Now Olson Asks California Supreme Court Not to Interfere

When we last left the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, a federal court had asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether or not Prop 8 proponents have standing to defend the state constitutional amendment. Maura Dolan of the Los Angeles Times has the latest.

An attorney for same-sex couples hoping to overturn Proposition 8 in federal court urged the California Supreme Court on Tuesday to reject a request that it rule on whether initiative sponsors have authority to defend ballot measures.

Interesting that now they don't want the California Supreme Court involved. Do they suspect the court would recognize the standing of the Proposition 8 supporters?

In his letter to the state court, Theodore B. Olson, an attorney for two same-sex couples, said that the question of standing in federal court is a federal constitutional issue, not a state one, and that the California Supreme Court would merely prolong the case by agreeing to answer the 9th Circuit's question.

They want it both ways. Marriage licensing is a state issue, and yet it is in federal court.

Olson also argued that well-established law in California denies initiative sponsors the right to represent the state in litigation.

"It is clear that California law vests the attorney general - not private litigants - with the authority to represent the state's interest in litigation," Olson wrote.

California law also vests the legislature with passing laws. But the people have the initiative process, too. The time to deny standing of the Prop 8 proponents was before the state Supreme Court.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law professor and dean of UC Irvine's law school, said he was not surprised by Olson's argument. Lawyers generally want an issue to be decided by a forum in which they expect to win, Chemerinsky said.

Uh, yeah. Chemerinsky is on Olson's side by the way. Looks like they know the state court would rule in favor of marriage defenders.

If the 9th Circuit determines that backers of Proposition 8 lack standing to appeal, the court would not reach the constitutional questions and the lower court ruling against the marriage ban would be limited to California, legal experts have said.

It's not a marriage ban. Interesting that they've dopped the "gay". So does Olson not want SCOTUS to get involved? But I thought there was this dire, immediate need to have nationwide marriage neutering?

"mightymoose" stuck up for the state constitution repeatedly in the comments.

Loving v Virgina was decided on race alone and assumed the male/female relationship. The circumstances of that case do not apply here.