Eastern District of California Blog

EDCA Court Rules Prop 8 Donors Have No Right To Anonymity

A federal judge says donors to the $40 million campaign that banned same-sex marriage in California aren't entitled to the anonymity that the U.S. Supreme Court has granted to minor parties operating in a hostile climate.

Only organizations like the Socialist Workers Party during the Cold War and the NAACP in the segregated South - "small, persecuted groups whose very existence depended on some manner of anonymity" - have been exempted from laws requiring that members and contributors be disclosed, U.S. District Judge Morrison England said Friday.

He said there is no evidence that the 7 million Californians who voted for Proposition 8 in 2008 could be considered a "fringe organization" with unpopular or unorthodox views, or that leaving donors in the public record would frighten away contributors to future campaigns.

SF Gate, 11/7/11

Ninth Circuit Grants Emergency Stay Blocking Release Of Prop 8 Donor Names

Conservative groups that supported Proposition 8 to deny same-sex marriage rights in California may not have to disclose the names of private donors, with the 9th Circuit granting an emergency stay Monday pending the appeal of a federal judge's ruling.

 . . .

They sought to permanently enjoin all future disclosure requirements, to expunge the records of past contributions, and to invalidate as unconstitutional the $100 contribution threshold.

During arguments in Sacramento, Calif., on Thursday, the conservative organizations claimed that disclosure requirements made concerned citizens into community targets for harassment and more violent reprisals. Their attorneys argued that Yes on 8 supporters should be treated the same as the NAACP's supporters were in the 1960s - exempt from closure requirements out of safety concerns.

U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England disagreed in a bench ruling that said private donors face the same disclosure rules that apply to corporate contributors of ballot-initiative campaigns. A written ruling is expected this week.

On Monday, however, the 9th Circuit granted an emergency stay pending appeal and set an expedited briefing schedule. Briefs are due on Nov. 14 and Nov. 28, and oral argument is slated for an as-yet-undetermined date in the week of Dec. 5 at the circuit's San Francisco courthouse.

Courthouse News, 10/24/11

Sacramento Court Rejects Prop 8 Backers Suit To Block State's Campaign Disclosure Laws

 Supporters of the 2008 ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriage in California have lost a lawsuit that sought to block their past and future campaign finance records from public view.

A federal judge in Sacramento on Thursday ruled against ProtectMarriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage, saying the two groups failed to prove they should be exempted from the state's campaign disclosure laws.

Mollie Lee, a lawyer in the San Francisco City Attorney's office, says U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. ruled from the bench after a brief hearing and plans to issue a written opinion later.

SF Gate, 10/20/11; see also Sac Bee Blog, 10/20/11.  (Photo Judge Morrison England, Jr., McGeorge.edu)

EDCA Bankruptcy Judge Rules Butte Gay Couple Can Proceed As Married Spouses

 
Photo by Marlith, via flickr

In the eyes of the state of California, the Butte County women and 18,000 other same-sex couples who married during a brief window of opportunity in 2008 are entitled to all the joint benefits that go with their status. Four other states and the District of Columbia also recognize gay marriage.

But the federal government does not, leaving thousands of couples in legal limbo.

The landscape is beginning to change, legal specialists said, as couples like the Ziviello-Howells win small victories in court. A bankruptcy judge last month overrode the U.S. Trustee, finding the women were legally married and could go forward with their case as spouses.

"Portions of the federal government's Defense of Marriage Act are crumbling, at least in the lower courts," said Brian K. Landsberg, a distinguished professor and scholar of constitutional law at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law.

The ultimate fate of the federal law, which defines marriage as between "one man and one woman," likely will rest with the U.S. Supreme Court, Landsberg said.

In the meantime, the federal government is sending mixed signals. In February, the Obama administration declared that it no longer would defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. But until the law is struck down or repealed by Congress, federal agencies including the Internal Revenue Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Social Security Administration continue to enforce it.

The Butte County women, who married in Sacramento in 2008 before Proposition 8 banned such unions, are among the first same-sex couples to challenge bankruptcy laws.

Sacramento Bee, 6/13/11

EDCA Court Denies TRO In Trademark Action Over Prop 8 Logo

Not all the Prop 8 action is in the NDCA.  Yesterday, Judge Karlton issued this Order denying a temporary restraining order in a trademark infringement action brought by a pro-Prop 8 group against the Courage Campaign's use of a similar logo at its blog tracking the ongoing Prop 8 trial in federal court in San Francisco, www.prop8trialtracker.com. 

Judge Karlton ruled that the Courage Campaign's Prop 8 Trial Tracker logo is protected under the First Amendment as a lawful parody of the Pro-Prop 8 group's logo and is unlikely to be confused with that group, making the lawsuit's success on the merits unlikely at trial.  See both logos at right.  Here's coverage from the Sacramento Bee and News10.