measure of control over the arguments in favor of the initiative to which the people will be exposed, id. § 9287. Thus, the California Elections Code “place[s] an obligation upon the official proponents of an initiative measure to manage and supervise the process by which signatures for the initiative petition are obtained.” Perry, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 499, 265 P.3d at 1017. If public officials refuse to defend a successful initiative in court, official proponents may “intervene or [ ] participate as real parties in interest in a judicial proceeding to assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure.” Id. 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 499, 265 P.3d at 1025. But see Hollingsworth v. Perry, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 2663-67, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013) (<HOLDING>). These rights and responsibilities are hardly
holding that article iii standing is not a prerequisite to intervention holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention holding that federal courts may not consider other issues before resolving standing an article iii jurisdictional matter holding that official proponents of californias proposition 8 lacked article iii standing in federal court holding that constitutional requirements under article iii and prudential requirement that plaintiffs be the proper proponents of the particular legal rights on which they base their suits are distinct aspects of standing inquiry