpartisan municipal electoral system lack standing to challenge the United States Attorney General's decision not to preclear the electoral system pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. At pages 20-27, LaRoque offers a thorough discussion of referendum/initiative proponent standing. It rejects proponents' argument that they have standing as quasi-legislators, noting the majority view that initiative proponents do not suffer an Article III injury-in-fact when initiatives they have supported are nullified. Mem. Op. at 24-27 (citing Nolles v. State Comm. for the Reorg. of Sch. Dists. 524 F.3d 892, 989 (8th Cir. 2008) and Providence Baptist Church v. Hillandale Comm., Ltd., 425 F.3d 309, 318 (6th Cir. 2005)). LaRoque demonstrates that the Proposition 8 Proponents are incorrect to claim, as they do at pages 22-24 of their opening brief, that California's laws securing the right to propose and vote for initiatives created in them a particularized interest that is injured by a judicial order invalidating Proposition 8. The Proposition 8 Proponents share the same injury as the referendum proponents in LaRoque and Providence Baptist Church, each of whom had state-created rights to propose initiatives but none of whom had Article III standing when the measures they supported were nullified. Very truly yours, DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney /s/ THERESE M. STEWART Chief Deputy City Attorney

CITY HALL, ROOM 234, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408 RECEPTION: [phone] ·

Dockets.Justia.com