Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 8

MOTION to Intervene filed by Proposition 8 Official Proponents, Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, Mark A. Jansson, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal. Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit L, #13 Exhibit M, #14 Exhibit N, #15 Proposed Order, #16 Certificate of Service)(Chandler, Timothy) (Filed on 5/28/2009)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Doc. 8 Att. 5

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document8-6

Filed05/28/09 Page1 of 6

EXHIBIT F

Dockets.Justia.com

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document8-6

Filed05/28/09 Page2 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325) [e-mail] 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] Benjamin W. Bull, (AZ Bar No. 009940) [e-mail] Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)* [e-mail] James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)* [e-mail] 15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO Andrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587)+ [e-mail] 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR PROPOSED INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A. JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL * Pro hac vice application forthcoming + Application for admission forthcoming UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for
DECLARATION OF DAVID BAUER IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS' MOTION TO INTERVENE CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW DECLARATION OF DAVID BAUER IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS' MOTION TO INTERVENE

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document8-6

Filed05/28/09 Page3 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, and PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A. JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, Proposed Intervenors.

DECLARATION OF DAVID BAUER IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS' MOTION TO INTERVENE CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document8-6

Filed05/28/09 Page4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I, David Bauer, declare as follows: 1. I am the Treasurer of the official campaign committee for Proposition 8: ProtectMarriage.com ­ Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal, FPPC ID No. 1302592 (the "Committee"). I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and if called upon to testify, I could, and would, competently testify to those facts. 2. In November 2007, the Official Proponents of Proposition 8 and other members of a broad-based coalition of community leaders asked me to serve as Treasurer of the Committee, and I agreed to do so. 3. On November 27, 2007, I executed and filed with the Secretary of State a "Statement of Organization" for the purpose of creating and registering the Committee as a "primarily formed ballot measure committee" under the California Political Reform Act. 4. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 82047.5(b), the Committee has the legal status of a "primarily formed committee" because the Committee exists primarily to support just one ballot measure--Proposition 8. 5. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 82048.7, the Committee is "sponsored" by California Renewal, a California nonprofit organization. That organization is responsible for setting the policies for soliciting contributions and making expenditures of committee funds. 6. The Official Proponents of Proposition 8 designated the Committee as the official campaign committee responsible for receiving all contributions and making all expenditures in the campaign to qualify Proposition 8 for the ballot and to pass it into law at the November 2008 General Election. 7. As the Treasurer, I monitored the raising and spending of all campaign contributions. The contributions were used to pay for professional signature gathering, campaign personnel, television and radio advertisements, newspaper advertisements, media relations, and all other campaign expenses to promote Proposition 8. In my role as Treasurer, I invested a substantial amount of personal time and effort in promoting the enactment of Proposition 8. 8. Since it was formed, the Committee has received financial contributions from over
DECLARATION OF DAVID BAUER IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS' MOTION TO INTERVENE CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document8-6

Filed05/28/09 Page5 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

83,000 individual donors, the vast majority of which are registered California voters. 9. From these financial supporters, the Committee has received over $39 million in total contributions for the official Proposition 8 campaign. 10. Subject only to the statutory powers and duties reserved exclusively to the Official Proponents, the Committee was directly responsible for all other aspects of the campaign to qualify Proposition 8 for the ballot and enact it into law. 11. In the campaign, the Committee spent over $37 million of its financial resources to (1) collect the required number of petition signatures and (2) campaign in favor of Proposition 8. 12. After the election, the Committee had a surplus of over $1.6 million. 13. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 18680(m)(2), the Committee is expressly authorized to spend these surplus funds for, among other things, "attorney's fees and other costs in connection with litigation where the litigation arises directly out of . . . [t]he enactment, by the initiative process, of any . . . constitutional amendment." 14. After the election, the Committee successfully intervened in three post-election legal challenges to Proposition 8 filed with the California Supreme Court. The petitioners in those cases challenge the legality of Proposition 8 under the California Constitution. On November 19, 2008, the Court permitted the Committee's intervention in those consolidated cases. The name of that consolidated action is Strauss v. Horton, No. S168047. The Committee through its counsel defended Proposition 8 against those legal challenges. On March 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court denied those challenges and upheld Proposition 8. 15. Because of the Committee's statutorily authorized role in providing for the legal defense of Proposition 8, and the Committee's enormous pecuniary investment of over $37 million in the campaign to enact Proposition 8, the Committee has a unique stake, not shared by the general public, in any litigation directly challenging the legality of Proposition 8. 16. The Committee is in jeopardy of suffering a direct, immediate, and individualized loss if the Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs in this case. 17. If the Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs in this case, all efforts and pecuniary investments by the Committee and its 83,000 financial supporters would be nullified.
DECLARATION OF DAVID BAUER IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS' MOTION TO INTERVENE CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document8-6

Filed05/28/09 Page6 of 6