2008 California Proposition 2, Health and food safety
Supporters of Prop 2 note that furnished cages for egg-laying hens have already been developed in Europe, which allow birds to move freely and display natural behaviors. The waste material in these systems is far less concentrated than with battery cages, and the animals are healthier and calmer with a stronger natural immunity to disease.


2008 California Proposition 2, Health and food safety
Opponents of Prop 2 note that a process called "traceback" is conducted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and helps to maintain a safe food supply. The FDA's guidance to its staff for conducting tracebacks has sections entitled "Farm Investigations" and "Egg Processor/Packer Investigations," which contain detailed protocols explaining who goes on the farm, how the investigation is carried out, biosecurity procedures and other important steps to ensure that should an outbreak from eggs occur, the traceback would successfully reveal the original source. These opponents to Prop 2 say that California already has adequate and exemplary disease control techniques.


2008 California Proposition 2, Economic effects
In July 2008 the University of California, Davis conducted a study through their University of California Agricultural Issues Center (AIC). The study concluded that "the best evidence from a variety of sources suggests that (non-organic) non-cage systems incur costs of production that are at least 20 percent higher than the common cage housing systems". This is due to higher feed costs, higher hen laying mortality, higher direct housing costs, and higher labor costs. The study also estimated that almost the entire California egg industry would relocate to other states during the 5-year adjustment period. The study does not analyze implications for animal welfare. By demonstrating that most egg producers would leave the state, the report estimates that the initiative would not affect how eggs are produced, only where eggs are produced.


2008 California Proposition 2, Economic effects
A study done by Don Bell of the University of California, Riverside estimated that eliminating battery cages for egg-laying hens will result in increased production costs of less than one cent per egg, and a recent economic study co-authored by former California finance director Tim Gage predicted, "Under Prop 2, consumers purchasing conventional eggs will likely see no change in price; consumers preferring California grown eggs could see around a penny per egg increase in cost; while those preferring cage-free eggs will see a drop in cost with a new California provider."


2008 California Proposition 2, Economic effects
According to a May 2008 study by Promar International and commissioned by opponents to Prop. 2, 95% of the California $648 million egg industry and accompanying economic output would be lost by 2015, including equally significant loss of the three and half thousand jobs the egg industry employs. The study also stated that egg production costs would increase by 76%.


2008 California Proposition 2, Animal welfare
Opponents of Proposition 2 claim that California's current regulations ensure sanitary and healthy conditions for egg-laying hens in the care of law-abiding organizations. Proponents of Prop 2 say the best housing environments for farm animals must take into consideration freedom of movement and expression of normal behaviors. The American Veterinary Medical Association supports greater attention to the behavioral needs of farm animals, but has expressed concern that Proposition 2 is not sufficiently comprehensive to ensure that increases in behavioral freedom don't translate into increased risks of injury and disease (i.e., a typical welfare tradeoff). Furthermore, although Proposition 2 offers hens additional space, it doesn't address other behavioral needs such as nesting, foraging, and dust bathing.


2008 California Proposition 2, Animal welfare
A Canadian study completed in 2008 concluded that conventional battery cages could easily be converted into furnished colony cage systems, and asserted that perches increased hen welfare. It went on to say that hens in battery cages did not have significantly higher levels of stress measured by the hormones in blood and fecal matter. The study qualified that finding by stating: "It is possible, however, that these [stress] measures may not be sensitive enough to detect the differences in housing conditions.


2008 California Proposition 2, Animal welfare
It is also possible that the space allocated to each bird in the conventional cages [i.e., the battery cages] in this study may have affected the results as [the battery cage] birds received nearly double the floor space of a commercial bird." The study also concluded that hens in the enriched cages lost feathers because of "wear on furnishings rather than feather pecking."


2008 California Proposition 2, Animal welfare
Egg farmers assert that the egg production methods that the industry has developed are meant to ensure that fundamental components of sound animal care are provided to egg-laying hens: optimal feed, light, air, water, space and sanitation for egg-laying hens. Animal welfare advocates assert that, in order to maximize profits, hens in factory farms are treated like units of production rather than as living beings. The instinctual needs of each hen are denied, and most spend their entire lives indoors in filthy, cramped conditions in immense dark warehouses. Most hens never feel the sun, never walk on grass, and many are never able to turn around without hitting cage bars or another hen.


2008 California Proposition 2, Animal welfare
Approximately 95% of California's egg farmers are part of the UEP certification program, in which, farmers assert, they must place top priority on health, safety, and comfort of their hens and submit to independent United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) audits. Animal welfare advocates, however, assert that UEP certification deceives shoppers by conveying a false message of humane animal care. They say that UEP certification permits routine cruel and inhumane factory farm practices such as intensive confinement in restrictive, barren cages such that the hens cannot perform many of their natural behaviors such as perching, nesting, foraging or even fully stretching their wings.


2008 California Proposition 2, Assertions by proponents
Prop 2's supporters say it is a modest measure that ends the cruel and inhumane confinement of specified animals on factory farms, requiring their living spaces to be big enough for them to turn around, lie down, and fully extend their legs and/or wings. The initiative does not require that they be kept outside of cages or live outdoors. Supporters of proposition 2 say that smaller, local, family farms will have an increased competitive edge over larger factory farms. They say that the agribusiness industry maximizes their own profits by compromising on animal welfare and human health.


2008 California Proposition 2, Assertions by opponents
Prop 2's opponents say that "Proposition 2 is a risky, dangerous and costly measure banning almost all modern egg production in California." They further claim that Proposition 2 jeopardizes food safety and public health, wipes out Californians’ access to locally grown, fresh eggs, and harms consumers by driving up prices at grocery stores and restaurants and creates a dependency on eggs shipped from other states and Mexico.


2008 California Proposition 2, Opponents of Prop 2
Californians for SAFE Food is a coalition of companies and associations. Key endorsements as of October 16, 2008 are:


2008 California Proposition 2, Opponents of Prop 2
Food Safety & Public Health Experts & Veterinarians (titles and affiliations are used for identification purposes only): Alex Ardans, DVM, Former Director University of California Animal Health & Food Safety Laboratory System , Art Bickford, DVM, Former Associate Director, Turlock, University of California Animal Health & Food Safety Laboratory System, Patricia Blanchard, DVM, Branch Chief, Tulare, University of California Animal Health & Food Safety Laboratory System, Bruce R. Charlton, DVM, PhD, Branch Chief, Turlock, University of California Animal Health & Food Safety Laboratory System, Roy Curtiss III, PhD, Director, Center for Infectious Diseases & Vaccinology, Arizona State University, and Craig Reed, DVM, Former Deputy Administrator, Food Safety & Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture among many other experts.


2008 California Proposition 2, Opponents of Prop 2
Labor Unions: California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union, California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, General Teamsters Local Union 386, UNITE HERE, and United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council.


2008 California Proposition 2, Opponents of Prop 2
Newspapers: San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, The Sacramento Bee, The Bakersfield Californian, Orange County Register, The Fresno Bee, The Modesto Bee, Antelope Valley Press, The Press Democrat, Napa Valley Register, Chico Enterprise-Record, Eureka Reporter, Visalia Times-Delta, Long Beach Press-Telegram, Colusa County Sun-Herald, Hollister Free Lance, Redding Record Searchlight, and The Milpitas Post.


2008 California Proposition 2, Opponents of Prop 2
Veterinary & Avian/Poultry Organizations:  American Veterinary Medical Association, American Association of Avian Pathologists, American College of Poultry Veterinarians, Association of California Veterinarians, Association of Veterinarians in Egg Production, Association of Veterinarians in Turkey Production, California chapter of American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists, California Food Animal Veterinary Medical Association, California Poultry Federation, Pacific Egg and Poultry Association, and Poultry Science Association.


2008 California Proposition 2, Opponents of Prop 2
Latino Organizations: California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, Latino Voters League, Mexican American Political Association, and National Latino Congreso.


2008 California Proposition 2, Opponents of Prop 2
African American Organizations & Opinion Leaders: Pastor Amos Brown, Third Baptist Church, The Black American Political Association of California, The California Black Chamber of Commerce, California State Conference of the NAACP, Greater Sacramento Urban League, Los Angeles African American Women's Political Action Committee, Minority Health Institute, Inc., Oakland NAACP Branch, Sacramento NAACP Branch, Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles, Stockton NAACP Branch, Western Regional Council on Educating Black Children, and Youth and College Division of the NAACP.


2008 California Proposition 2, Opponents of Prop 2
Another opponent is animal rights philosopher and law professor, Gary Francione.


2008 California Proposition 2, Legal actions against Prop 2 opponents
The American Egg Board (an egg industry funded promotional group) has been barred by a U.S. District Court Judge from using $3 million allocated to it by the USDA until after the 2008 November election. This ruling came after a lawsuit by supporters of Prop 2 claiming the USDA improperly set aside the $3 million in federal funds into the Egg Board's coffers to oppose Prop 2. The lawsuit asserted that the Egg Board's planned use of the money would be an illegal political use of public funds.


2008 California Proposition 2, Legal actions against Prop 2 opponents
United Egg Producers, the U.S. egg industry's national trade association leading the fight against Prop 2, is currently under a criminal investigation by the United States Justice Department for price-fixing and intentionally driving up the cost of eggs.


2008 California Proposition 2, Campaign donations
A total of $10.6 million was donated to the Yes on 2 campaign, and a total of $8.9 million was donated to the No on 2 campaign.


2008 California Proposition 2, Field Poll results
According to a Field Poll released on July 22, 2008, after hearing a description of Prop 2, 63% of likely California voters polled said they would vote "yes", 24% said "no", and 13% were undecided.


2008 California Proposition 2, Field Poll results
Prop 2 opponents disparaged that poll by noting that few respondents (16 per cent) had been aware of the issue. They also claimed that polling was skewed by the measure's original title, The California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, which was later changed by the attorney general's office to Standards for Confining Farm Animals.


2008 California Proposition 2, Field Poll results
However, results of a more recent poll were quite similar to the first. A 9/25/2008 SurveyUSA poll of likely California voters who have either decided or are leaning towards voting a certain way on Prop 2 gave the following results: "72% Yes, 10% No, 17% still not certain. Support for the proposition is strong among all demographic groups and in all regions of the state."


2008 California Proposition 2, Field Poll results
A Field Poll released on 10/31/2008 showed that there had been "very little change in voters' initial support for Prop 2". The poll found that 60% of likely California voters polled said they would vote "yes", 27% said "no", and 13% were undecided.


2008 California Proposition 2, Election results
More Californians voted for Prop 2 (more than 8 million) than for any other initiative in state history.


2008 California Proposition 2, Accessory bill, AB 1437, covering out-of-state eggs
Proposition 2, itself, does not prohibit out-of-state eggs produced in extreme-confinement conditions from being sold in California. After Proposition 2 passed, California egg farmers were concerned that they would be at a disadvantage when competing against out-of-state egg producers who could underprice them by continuing to practice inhumane treatment of hens. The California egg farmers and animal advocates made common cause to get the legislature to pass a bill to require out-of-state eggs to meet the same requirements that Proposition 2 implemented for in-state eggs. Accordingly, then-Assemblyman Jared Huffman authored AB 1437  The bill passed the legislature and was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on July 6, 2010.


2008 California Proposition 2, Accessory bill, AB 1437, covering out-of-state eggs
Proposition 2 and AB 1437 both took effect on the same day: January 1, 2015. Thus, the combination of the two laws prohibits eggs produced in extreme-confinement conditions from being sold in California, no matter where they were produced.


2008 California Proposition 2, Litigation against Prop 2 or AB 1437
In 2012, William Cramer, an egg farmer in Riverside, California, filed a lawsuit alleging that Prop 2 is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process clause because it lacks details about the exact cage size required to avoid criminal prosecution. Cramer's suit was dismissed by U.S. District Judge John F. Walter of the Central District of California. Cramer appealed his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the Ninth Circuit upheld Prop 2 against Cramer's suit.


2008 California Proposition 2, Litigation against Prop 2 or AB 1437
In 2014, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster filed a lawsuit alleging the law is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause of the US constitution. The states of Nebraska, Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, and Oklahoma joined the case. On October 2, 2014, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the Eastern District of California found that the states lacked standing to pursue their claims on behalf of egg farmers. This case is on appeal.


2008 California Proposition 2, Implementation
On May 6, 2013, the California Department of Food and Agriculture issued regulations stipulating the minimum number of square inches of floorspace per laying hen that shall be deemed to constitute compliance with Prop 2 and AB 1437. The regulations say, in part:  "An enclosure containing nine (9) or more egg-laying hens shall provide a minimum of 116 square inches of floor space per bird." Enclosures containing fewer hens must provide a larger number of square inches per hen. The complete specifications are in a table in this document:


2008 California Proposition 3
Proposition 3 (or the Children's Hospital Bond Act of 2008) is a law that was enacted by California voters by means of the initiative process. It is a bond issue that authorizes $980 million in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals. The annual payment on the debt authorized by the initiative is approximately $64 million a year. Altogether, the measure would cost about $1.9 billion over 30 years out of California's general fund.


2008 California Proposition 3
The initiative was presented to the Attorney-General's office in July 2007 and the measure was put to a vote as part of the 4 November 2008 state elections. It now forms Part 6.1 of the Health and Safety Code.


2008 California Proposition 3
A smaller, but similar, bond measure for hospitals, Proposition 61, was approved by voters in 2004, totalling $750 million. As of June 1, 2008, about $403 million (just over half the total sum) had been spent.


2008 California Proposition 3, Campaign, Estimate of fiscal impact
The Legislative Analyst estimated that the proposed law would cost about $2 billion over thirty years to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($933 million) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $64 million per year would be required.


2008 California Proposition 3, Campaign, Supporters
The official committee supporting the initiative was called the California Children's Hospital Association Initiative Fund. The campaign to enact the measure was largely supported by hospitals—all donors to the campaign of over $5,000 were such institutions. It was argued that passing the initiative would help provide the hospitals with enough money for greater bed capacity and to purchase important equipment as well as the most modern technologies. The Los Angeles Times editorialized in favor. Arno Political Consultants was paid about $1,028,000 to conduct the petition drive that qualified the measure for the ballot.


2008 California Proposition 3, Campaign, Opponents
The National Tax Limitation Committee, chaired by Lew Uhler, was the official committee opposed to the measure. The Appeal-Democrat and the Pasadena Star News editorialized against the measure. Against the measure it was argued that


2008 California Proposition 3, Campaign, Polling
A Field Poll taken in mid-September found that only 18% of 830 likely voters surveyed across the state had heard of Proposition 3 prior to being told of it by the survey interviewer.


2008 California Proposition 4
Proposition 4, or the Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative, also known to its supporters as Sarah's Law, was an initiative state constitutional amendment on the 2008 California General Election ballot


2008 California Proposition 4
The initiative would prohibit abortion for un-emancipated minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.


2008 California Proposition 4
Proposition 4 was rejected by voters on November 4, 2008.


2008 California Proposition 4, Specific provisions
The proposed initiative, if enacted as a constitutional amendment, would:


2008 California Proposition 4, Supporters, Arguments in favor of Prop. 4
Notable arguments that have been made in favor of Prop. 4 include:


2008 California Proposition 4, Supporters, Donors
As of September 27, 2008, the six largest donors to Prop. 4 are:


2008 California Proposition 4, Path to ballot and prior attempts at passage
The signature-gathering drive to qualify the 2008 Parental Notification petition for the ballot was conducted by petition management firm Bader & Associates, Inc. at a cost of $2,555,000.


2008 California Proposition 4, Path to ballot and prior attempts at passage
Proposition 4 represents the third time that California voters will have considered the issue of a parental notification/waiting period for abortion. The two previous, unsuccessful, initiatives were California Proposition 85 (2006) and California Proposition 73 (2005).


2008 California Proposition 4, Path to ballot and prior attempts at passage
When Prop 73 lost in 2005, some supporters thought that a similar measure would fare better in a general election. However, Prop 85 did worse. Unlike 85 or 73, Proposition 4 allows an adult relative of the minor seeking an abortion to be notified, if the minor's parents are abusive.


2008 California Proposition 4, Path to ballot and prior attempts at passage
Camille Giulio, a spokeswoman for the pro-4 campaign said that the November 2008 election represents a better opportunity for parental notification legislation because:


2008 California Proposition 4, Opposition to Prop. 4
The Campaign for Teen Safety is the official ballot committee against the proposition.


2008 California Proposition 4, Opposition to Prop. 4, Arguments against Prop. 4
Notable arguments that have been made against Prop. 4 include:


2008 California Proposition 4, Opposition to Prop. 4, Consultants
The No on 4 campaign has hired the Dewey Square Group as a consultant.


2008 California Proposition 4, Opposition to Prop. 4, Donors to opposition
As of September 27, some of the top donors to the opposition campaign were:


2008 California Proposition 4, Lawsuit filed over Prop. 4 language
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and others filed a lawsuit with the Sacramento County Superior Court in early August to strike out all references to "Sarah" and "Sarah's Law" and "other misleading language in the voter's guide" for Proposition 4. The title "Sarah's Law" refers to the case of 15-year-old "Sarah" who died as a result of an abortion in 1994. Proposition 4's ballot language in the official voter's guide suggests that "Sarah" might have been saved had her parents known about her abortion.


2008 California Proposition 4, Lawsuit filed over Prop. 4 language
Opponents of Proposition 4 argue that "Sarah" was not considered a minor in Texas, where the abortion was performed, and that she already had a child with a man who claimed to be her common-law husband. If this is the case, the proposed law, Proposition 4, would not have helped her, since it wouldn't have applied to her. Based on this reasoning, opponents asked that the references to Sarah be stricken.


2008 California Proposition 4, Lawsuit filed over Prop. 4 language
Judge Michael Kenny of the Sacramento Superior Court ultimately ruled against the opponents, allowing the original proposed ballot language and arguments, including references to Sarah, to stay in the official California voter's pamphlet.


2008 California Proposition 4, Polling information
The Field Poll has conducted and released the results of four public opinion polls on Proposition 4, in July, August, September, and October.


2008 California Proposition 4, Polling information
Mark DiCamillo, director of the polling agency, said he believes the current version is running stronger because Latinos overwhelmingly favor it and are expected to vote in higher-than-usual numbers in November.


2008 California Proposition 5
California Proposition 5, or the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (or NORA) was an initiated state statute that appeared as a ballot measure on the November 2008 ballot in California. It was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.


2008 California Proposition 5, Provisions of the initiative, Fiscal impact analysis
According to the state of California, the initiative, if it passes, would lead to:


2008 California Proposition 5, Supporters, Argument in favor of Prop 5
Notable arguments that have been made in favor of Prop 5 include:


2008 California Proposition 5, Supporters, Donors to the Prop 5 campaign
As of September 6, 2008, the five largest donors to the "Yes on 5" campaign are:


2008 California Proposition 5, Supporters, Path to ballot
The petition drive conducted to qualify the measure for the fall ballot was conducted by Progressive Campaigns, Inc. at a cost of about $1.762 million.


2008 California Proposition 5, Opposition
People Against the Proposition 5 Deception is the official committee against the proposition.


2008 California Proposition 5, Opposition, Arguments against Prop 5
Notable arguments that have been made against Prop 5 include:


2008 California Proposition 5, Opposition, Donors to no on 5 Campaign
As of October 16, 2008, the ten largest donors for 'No on 5' are:


2008 California Proposition 5, Opposition, Lawsuit to remove from ballot
Opponents of Proposition 5, including thirty-two district attorneys and former California governors Pete Wilson and Gray Davis, petitioned the California Supreme Court to issue a preemptory writ of mandate to remove Proposition 5 from the November ballot. The lawsuit alleges that Proposition 5 attempts to alter the constitution via statute, which is unconstitutional.


2008 California Proposition 5, Opposition, Lawsuit to remove from ballot
The California Supreme Court declined to issue the preemptory writ. Generally, initiatives' constitutionality are not reviewed until after a vote has passed and the initiative becomes law.


2008 California Proposition 6
California Proposition 6, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods Act and The Runner Initiative, is a statutory initiative that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California. This proposition was rejected by voters on November 4 of that year.


2008 California Proposition 6
Proposition 6 would have placed additional penalties on gang related and drug crime.


2008 California Proposition 6, Provisions of Prop 6, Estimated fiscal impact
The California Legislative Analyst's Office has arrived at the following summary of Prop. 6's estimated costs:


2008 California Proposition 6, Provisions of Prop 6, Estimated fiscal impact
Funds to pay for these costs, should Prop. 6 pass, will come from 0.3% of California's general fund.


2008 California Proposition 6, Provisions of Prop 6, Estimated fiscal impact
In the current California state budget, $600 million (0.6%) is set aside to assist with local law enforcement. If the initiative passes, an additional $350 million (0.3%) will be required to enforce some of its provisions.


2008 California Proposition 6, Supporters of Prop. 6
The name of the official campaign committee supporting Proposition 6 is the Committee to Take Back Our Neighborhoods.


2008 California Proposition 6, Supporters of Prop. 6, Path to the ballot
The petition drive to place the measure on the ballot was conducted by National Petition Management, at a cost of $1.022 million.


2008 California Proposition 6, Supporters of Prop. 6, Path to the ballot
Supporters turned in over 750,000 signatures on April 25 to qualify the measure for the November 2008 ballot, and the measure was subsequently approved for the ballot.,


2008 California Proposition 6, Supporters of Prop. 6, Donors who support Prop. 6
As of July 14, 2008, eight of the largest donors to Prop. 6 included:


2008 California Proposition 6, Supporters of Prop. 6, Donors who support Prop. 6
Nicholas, who was arraigned on June 16, 2008 and pleaded not guilty  on charges that included drug use, security fraud and conspiracy and has withdrawn from active support of the initiative, though the campaign has stated they will not return his $1,000,000 contribution. Ironically he is also charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, meaning he himself would receive the tougher penalties of this initiative.


2008 California Proposition 6, Opposition to Prop. 6
The official committee opposing Proposition 6 is known as No on Propositions 6 & 9, Communities for Safe Neighborhoods and Fiscal Responsibility.


2008 California Proposition 6, Opposition to Prop. 6, Donors who oppose Prop. 6
The name of the official campaign committee opposing Prop. 6 is No on Propositions 6 & 9, Communities for Safe Neighborhoods.


2008 California Proposition 6, Opposition to Prop. 6, Donors who oppose Prop. 6
As of September 5, 2008, the five largest donors against Prop. 6 consisted of the Ella Baker Center and four labor unions:


2008 California Proposition 7
California Proposition 7, would have required California utilities to procure half of their power from renewable resources by 2025. In order to make that goal, levels of production of solar, wind and other renewable energy resources would more than quadruple from their current output of 10.9%. It would also require California utilities to increase their purchase of electricity generated from renewable resources by 2% annually to meet Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements of 40% in 2020 and 50% in 2025. Current law AB32 requires an RPS of 20% by 2010.


2008 California Proposition 7
The 42 page measure, 7 pages of which is new law, is an initiated state statute that had qualified for the November 2008 ballot in California, and was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.


2008 California Proposition 7, Provisions in the initiative, Estimated fiscal impact
The California Legislative Analyst's Office, the nonpartisan state agency charged with providing a neutral estimate about the fiscal impact on the state of ballot initiatives and state legislative bills, has arrived at the following summary of Prop. 7's estimated costs:


2008 California Proposition 7, Supporters
The official committee supporting Prop 7 is called Californians for Solar and Clean Energy.


2008 California Proposition 7, Supporters
For the full list of supporters, see: List of Proposition 7 supporters


2008 California Proposition 7, Supporters, Donors who support Prop. 7
The primary financial backer of the initiative is Peter Sperling.


2008 California Proposition 7, Supporters, Donors who support Prop. 7
As of September 18, two donors have contributed $5,000 or more to support Prop. 7 . They are:


2008 California Proposition 7, Supporters, Campaign consultants
Jim Gonzalez, founding partner of the political consulting firm Jim Gonzalez & Associates in Sacramento, is the initiative's chief spokesperson.


2008 California Proposition 7, Opponents
The official committee opposing Prop. 7 is called Californians Against Another Costly Energy Scheme.


2008 California Proposition 7, Opponents, Donors who oppose Prop. 7
As of August 2, three donors are listed as having given $5,000 or more to defeat this initiative. They are:


2008 California Proposition 7, Opponents, Campaign consultants
The opposition coalition as of July 14, 2008 had paid about $175,000 to the campaign consulting firm of Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher.


2008 California Proposition 7, Polling information
A poll released on July 22, 2008 by Field Poll showed Proposition 7 with 63% support and 24% opposition. 82% of those surveyed had no initial awareness of Proposition 7.


2008 California Proposition 7, Path to the ballot
The petition drive to qualify the measure for the ballot was conducted by Progressive Campaigns, Inc. at a cost of $1.367 million.


2008 California Proposition 7, Lawsuits over ballot language
Supporters and opponents of Proposition 7 filed lawsuits in Sacramento Superior Court regarding the wording of ballot arguments that voters will see in the official voter's guide.


2008 California Proposition 7, Lawsuits over ballot language
The lawsuit filed by proponents of Proposition 7 claimed that the opposition’s ballot arguments contained false and misleading statements that should have been deleted. Specifically, proponents sued over the opponents' claim that small renewable providers would be shut out of the market. Noting that there is no language in the measure that states that, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny refused to take sides on the issue.


2008 California Proposition 7, Lawsuits over ballot language
The lawsuit filed by opponents of Proposition 7 wanted the removal of three statements in the voter's guide:


2008 California Proposition 7, Lawsuits over ballot language
The opponent's petition was denied in its entirety, with Judge Kenny stating that the opponents had not sufficiently established that those statements were misleading.


2008 California Proposition 7, Greenwashing
The campaign against Proposition 7 has drawn questions about the ties between Pacific Gas & Electric, Sempra, and Southern Cal Edison, and the main environmental groups that have come out against the measure. Articles from the late nineties and 2000-2001 linking the Natural Resources Defense Council to the passage of electricity deregulation, leading to the energy crisis over which Governor Gray Davis was recalled, have resurfaced, leading some to question the veracity of the environmental opposition., .


2008 California Proposition 7, Greenwashing
Still more question the independence of groups like the CA League of Conservation Voters (CLVC), the Sierra Club, and Acterra, which have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from either the utilities funding the No on Prop 7 campaign or other major energy companies, and have overlapping board memberships with the utilities.


2008 California Proposition 7, Greenwashing
Opponents to Proposition 7 deflect the charge of greenwashing by pointing to the California Green Party's opposition.


2008 California Proposition 8
Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8,  was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage (Proposition 22, 2000) unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.


2008 California Proposition 8
Proposition 8 countermanded the 2008 ruling by adding the same provision as in Proposition 22 to the California Constitution, providing that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", thereby superseding the 2008 ruling.


2008 California Proposition 8
As an amendment, it was ruled constitutional by the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton, in 2009, on the grounds that it "carved out a limited [or 'narrow'] exception to the state equal protection clause"; in his dissent, Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote that exceptions to the equal protection clause could not be made by any majority since its whole purpose was to protect minorities against the will of a majority.


2008 California Proposition 8
Legal challenges to Proposition 8 were presented by opponents quickly after its approval. Following affirmation by the state courts, two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the initiative in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger (later Hollingsworth v. Perry). In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis.


2008 California Proposition 8
The official proponents' justifications for the measure were analyzed in over fifty pages covering eighty findings of fact. The state government supported the ruling and refused to defend the law. The ruling was stayed pending appeal by the proponents of the initiative. On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2–1 decision, reached the same conclusion as the district court, but on narrower grounds. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for California to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, only to take them away shortly after. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court.


2008 California Proposition 8
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on the appeal in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruling that proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing in their own right to defend the resulting law in federal court, either to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The decision left the district court's 2010 ruling intact. On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit, on remand, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dissolved their previous stay of the district court's ruling, enabling Governor Jerry Brown to order same-sex marriages to resume.


2008 California Proposition 8
The passage of Proposition 8 received widespread media coverage over the amendment's effect on the concurrent 2008 presidential and congressional elections, as well as the pre-election effects Proposition 8 had on California's reputation as a historically LGBT-friendly state and the same-sex marriage debate that had started after same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts through a 2004 court decision.


2008 California Proposition 8
After the results were certified and same-sex marriages ceased, supporters of the initiative were targeted by opponents with actions ranging from some opponents publicly shaming supporters by disclosing their names and addresses online and boycotting proponents' businesses and employers to others threatening supporters with murder and vandalizing their homes and property. The actions against supporters of Proposition 8 became the focus after the election due to a full page opinion ad paid for by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appearing in The New York Times. The piece accused the LGBT community of backlash, "mob veto", and urged violence against the supporters to cease. The opinion ad was signed by 13 men who represented various Christian and Jewish groups.


2008 California Proposition 8, Overview
In 2000, the State of California adopted Proposition 22 which, as an ordinary statute, forbade recognition or licensing of same-sex marriages in the state. During February and March 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directed the licensing of same-sex marriages on the basis of the state's equal protection clause, prompted also by recent events including George W. Bush's proposed constitutional ban, a possible legal case by Campaign for California Families (CCF), and a Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruling deeming same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional and permitting them from May 2004.


2008 California Proposition 8, Overview
While only lasting a month before being overruled, this was supported by other cities such as San Jose, gained global attention, and led to the case In re Marriage Cases, in which Proposition 22 was found (San Francisco County Superior Court, March 14, 2005) and confirmed upon appeal (California Supreme Court, May 15, 2008) to be unconstitutional.


2008 California Proposition 8, Overview
Proposition 8 was created by opponents of same-sex marriage prior to the final ruling on In re Marriage Cases as a voter ballot initiative, and voted on at the time of the November 2008 elections. Its wording was precisely the same as Proposition 22, which as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated in 2008, but by re-positioning it as a State constitutional amendment rather than a legislative statute, it was able to circumvent the ruling from In re Marriage Cases. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor (following subsequent legal rulings) did it reverse same-sex marriages that had been performed during the interim period May to November 2008 (i.e. after In re Marriage Cases but before Proposition 8).


2008 California Proposition 8, Overview
Proposition 8 came into immediate effect on November 5, 2008, the day after the elections. Demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities, including couples who had married before then, filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed the existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle). (Justice Carlos R. Moreno dissented that exceptions to the equal protection clause could not be made by any majority since its whole purpose was to protect minorities against the will of a majority.)


2008 California Proposition 8, Overview
Although upheld in State court, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts. In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Walker issued a stay (injunction) against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal. The State of California did not appeal the ruling (with which it had agreed anyway) leaving the initiative proponents and one county to seek an appeal.


2008 California Proposition 8, Overview
On appeal, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled the county had no right of appeal, and asked the California Supreme Court to rule whether the proponents of Prop 8 had the right to appeal (known as "standing") if the State did not do so. The California Supreme Court ruled that they did. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the federal district court's decision on February 7, 2012, but the stay remained in place as appeals continued to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in the appeal Hollingsworth v. Perry on March 26, 2013.


2008 California Proposition 8, Overview
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ruled that the Ninth Circuit had erred in allowing the previous appeal, since in line with Article III of the Constitution and many prior cases unanimous on the point, being an initiative proponents is not enough by itself to have federal court standing or appeal a ruling in federal court. This left the original federal district court ruling against Proposition 8 as the final outcome, and same sex marriages resumed almost immediately afterwards.


2008 California Proposition 8, History of the ballot initiative
Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; originally titled the "California Marriage Protection Act") was a California ballot proposition that changed the California Constitution to add a new section 7.5 to Article I, which reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This change restricted the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry, thereby overriding portions of the ruling of In re Marriage Cases by "carving out an exception to the preexisting scope of the privacy and due process clauses" of the state constitution.


2008 California Proposition 8, History of the ballot initiative
To qualify for the ballot, Proposition 8 needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 general election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures, and on June 2, 2008, the initiative qualified for the November 4, 2008 election ballot through the random sample signature check.


2008 California Proposition 8, History of the ballot initiative, Full text
Proposition 8 consisted of two sections. Its full text was:


2008 California Proposition 8, History of the ballot initiative, Full text
SECTION 2. Article I, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:


2008 California Proposition 8, History of the ballot initiative, Pre-election legal challenges, Petition to remove proposition from ballot
On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot. The petition asserted the proposition should not be on the ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. Opponents also argued that the petitions circulated to qualify the measure for the ballot inaccurately summarized its effect. The court denied the petition without comment. As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure's substantive validity.


2008 California Proposition 8, History of the ballot initiative, Pre-election legal challenges, Petition to remove proposition from ballot
The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision was ruled on by the California Supreme Court on May 26, 2009, and found that it was not a revision and therefore would be upheld. They also declared that the same-sex marriages performed prior to the passing of Prop 8 would remain valid.


2008 California Proposition 8, History of the ballot initiative, Pre-election legal challenges, Challenge to title and summary
The measure was titled: "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." The ballot summary read that the measure "changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California."


2008 California Proposition 8, History of the ballot initiative, Pre-election legal challenges, Challenge to title and summary
Proponents of the measure objected to the wording of the ballot title and summary on the grounds that they were argumentative and prejudicial. The resulting legal petition Jansson v. Bowen was dismissed August 7, 2008, by California Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley, who ruled that "the title and summary includes an essentially verbatim recital of the text of the measure itself", and that the change was valid because the measure did, in fact, eliminate a right upheld by the California Supreme Court.


2008 California Proposition 8, History of the ballot initiative, Pre-election legal challenges, Challenge to title and summary
California Attorney General Jerry Brown explained that the changes were required to more "accurately reflect the measure" in light of the California Supreme Court's intervening In re Marriage Cases decision.


2008 California Proposition 8, History of the ballot initiative, Pre-election legal challenges, Challenge to title and summary
On July 22, 2008, Proposition 8 supporters mounted a legal challenge to the revised ballot title and summary, contending that Attorney General Brown inserted "language [...] so inflammatory that it will unduly prejudice voters against the measure". Supporters claimed that research showed that an attorney general had never used an active verb like "eliminates" in the title of a ballot measure in the past fifty years in which ballot measures have been used. Representatives of the attorney general produced twelve examples of ballot measures using the word "eliminates" and vouched for the neutrality and accuracy of the ballot language.


2008 California Proposition 8, History of the ballot initiative, Pre-election legal challenges, Challenge to title and summary
On August 8, 2008, the California Superior Court turned down the legal challenge, affirming the new title and summary, stating, "the title and summary is not false or misleading because it states that Proposition 8 would 'eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry' in California." The Superior Court based their decision on the previous Marriages Cases ruling in which the California Supreme Court held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution. That same day, proponents of Prop. 8 filed an emergency appeal with the state appeals court. The Court of Appeal denied their petition later that day and supporters did not seek a review by the Supreme Court of California. The deadline for court action on the wording of ballot summaries and arguments in the voter pamphlet was August 11, 2008.


2008 California Proposition 8, History of the ballot initiative, Pre-election legal challenges, Challenge to title and summary
While turning down the challenge to the title and summary, the California Superior Court also found that the Yes on 8 campaign had overstated its ballot argument on the measure's impact on public schools and ordered a minor change in wording. The original arguments included a claim that the Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage requires teachers to tell their students, as young as kindergarten age, that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage. The court said the Yes on 8 argument was false because instruction on marriage is not required and parents can withdraw their children. The court said the ballot argument could be preserved by rewording it to state that teachers "may" or "could" be required to tell children there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Campaign funding and spending
The pro- and anti-Prop 8 campaigns spent a combined $106 million on the campaign. This was not the most expensive California ballot proposition that year, however; the 2008 campaigns for and against Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97, dealing with the expansion of Native American gambling, surpassed Prop 8, with combined expenditures of $172 million.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Campaign funding and spending
By election day, volunteers on both sides spent thousands of hours getting their messages across to the state's 17.3 million registered voters. The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.0 million ($11.3 million or 29.1% from outside California) and $44.1 million ($13.2 million or 30.0% from outside California), respectively, from over 64,000 people in all 50 states and more than 20 foreign countries, setting a new record nationally for a social policy initiative and more than for every other race in the country in spending except the presidential contest.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Campaign funding and spending
Contributions were much greater than those of previous same-sex marriage initiatives. Between 2004 and 2006, 22 such measures were on ballots around the country, and donations to all of them combined totaled $31.4 million, according to the nonpartisan National Institute on Money in State Politics. A ProtectMarriage.com spokeswoman estimated that 36 companies which had previously contributed to Equality California were targeted to receive a letter requesting similar donations to ProtectMarriage.com.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Campaign funding and spending
The California Fair Political Practices Commission fined the LDS Church in 2010 for failing to follow campaign disclosure policies during the last two weeks leading up to the election, which amounted to $37,000 in non-monetary contributions. They were fined $5,538.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Campaign funding and spending
Both proponents and opponents of Proposition 8 made significant use of online tactics for campaigning. For example, over 800 videos were posted on YouTube, most consisting of original content and most taking a position against the Proposition. A greater proportion of 'Yes on 8' videos were scripted and professionally produced. Many 'No on 8' videos recorded demonstrations in the aftermath of the election.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Proponents
Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gay people "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else".


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Proponents
The ProtectMarriage.com organization sponsored the initiative that placed Proposition 8 on the ballot and continues to support the measure. The measure also attracted the support of a number of political figures and religious organizations.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Proponents, Political figures
Republican presidential nominee and U.S. Senator John McCain released a statement of support for the proposed constitutional amendment. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich released a video in support. Both characterized the court ruling requiring recognition of same sex marriage as being against the will of the people. A political action committee run by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who personally supported the proposition, donated $10,000 to the National Organization for Marriage during their campaign for the proposition.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Proponents, Religious organizations
The Roman Catholic Church, as well as a Roman Catholic lay fraternal organization, the Knights of Columbus, firmly supported the measure. The bishops of the California Catholic Conference released a statement supporting the proposition, a position met with mixed reactions among church members, including clergy.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Proponents, Religious organizations
George Hugh Niederauer as Archbishop of San Francisco campaigned in 2008 in favor of the Proposition, and claimed to have been instrumental in forging alliances between Catholics and Mormons to support the measure. His successor, Salvatore Cordileone was regarded as instrumental in devising the initiative. Campaign finance records show he personally gave at least $6,000 to back the voter-approved ban and was instrumental in raising $1.5 million to put the proposition on the ballot.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Proponents, Religious organizations
Subsequently, as Cardinal archbishop of San Francisco, he has called publicly for an amendment to the US Constitution as "the only remedy in law against judicial activism" following the number of state same-sex marriage bans struck down by federal judges. He also attended and addressed the audience at the "March for Marriage", a rally opposing marriage for same-sex couples, in Washington, D.C., in June 2014.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Proponents, Religious organizations
In California's 2008 election the Knights of Columbus attracted media attention when they donated more than $1.4 million to Proposition 8. The Order was the largest financial supporter of the successful effort to maintain a legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Proponents, Religious organizations
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), also publicly supported the proposition. The First Presidency of the church announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter intended to be read in every congregation in California. In this letter, church members were encouraged to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time". The church produced and broadcast to its congregations a program describing the support of the Proposition, and describing the timeline it proposes for what it describes as grassroots efforts to support the Proposition.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Proponents, Religious organizations
Local church leaders set organizational and monetary goals for their membership—sometimes quite specific—to fulfill this call. The response of church members to their leadership's appeals to donate money and volunteer time was very supportive, such that Latter-day Saints provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California. LDS members contributed over $20 million, about 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state. ProtectMarriage, the official proponent of Proposition 8, estimates that about half the donations they received came from Mormon sources, and that LDS church members made up somewhere between 80% and 90% of the volunteers for early door-to-door canvassing.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Proponents, Religious organizations
Other religious organizations that supported Proposition 8 include the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Eastern Orthodox Church, a group of Evangelical Christians led by Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson, American Family Association, Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, also endorsed the measure.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Proponents, Others
The Grossmont Union High School District in San Diego County, California, publicly voted on a resolution endorsing Proposition 8. The Governing Board voted 4–0 to endorse the amendment of the California State Constitution.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Proponents, Others
The Asian Heritage Coalition held a rally in support of Proposition 8 in downtown San Diego on October 19, 2008.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Proponents, Others
During the November 2008 election campaign, Porterville's City Council was the only City Council in California that passed a Resolution in favor of Proposition 8.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Proponents, "Whether You Like It or Not" advertisement
In the months leading up to Election Day, Proposition 8 supporters released a commercial featuring San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom stating in a speech regarding same-sex marriage: "This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not." Some observers noted that polls shifted in favor of Proposition 8 following the release of the commercial; this, in turn, led to much speculation about Newsom's unwitting role in the passage of the amendment.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Opponents
Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society", that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone", and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else". They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see Equal Protection Clause).


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Opponents
Equality for All was the lead organization opposed to Proposition 8. They also ran the NoOnProp8.com campaign. As with the measure's proponents, opponents of the measure also included a number of political figures and religious organizations. Some non-partisan organizations and corporations, as well as the editorial boards of many of the state's major newspapers, also opposed the measure.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Opponents, Political figures
Democratic presidential nominee and U.S. Senator Barack Obama stated that while he personally considered marriage to be between a man and woman, and supported civil unions that confer comparable rights rather than gay marriage, he opposed "divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution... the U.S. Constitution or those of other states". Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joseph Biden also opposed the proposition.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Opponents, Political figures
Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that although he opposed and twice vetoed legislative bills that would recognize same-sex marriage in California, he respected and would uphold the court's ruling and oppose the initiative and other attempts to amend the state's constitution. The U.S. House Speaker, California Representative (8th District), Nancy Pelosi along with other members of the California congressional delegation and both of California's U.S. senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, voiced their opposition to Proposition 8.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Opponents, Political figures
Also voicing their opposition were the Lieutenant Governor, State Controller John Chiang, former governor and Attorney General Jerry Brown, 42 of 80 members of the state assembly, half of the state senators, and the mayors of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego: Gavin Newsom, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Jerry Sanders, respectively.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Opponents, Religious organizations
All six Episcopal diocesan bishops in California jointly issued a statement opposing Proposition 8 on September 10, 2008. Southern California's largest collection of rabbis, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, voted to oppose Proposition 8. Other Jewish groups who opposed Proposition 8 include Jewish Mosaic, the American Jewish Committee, Progressive Jewish Alliance, National Council of Jewish Women, and the Anti- Defamation League (ADL). The ADL filed amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court of California, Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Opponents, Religious organizations
Los Angeles Jews were more opposed to Prop 8 than any other religious group or ethnic group in the city. Seventy-eight percent of surveyed Jewish Angelenos voted against the measure while only 8% supported the measure; the remainder declined to respond. The legislative ministry of the Unitarian Universalists opposed Proposition 8, and organized phone banks toward defeating the measure. They saw opposition to the proposition as a civil rights and social justice issue and their actions against it as a continuation of their previous works in civil rights.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Opponents, Religious organizations
In addition, the California Council of Churches urged the "immediate removal of Proposition 8"—saying that it infringes on the freedom of religion for churches who wish to bless same-sex unions.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Opponents, Others
The League of Women Voters of California opposed Proposition 8 because "no person or group should suffer legal, economic or administrative discrimination". Additionally, all but two of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's local chapters in California and NAACP national chairman Julian Bond and President Benjamin Jealous opposed Proposition 8. Amnesty International also condemned Proposition 8, saying that "states should never withhold rights based on minority status".


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Opponents, Others
A coalition of Silicon Valley executives urged a 'No' vote on Proposition 8. Google officially opposed Proposition 8 "as an issue of equality", and its founders donated $140,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple Inc. also opposed Proposition 8 as a "fundamental" civil rights issue, and donated $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Biotech leaders warned of potential damage to the state's $73 billion industry, citing Massachusetts as a top competitor for employees.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Opponents, Others
Many members of the entertainment industry were opposed to Proposition 8. Actor Tom Hanks, a strong supporter of same-sex marriage, was extremely outspoken about his opposition to the bill. Brad Pitt and Steven Spielberg each donated different amounts of money to the opposition campaign "No on 8". In 2010, the documentary film 8: The Mormon Proposition premiered to sell-out audiences at the Sundance Film Festival.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Opponents, Others
The Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education voted unanimously for a resolution to oppose Proposition 8. The California Teachers Association donated one million dollars to fight Proposition 8. Chancellor Robert Birgeneau of UC Berkeley urged a vote against the measure, claiming a likely threat to California's academic competitiveness if Proposition 8 is passed.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Opponents, Newspaper editorials
All ten of the state's largest newspapers editorialized against Proposition 8, including the Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. Other papers to have editorialized in opposition includeThe New York Times, La Opinión (Los Angeles), and The Bakersfield Californian.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Actions against supporters and opponents
After the election, a number of protests were held against the referendum's passing. These included candlelight vigils outside organizations such as LDS churches that promoted the proposition. Rallies against the amendment took place in California and across the country, with participants numbering in thousands.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Actions against supporters and opponents
Boycotts were also a feature of public response to the outcome of the election. LGBT rights groups published lists of donors to the Yes on 8 campaign and organized boycotts of individuals or organizations who had promoted or donated to it. Targets of the boycotts included the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, El Coyote Cafe, California Musical Theatre, and the Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Actions against supporters and opponents
Some supporters of Proposition 8 reported receiving death threats, some of which claimed to be "stemming from Prop 8". Some LDS churches were vandalized with spray paint.


2008 California Proposition 8, Campaign, Actions against supporters and opponents
Fresno-area supporters of gay marriage were also harassed; "No On 8" signs at the Clovis Unitarian Universalist Church were torn up, with Reverend Bryan Jessup alleging that his church experienced vandalism "every night". Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Jay Boyarsky attributed a surge in anti-gay hate crimes, from 3 in 2007 to 14 in 2008, to controversy over Proposition 8.


2008 California Proposition 8, Pre-decision opinion polls
Various opinion polls were conducted to estimate the outcome of the proposition. Those margins with differences less than their margins of error are marked as "n.s. ", meaning not significant (see Statistical significance). Those margins considered statistically significant are indicated with the percentage points and the side favored in the poll, as either "pro" for in favor of the proposition's passage (e.g., 1% pro), or "con" for against its passage (e.g., 1% con).


2008 California Proposition 8, Pre-decision opinion polls
According to the director of the Field Poll, the discrepancy between the pre-election polls and ballot results is because "regular church-goers ... were more prone than other voters to be influenced by last-minute appeals to conform to orthodox church positions when voting on a progressive social issue like same-sex marriage."


2008 California Proposition 8, Results
Amending the California Constitution by voter initiative requires a simple majority to be enacted.


2008 California Proposition 8, Results
Edison/Mitofsky conducted an exit poll on behalf of the National Election Pool which is the only source of data on voter demographics in California in the 2008 election. The statistical trends from the exit poll of 2,240 voters suggested that an array of voters came out both in opposition to and in support of Proposition 8, with no single demographic group making up most of either the Yes or No vote.


2008 California Proposition 8, Results
The National Election Pool poll showed that support for Proposition 8 was strong amongst African American voters, interviewed in the exit poll with 70% in favor, more than any other racial group. Their support was considered crucial to the proposition's passing, since African Americans made up an unusually larger percentage of voters that year, due to the presence of Barack Obama on the ballot. Polls by both the Associated Press and CNN mirrored this data, reporting support among black voters to be at 70% and 75%, respectively. A later study by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), examining the black vote only from five counties within the state, suggested that black support was closer to 58%.


2008 California Proposition 8, Results
Those who described themselves as religious were the strongest supporters of Prop 8. According to the NGLTF study, self-identified Catholics and Protestants supported Prop 8 by measures of 55% and 66%, respectively, while Jews overwhelmingly opposed it, with support at only 17%. Young voters were more likely to have voted against the ballot measure than older voters, while Republicans were more likely to have supported the measure than were Democrats.


2008 California Proposition 8, Post-election events, Immediate response
In California, a constitutional amendment passed by the electorate takes effect the day after the election. On the evening of November 4 the "Yes on 8" campaign issued a statement by Ron Prentice, the chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, saying "The people of California stood up for traditional marriage and reclaimed this great institution." The organizers of the "No on Prop 8" campaign issued a statement on November 6 saying, "Tuesday's vote was deeply disappointing to all who believe in equal treatment under the law." The counties of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Yolo, Kern, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Sonoma, San Diego, San Bernardino, Sacramento, and Tuolumne stopped issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples the day after the election.


2008 California Proposition 8, Post-election events, Immediate response
Following the passage of Proposition 8, mass protests took place across the state. These included protests outside the LDS Church's Los Angeles California Temple in Westwood, Los Angeles; a march through Hollywood that blocked traffic and elicited police intervention; a candlelight vigil in front of the Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center and a large demonstration in front of the state capitol. In San Francisco, thousands gathered in front of the City Hall, along with Mayor Gavin Newsom, to protest the proposition and to perform a candlelight vigil.


2008 California Proposition 8, Post-election events, Fines
Following an audit by the California Franchise Tax Board, the proponents of Proposition 8 are facing a fine of $49,000 for violating California campaign finance disclosure laws, by failing to report $1,169,292 in contributions under the timelines required by state law.


2008 California Proposition 8, Post-election events, Protests
Following the passage of Proposition 8, mass protests took place across the state. These included protests outside a temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood, Los Angeles; a march through Hollywood that blocked traffic and elicited police intervention; and a candlelight vigil in front of the Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center.


2008 California Proposition 8, Post-election events, Protests
On Sunday November 9 an estimated crowd of 4,000 people protested in front of the California State Capitol. In San Francisco, thousands gathered in front of the City Hall to protest the proposition and to perform a candlelit vigil. Speakers who voiced their opinion in opposition of Proposition 8 included state senator Mark Leno and mayor Gavin Newsom.


2008 California Proposition 8, Post-election events, Protests
Outside California, a protest at the headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah was addressed by local gay rights supporters including former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and three gay members of the Utah Legislature: Senator Scott McCoy and Representatives Christine Johnson and Jackie Biskupski. On November 12, 2008, more than 10,000 protesters gathered outside the Manhattan New York Temple to protest the support of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for Proposition 8. On November 15, 2008, tens of thousands of people in cities around the United States participated in rallies to protest the passage of Proposition 8 and to promote the expansion of civil marriage to same-sex couples throughout the nation.


2008 California Proposition 8, Post-election events, Boycotts
The passage of Proposition 8 led to opponents responding by publicly shaming its supporters as bigots and boycotting supporters' businesses and employers. On November 7, 2008, a blogger revealed that Scott Eckern, then Artistic Director of California Musical Theatre, had made a personal donation of $1,000 to the "Yes on 8" campaign. All campaign contributions of $1,000 or more required a name, home and occupation be listed. On November 10, gay artists condemned Eckern and called for a boycott of California Musical Theatre.


2008 California Proposition 8, Post-election events, Boycotts
On November 11, Eckern issued an apology on the online site Playbill stating that a similar donation had been made to a human rights organization that includes gay rights as one of its causes. On November 12, Eckern resigned from California Musical Theatre. Executive producer of the CMT Richard Lewis stated that Eckern was not forced to resign but did so of his own accord.


2008 California Proposition 8, Post-election events, Boycotts
Richard Raddon, Director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, also resigned due to boycotts by the gay community.


2008 California Proposition 8, Post-election events, Boycotts
Protests in California were marred by racial incidents. Due to their support of Proposition 8, reported as high as 70 percent, some African Americans attending events were allegedly subjected to racial epithets and felt threatened. California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass stated she was disturbed by the treatment of African Americans in the aftermath of the passage of the proposition. In reaction to the racial incidents, Evan Wolfson said, "In any fight, there will be people who say things they shouldn't say, but that shouldn't divert attention from what the vast majority are saying against this, that it's a terrible injustice."


2008 California Proposition 8, Post-election events, Media
To protest the passage of Proposition 8, musical theatre composer Marc Shaiman wrote a satiric mini-musical called "Prop 8 — The Musical". The three-minute video was distributed on the internet at FunnyOrDie.com. The cast includes Jack Black (who plays Jesus), Nicole Parker, Neil Patrick Harris, John C. Reilly, Allison Janney, Andy Richter, Maya Rudolph, Margaret Cho, Rashida Jones, Kathy Najimy, Sarah Chalke, Jennifer Lewis, John Hill and other celebrities. It was directed by Adam Shankman. The video satirizes Christian churches that selectively pick and choose biblical doctrines to follow. It received 1.2 million internet hits in its first day, won the 2009 Webby Award category Comedy: Individual Short or Episode, and won a GLAAD media award.


2008 California Proposition 8, Post-election events, Media
In 2010, 8: The Mormon Proposition, a documentary alleging the involvement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the passage of Proposition 8. Written by Reed Cowan and narrated by Dustin Lance Black, the film divided critics over a perceived heavy-handed approach to the church's involvement; it won the 2011 GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Documentary.


2008 California Proposition 8, Post-election events, Media
In 2011, 8, a play re-enacting the proceedings of Perry v. Brown in a condensed manner of documentary theatre, was premiered on Broadway.


2008 California Proposition 8, Controversies about campaign financing and donations
On November 13, 2008, Fred Karger of the group Californians Against Hate filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission that campaign finance reports filed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under-reported its actual Proposition 8 campaign expenses as $2,078.97. Karger charged that the Church's failure to report "non-monetary contributions" placed it in violation of California's Political Reform Act. Church spokesman Scott Trotter denied the charges, saying the church had "fully complied with the reporting requirements" and a "further report will be filed on or before [...the] due date, Jan. 30, 2009."


2008 California Proposition 8, Controversies about campaign financing and donations
In a report filed with the California Secretary of State's office January 30, 2009, the LDS Church reported its non-monetary expenditures as $189,903.58. On January 31, the San Francisco Chronicle stated, "While the deadline for the report, which covers the period from July 1 to Dec. 31, is [February 2], many campaign contributions by major donors and independent committees must be reported within days after they're made."


2008 California Proposition 8, Controversies about campaign financing and donations
The article further stated that the executive director of the FPPC stated that the LDS church was still under investigation, and "In general, however, 'cases like these hinge over what had to be reported and when it had to be reported.' A late report covering disputed filings 'wouldn't remove the obligation to file on time' but would be considered by investigators."


2008 California Proposition 8, Controversies about campaign financing and donations
While many church members had donated directly to the Yes on 8 campaign—some estimates of Mormon giving range as high as $20 million—the church itself had previously reported little direct campaign activity. But in the filing made Friday, the Mormon church reported thousands in travel expenses, such as airline tickets, hotel rooms and car rentals for the campaign. The church also reported $96,849.31 worth of 'compensated staff time'—hours that church employees spent working to pass the same-sex marriage ban.


2008 California Proposition 8, Controversies about campaign financing and donations
In a statement issued February 2, 2009, the LDS Church responded to "erroneous news reports", saying its subsequent disclosure was "in no way prompted by an investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission," that "We believe we have complied with California law," and that the report's filing date met the January 31, 2009 deadline:


2008 California Proposition 8, Controversies about campaign financing and donations
The Church, like other organizations on both sides of the ballot issue, was required to publicly file these donations by the 31 January deadline. The Church has been filing required contribution reports throughout the campaign. Those earlier donations 'initially stated' were filed for specific time periods prior to this last reporting period, as required by law. Other groups are also filing their final contribution reports to meet the same deadline.


2008 California Proposition 8, Controversies about campaign financing and donations
On January 7, 2009, supporters of Proposition 8 filed a federal lawsuit to block public disclosure of their donations. Alleging threats against their lives as well as other forms of harassment, the lawsuit also requested a preliminary injunction that ordered the California Secretary of State to remove information about donations posted on its website. Opponents of Proposition 8 called it "hypocritical" that its supporters would refer to their support of the measure as the "will of the people" while seeking to overturn voter-approved campaign disclosure laws.


2008 California Proposition 8, Controversies about campaign financing and donations
U.S. District Judge Morrison England, Jr. denied that request on January 29; he said that the public had the right to know about donors of political causes, that he did not agree that the plaintiffs had a probability of success in court, and that they had not proven they would suffer "irreparable injury" if he did not grant the preliminary injunction.


2008 California Proposition 8, Litigation, California Supreme Court cases
After the passage of Proposition 8, a number of lawsuits were filed by against the state and state officials with the intent of overturning the measure and arguing that Proposition 8 should not have retroactive effect on existing same-sex marriages. On November 13, 2008, the California Supreme Court asked California Attorney General Jerry Brown for an opinion on whether the Court should accept these cases for review and whether the measure should be suspended while they decide the case. On November 19, the Court accepted three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 but denied the requests to stay its enforcement. The Court asked for final briefs by January 5, 2009. Oral arguments were held on March 5, 2009.


2008 California Proposition 8, Litigation, California Supreme Court cases
On Tuesday May 26 the court ruled that "The Amendment to the State Constitution referred to as Proposition 8 is valid and enforceable from the moment it was passed." The court also held that "Proposition 8 must be understood as creating a limited exception to the state equal protection clause." Justice Moreno in his lone dissenting opinion, argued that such a change to the Constitution should only be implemented "by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons" and not by a simple majority vote.


2008 California Proposition 8, Litigation, California Supreme Court cases
The Court did rule that their decision cannot be applied to retroactively annul marriages that were transacted while the practice was legal in the state of California. Proposition 8 has no retroactive effect. The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously on May 26, 2009, that the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages that had occurred prior to Proposition 8's passage would still be valid and must continue to be recognized in the state, since the amendment does not state explicitly that it would nullify the same-sex marriages performed before it took effect.


2008 California Proposition 8, Litigation, California Supreme Court cases
Later legislation clarified that same-sex couples who married out-of-state within the window of legality would also retain their legal marriage rights. The bill was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on October 11, 2009.


2008 California Proposition 8, Litigation, Federal challenges, Smelt v. United States
Immediately following the passage of Proposition 8, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer filed suit in the Southern Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Orange County. In the case, Smelt v. United States, the couple argued that Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act violated the Equal Protection Clause of the American constitution. The United States Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the case because the "plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions."


2008 California Proposition 8, Litigation, Federal challenges, Smelt v. United States
On July 15, 2009, District Judge Carter dismissed the part of Smelt that challenged Proposition 8, finding that the fact that the plaintiffs were already legally married in California meant they had no standing to challenge Proposition 8. The challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, however, remained intact. The remainder of the case was heard on August 3, 2009, in an Orange County district court. The lawsuit was thrown out because the two men had filed suit against the federal government in a state court, a technicality which meant the suit needed to be re-filed.


2008 California Proposition 8, Litigation, Federal challenges, Perry v. Schwarzenegger
On the day of Strauss v. Horton's decision, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the validity of Proposition 8. Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights have since announced their support for the lawsuit. San Francisco filed a motion to and was granted intervenor status in the case, saying that their work in In re Marriage Cases and Strauss v. Horton provided them with "extensive evidence and proposed findings on strict scrutiny factors and factual rebuttals to long claimed justifications for marriage discrimination".


2008 California Proposition 8, Litigation, Federal challenges, Perry v. Schwarzenegger
California Attorney General, and former and later again Governor Jerry Brown backed the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger took a more neutral path, saying that he supported the lawsuit because the Proposition 8 conflict asks "important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination." Because this means that the Californian government will not defend the law in court, the proponents of Proposition 8's campaign were granted the right to intervene as defendants. The case was first heard on July 2, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, Judge Vaughn R. Walker presiding.


2008 California Proposition 8, Litigation, Federal challenges, Perry v. Schwarzenegger
In an act unprecedented in California history both the Governor and Attorney General refused to defend a constitutional amendment.


2008 California Proposition 8, Litigation, Federal challenges, Perry v. Schwarzenegger
In August, Judge Walker heard further requests for intervenor status and ordered a trial set for January 2010. On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional, but at the same time temporarily provided for a suspension of the ruling while he considered whether to grant an indefinite suspension pending appeal. Walker lifted the stay on August 12, 2010, thus allowing same-sex marriages to be performed as of August 18, 2010


2008 California Proposition 8, Litigation, Federal challenges, Perry v. Schwarzenegger
On August 16, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit imposed a stay of all new same-sex marriages in the State of California. It also scheduled an accelerated time table for hearing an appeal of Judge Walker's ruling. Before the appeal trial begins, there will be a December 6, 2010 hearing on who has legal standing to appeal the District Court's decision and whether the proposition violates equal protection rights.


2008 California Proposition 8, Ballot repeal effort
On April 30, 2009, the members of 'Yes! on Equality' submitted a ballot initiative dubbed "California Marriage Equality Act" to the Attorney General's office, requesting a title and summary. The text of the ballot would repeal Article I; Section 7.5 of the Californian Constitution as well as clarifying that no school curriculum will be changed and no clergy will be forced to perform any "service or duty incongruent with their faith". Yes! on Equality had until August 17, 2009, to gather 694,354 signatures in order to qualify for the June 2010 ballot, A petition for initiative for the November 2010 ballot also failed to obtain enough signatures.


2008 California Proposition 8, Ballot repeal effort
Several LGBT groups of color (including API Equality-LA, HONOR PAC, and the Jordan/Rustin Coalition) published a statement "Prepare to Prevail," in which they argue that the ballot repeal effort should be delayed until 2012. As of February 2012, the repeal effort was canceled in light of  victorious court cases.


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges
Following the passing of Proposition 8 in 2008, and the subsequent mass protests, several lawsuits were filed in both the State Supreme Court and in the Federal District Court.


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges, State court: Strauss v. Horton
In considering the cases within the state courts, on November 13, 2008, the California Supreme Court asked California Attorney General Jerry Brown for an opinion on whether the Court should accept these cases for review and whether the measure should be suspended while they decide the case. On November 19, the Court accepted three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8, which consolidated into Strauss v. Horton. The Court rendered its decision on May 26, 2009.


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges, State court: Strauss v. Horton
The majority decision was that Proposition 8 "carved out a limited [or 'narrow'] exception to the state equal protection clause"; Justice Moreno dissented that exceptions to the equal protection clause could not be made by any majority since its whole purpose was to protect minorities against the will of a majority. Until overturned by Hollingsworth v. Perry (below), the ruling established that Proposition 8 was valid as voted, but that marriages performed before it went into effect would remain valid.


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges, Federal court, Perry v. Schwarzenegger
After the California Supreme Court upheld the voter initiative, a suit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger (later Hollingsworth v. Perry), was filed in a Federal District Court in San Francisco. On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8, stating it is "...unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because no compelling state interest justifies denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry." The court also determined that "Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause because there is no rational basis for limiting the designation of 'marriage' to opposite-sex couples."


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges, Federal court, Perry v. Schwarzenegger
The court also stayed the ruling; the voter initiative was to remain in effect pending appeal. On August 12, Walker announced his decision to lift the stay (which would have allowed same-sex marriages to be performed) as of August 18, 2010. However, on August 16, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit indefinitely extended the District Court's stay, stopping new same-sex marriages in the state of California pending appeal. It also scheduled an accelerated time table for hearing an appeal of Walker's ruling.


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges, Federal court, Perry v. Brown (on appeal)
As the State of California chose not to appeal the ruling, an appeal was sought by two parties—the initiative proponents, and Imperial County (via its deputy clerk). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the question of standing first. On January 4, 2011, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Imperial County did not have standing to intervene in the lawsuit (by now called Perry v. Brown)—the formal reason being the county's appeal had been "untimely", but also that the appellant was the county's deputy clerk, and precedent existed in other cases that a deputy clerk could not 'represent' a county.


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges, Federal court, Perry v. Brown (on appeal)
To address the question whether the initiative proponents had particularized standing (that is, standing either via personal interest, or standing to represent the State's interest), the Ninth Circuit certified a question to the California Supreme Court on January 4, 2011, asking that court to rule whether, under the California Constitution or otherwise under California law, non-governmental proponents of an initiative have standing to appeal when the State is no longer willing to defend it. On February 16, 2011, the California Supreme Court unanimously agreed to address the Ninth Circuit's request. The court set an expedited schedule for the hearing and heard oral arguments on September 6, 2011. On November 17, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion that the proponents of Proposition 8 did have standing, and could defend it.


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges, Federal court, Perry v. Brown (on appeal)
On February 7, 2012, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2–1 majority opinion affirming the judgment in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, saying it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt and joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, states that Proposition 8 did nothing more than lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians, and classify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The court found that the people of California, by using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw the right to marry they once possessed under the California State Constitution, violated the federal Constitution.


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges, Federal court, Perry v. Brown (on appeal)
The court concluded that the trial court had correctly found Proposition 8 to have no purpose other than to impose the majority's private disapproval of gays, lesbians, and their relationships through the public law, and to take away from them the designation of marriage and its recognized societal status. The findings of fact and expert witness testimony in District Court played an important role in this appellate decision, emphasizing that it is unreasonable to believe Proposition 8 was enacted to: promote childrearing by biological parents, encourage procreation, be cautious in social change, protect religious liberty, or control children's education. The court declared that it is "implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman".


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges, Federal court, Perry v. Brown (on appeal)
The dissenting judge, Judge N. Randy Smith, noted in his dissent that states do legitimately prohibit sexual relationships condemned by society such as incest, bigamy, and bestiality, and impose age limits for marriage without violating constitutional rights. He stated that "gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class" and are thus not entitled to the courts' increased scrutiny of laws that affect them. He wrote, "The family structure of two committed biological parents—one man and one woman—is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children. He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8.


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges, Federal court, Perry v. Brown (on appeal)
On February 21, 2012, proponents requested to have to the case reviewed en banc by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If granted, en banc review could have taken a year or more, which would have delayed possible U.S. Supreme Court review. Pending the appeal, a stay was continued, barring any marriages from taking place. On June 5, 2012, the full Ninth Circuit refused to rehear the case; the stay would remain in place pending final action by the Supreme Court.


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges, Federal court, Perry v. Brown (on appeal)
The Ninth Court's ruling was subsequently vacated (withdrawn) although it affirmed the district court ruling, since the Supreme Court later determined that the proponents of Proposition 8 had not had standing to appeal the district court's ruling.


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges, Federal court, Hollingsworth v. Perry (U.S. Supreme Court)
The proposition's proponents filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on July 30, 2012, requesting that the Supreme Court review the case. Briefs in opposition both from the individual respondents and from the City and County of San Francisco were filed August 24, and the petitioners replied on September 4. On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted the proponents' petition for certiorari and asked to be briefed for arguments concerning the petitioners' Article III standing, amid considerable anticipation of a finding of a lack of justiciability in order to avoid a holding on the merits. Oral arguments were heard on March 26, 2013.


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges, Federal court, Hollingsworth v. Perry (U.S. Supreme Court)
Parties who lodged amicus briefs with the court included: Judge Georg Ress and the Marriage Law Foundation; William N. Eskridge, Jr., et al. ; the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence; the Public Advocate of the United States, et al. ; the National Association of Evangelicals, et al. ; the American Civil Rights Union; Judicial Watch, Inc., et al. ; the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc.; the Foundation for Moral Law; and the state of Indiana, et al.


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges, Federal court, Hollingsworth v. Perry (U.S. Supreme Court)
The Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision on June 26, 2013. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, and was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor were in the minority. The Court found the proponents did not have standing to appeal in federal court. To have standing, they "must have suffered an injury in fact, thus giving [them] a sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of the issue in dispute". Because no injury had been shown, the appeal to the Ninth Circuit should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges, Federal court, Hollingsworth v. Perry (U.S. Supreme Court)
(This only applied to the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court cases.) The Court returned the case to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the appeal. This left the district court's ruling overturning Proposition 8 as the final ruling in the case. Because the appeal was decided on the question of standing, the Supreme Court did not examine nor rule on whether in their view Proposition 8 had violated the U.S. Constitution.


2008 California Proposition 8, Legal challenges, Federal court, Hollingsworth v. Perry (U.S. Supreme Court)
Justice Kennedy, writing for the minority, said the views of the California Supreme Court on the proponents' standing should have been respected, because "the basic premise of the initiative process [and] the essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around".