10/26/2009
Judge: Prop 8 Sponsors Must Hand Over Documents Immediately
Backers of California's Proposition 8 must immediately hand over documents to those pursuing them in federal court, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled on Friday:
"The sponsors had sought to keep the documents while challenging the order to turn them over in an appeals court. But in a ruling late Friday, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker
of San Francisco said backers of Proposition 8 had failed to show that
disclosing internal memos and e-mails would violate their freedom of
speech or subject them to harassment. He said they had refused to identify any documents that needed
special protection and noted that he could order their opponents to
keep any sensitive material confidential. 'It simply does not appear likely that (Prop. 8's) proponents will prevail on the merits of their appeal,' Walker said. He said he doubts that a federal appeals court even has jurisdiction to consider the dispute at this early stage of the case....The lawsuit by two same-sex couples, a gay rights organization and
the city of San Francisco contends Prop. 8 violated the U.S.
Constitution's guarantee of equality by discriminating on the basis of
sexual orientation and gender. Walker has scheduled a trial in January. Plaintiffs in the suit said documents from the Yes on 8 campaign
might help them prove that the ballot measure was motivated by anti-gay
bias, which would increase their chances of overturning it."
Posted 1:34 PM EST by Andy Towle in California, David Boies, Gay Marriage, News, Proposition 8, Ted Olson |
Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Post a comment
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Love Judge Walker. He loathes the Prop 8 sponsors.
Posted by: Paul R | Oct 26, 2009 1:55:17 PM
what does impact on this then has justice kennedy's intervention? it seemed highly inappropriate, but i thought that would be the last of this until AFTER the voting.
Posted by: jack | Oct 26, 2009 2:12:39 PM
oops, disregard DOES in the above post, pls.
Posted by: jack | Oct 26, 2009 2:14:31 PM
Wasn't Kennedy's injunction on the R-71 folks in Washington State?
Either way, let's not paint Judge Walker as pro-homo (even if it turns out he is). Let's just paint him as a man who only wishes to uphold Constitutional rights and wrongs.
As far as I'm concerned, that's the much better thing to be.
Posted by: Tommy | Oct 26, 2009 2:17:37 PM
I agree about not painting him 'pro homo', but I'm still a little giddy he did that.
Posted by: Geoff | Oct 26, 2009 2:24:07 PM
Heterosexual-only marriage supporters are motivated by anti-gay bigotry, it's obvious. Heterosexual-only marriage supporters want to take away gay people's constitutional rights by implementing constitutional amendments and place us in a situation where we have to use referendums to get our rights by public (heterosexual) votes. The point is for gay people to be severely disadvantaged.
Posted by: Bill | Oct 26, 2009 2:26:10 PM
The problem lies with the California's Mormon inspired constitution - a poorly concieved document that gave the masses all the power. The state government practically has no authority to do anything.
The legislature needs a 2/3rd majority to even pass a budget. And after the budget is passed, the real fight begins. All tax provisions have to be approved by the voters in a referendum. If the voters reject the tax proposals, as they often do, everyone in Sacramento goes into panic mode because the state won't have enough to pay the bills. Then the whole dysfunctional process starts again several months late. It is an insane system.
Posted by: John | Oct 26, 2009 2:32:13 PM
This has absolutely nothing to do with Kennedy's "intervention," and trust me when I say that given Supreme Court procedure, you should read absolutely positively nothing into the intervention.
This move by Judge Walker is yet another indication that the Olson/Boies lawsuit was the right move at the right time in the right place by and before the right people. We could not have asked for a more appealing set of plaintiffs, more skillful lawyers or a more sympathetic judge. Or, for that matter, a better fact pattern. Proposition 8 is a shitstain on the civil rights history of this country, and every trained lawyer should be able to see it.
Posted by: Pender | Oct 26, 2009 3:37:30 PM
Not so fast, Pender.
There are still plenty of people out there who believe the Olson/Boies suit is heading at warp speed toward a Supreme Court that is nowhere near ready to uphold our civil rights.
NYT: In Battle Over Gay Marriage, Timing May Be Key
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/us/27bar.html?hp
Posted by: 24play | Oct 26, 2009 3:42:45 PM
Note that I never said the judge was pro-homo, and I wouldn't bet one way or the other on such an unpredictable guy. But he does demand legal competence, and for all their resources the Prop 8 side has done nearly everything wrong in front of him. I really don't know what they were (or weren't) thinking. Haha.
Posted by: Paul R | Oct 26, 2009 5:35:29 PM
Most judges aren't swayed by oral arguments at all. They've already made a decision by the time the hearing on a particular matter begins. The lawyers are merely there for political theatre.
Walker's interest in obtaining these documents have been made quite clear since the beginning. He wants to read them. Any argument made to the contrary - no matter how well crafted - will be instantly mocked and ridiculed. That doesn't mean he has made a decision on same-sex marriage. It just means he knows the Prop. 8 people are hiding something from him. And he finds that annoying.
Posted by: John | Oct 26, 2009 8:36:22 PM