Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Reading the transcript of today's oral argument, I see that the advocate for the petitioners got exactly thirty-four words into his argument before he was asked to address the jurisdictional issue of standing.

I've asked before:  how can advocates for a public initiative have standing (or, as wiki says, an ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case)?

They are no more aggrieved than any other citizen if Prop 8 gets overturned, and the citizen's interest may be . . . interesting, but it ain't standing.


But I learn that California authorizes the proponents of an initiative to defend it (in the event the state declines) (and since the ballot inititatives are intended to overturn the acts of state and directly substitute the citizen's judgment for the officials).  Which makes perfect sense, except that it still might not satisfy federal standing (a "case or controversy").

This case has more convolutions than Danny DeVito's foreskin. . . .

No comments: