hollingsworth
et
al
perry
et
argued
march
decided
june
california
held
limiting
marriage
couples
violated
california
constitution
state
voters
passed
ballot
initiative
known
proposition
amending
state
constitution
define
marriage
union
man
woman
respondents
couples
wish
marry
filed
suit
federal
challenging
proposition
due
process
equal
protection
clauses
fourteenth
amendment
naming
defendants
california
governor
state
local
officials
responsible
enforcing
california
marriage
laws
officials
refused
defend
law
district
allowed
petitioners
initiative
official
proponents
intervene
defend
bench
trial
declared
proposition
unconstitutional
enjoined
public
officials
named
defendants
enforcing
law
officials
elected
appeal
petitioners
ninth
circuit
certified
question
california
whether
official
proponents
ballot
initiative
authority
assert
state
interest
defending
constitutionality
initiative
public
officials
refuse
california
answered
affirmative
ninth
circuit
concluded
petitioners
standing
federal
law
defend
proposition
constitutionality
merits
affirmed
district
order
held
petitioners
standing
appeal
district
order
pp
article
iii
constitution
confines
judicial
power
federal
courts
deciding
actual
cases
controversies
one
essential
aspect
requirement
person
invoking
power
federal
must
demonstrate
standing
words
litigant
must
seek
remedy
personal
tangible
harm
although
standing
cases
consider
whether
plaintiff
satisfied
requirement
filing
suit
article
iii
demands
actual
controversy
persist
throughout
stages
litigation
already
llc
nike
standing
must
met
persons
seeking
appellate
review
must
met
persons
appearing
courts
first
instance
arizonans
official
english
arizona
parties
contest
respondents
standing
initiate
case
california
officials
responsible
enforcing
proposition
district
issued
order
respondents
longer
injury
redress
state
officials
chose
appeal
individuals
sought
appeal
petitioners
intervened
district
ordered
refrain
anything
interest
vindicate
constitutional
validity
generally
applicable
california
law
repeatedly
held
generalized
grievance
matter
sincere
insufficient
confer
standing
see
lujan
defenders
wildlife
petitioners
claim
california
constitution
election
laws
give
role
initiative
process
reply
brief
true
process
enacting
law
proposition
approved
became
duly
enacted
constitutional
amendment
petitioners
role
special
otherwise
enforcement
therefore
personal
stake
defending
enforcement
distinguishable
general
interest
every
california
citizen
matter
deeply
committed
petitioners
may
upholding
proposition
particularized
interest
sufficient
create
case
controversy
article
iii
pp
petitioners
arguments
contrary
unpersuasive
pp
claim
may
assert
state
interest
state
behalf
fundamental
restriction
authority
ordinary
course
litigant
rest
claim
relief
legal
rights
interests
third
parties
powers
ohio
diamond
charles
example
pediatrician
engaged
private
practice
permitted
defend
constitutionality
illinois
abortion
law
state
chose
appeal
adverse
ruling
state
attorney
general
letter
interest
explaining
state
interest
proceeding
diamond
position
insufficient
since
diamond
unable
assert
injury
id
pp
petitioners
contend
california
determination
authorized
california
law
assert
state
interest
validity
proposition
means
need
show
personal
injury
separate
state
indisputable
interest
validity
law
california
attorney
general
legislative
leaders
held
standing
karcher
may
reply
brief
far
supporting
petitioners
standing
karcher
compelling
precedent
case
new
jersey
attorney
general
refused
defend
constitutionality
state
law
leaders
new
jersey
legislature
permitted
appear
official
capacities
district
appeals
defend
law
significant
karcher
however
happened
appeals
decision
legislators
lost
leadership
positions
nevertheless
sought
appeal
held
although
participate
lawsuit
official
capacities
presiding
officers
legislature
soon
lost
capacity
lost
standing
petitioners
hold
office
always
participated
litigation
solely
private
parties
pp
support
found
dicta
arizonans
official
english
arizona
supra
expressing
grave
doubts
standing
ballot
initiative
sponsors
defend
constitutionality
arizona
initiative
noted
aware
arizona
law
appointing
initiative
sponsors
agents
people
arizona
defend
lieu
public
officials
constitutionality
initiatives
made
law
state
petitioners
argue
virtue
california
decision
authorized
act
agents
people
california
brief
petitioners
never
described
petitioners
agents
people
california
decision
stands
far
california
concerned
petitioners
may
assert
legal
arguments
defense
state
interest
validity
initiative
measure
federal
interest
definition
generalized
one
precisely
proponents
assert
interest
lack
standing
precedents
petitioners
also
plainly
agents
state
initial
matter
petitioners
newfound
claim
agency
inconsistent
representations
district
claimed
represent
interests
official
proponents
point
basic
features
agency
relationship
missing
petitioners
subject
control
principal
owe
fiduciary
obligation
anyone
one
amicus
puts
proponents
apparently
unelected
appointment
unspecified
period
time
defenders
initiative
however
whatever
extent
choose
defend
brief
walter
dellinger
pp
question
california
sovereign
right
maintain
initiative
process
right
initiative
proponents
defend
initiatives
california
courts
standing
federal
question
federal
law
state
law
matter
reasons
fact
state
thinks
private
party
standing
seek
relief
generalized
grievance
override
settled
law
contrary
article
iii
requirement
party
invoking
jurisdiction
federal
seek
relief
personal
particularized
injury
serves
vital
interests
going
role
judiciary
federal
system
separated
powers
alter
role
simply
issuing
private
parties
otherwise
lack
standing
ticket
federal
courthouse
pp
vacated
remanded
roberts
delivered
opinion
scalia
ginsburg
breyer
kagan
joined
kennedy
filed
dissenting
opinion
thomas
alito
sotomayor
joined
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
dennis
hollingsworth
et
petitioners
kristin
perry
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
chief
justice
roberts
delivered
opinion
public
currently
engaged
active
political
debate
whether
couples
allowed
marry
question
also
given
rise
litigation
case
petitioners
oppose
marriage
ask
us
decide
whether
equal
protection
clause
prohibits
state
california
defining
marriage
union
man
woman
pet
cert
respondents
couples
wish
marry
view
issue
somewhat
different
terms
whether
california
previously
recognized
right
couples
marry
may
reverse
decision
referendum
federal
courts
authority
constitution
answer
questions
necessary
course
deciding
actual
case
controversy
used
constitution
words
include
every
sort
dispute
historically
viewed
capable
resolution
judicial
process
flast
cohen
essential
limit
power
ensures
act
judges
engage
policymaking
properly
left
elected
representatives
case
controversy
enough
party
invoking
power
keen
interest
issue
party
must
also
standing
requires
among
things
suffered
concrete
particularized
injury
find
petitioners
standing
authority
decide
case
merits
neither
ninth
circuit
california
held
limiting
official
designation
marriage
couples
violated
equal
protection
clause
california
constitution
marriage
cases
cal
later
year
california
voters
passed
ballot
initiative
center
dispute
known
proposition
proposition
amended
california
constitution
provide
nly
marriage
man
woman
valid
recognized
california
cal
art
shortly
thereafter
california
rejected
procedural
challenge
amendment
held
proposition
properly
enacted
california
law
strauss
horton
cal
according
california
proposition
created
narrow
limited
exception
state
constitutional
rights
otherwise
guaranteed
couples
california
law
couples
right
enter
relationships
recognized
state
domestic
partnerships
carry
rights
protections
benefits
shall
subject
responsibilities
obligations
duties
law
granted
imposed
upon
spouses
cal
fam
code
ann
west
marriage
cases
california
concluded
california
constitution
guarantees
couples
constitutionally
based
incidents
marriage
including
right
marriage
officially
recognized
state
cal
proposition
explained
strauss
left
rights
largely
undisturbed
reserving
official
designation
term
union
couples
matter
state
constitutional
law
cal
respondents
two
couples
wish
marry
filed
suit
federal
challenging
proposition
due
process
equal
protection
clauses
fourteenth
amendment
federal
constitution
complaint
named
defendants
california
governor
attorney
general
various
state
local
officials
responsible
enforcing
california
marriage
laws
officials
refused
defend
law
although
continued
enforce
throughout
litigation
district
allowed
petitioners
official
proponents
initiative
see
cal
elec
code
ann
west
intervene
defend
bench
trial
district
declared
proposition
permanently
enjoining
california
officials
named
defendants
enforcing
law
directing
official
defendants
persons
control
supervision
shall
enforce
perry
schwarzenegger
supp
nd
cal
officials
elected
appeal
district
order
petitioners
ninth
circuit
asked
address
appeal
dismissed
lack
article
iii
standing
perry
schwarzenegger
civ
briefing
argument
ninth
circuit
certified
question
california
whether
article
ii
section
california
constitution
otherwise
california
law
official
proponents
initiative
measure
possess
either
particularized
interest
initiative
authority
assert
state
interest
initiative
validity
enable
defend
constitutionality
initiative
upon
adoption
appeal
judgment
invalidating
initiative
public
officials
charged
duty
refuse
perry
schwarzenegger
california
agreed
decide
certified
question
answered
affirmative
without
addressing
whether
proponents
particularized
interest
initiative
validity
concluded
postelection
challenge
initiative
measure
official
proponents
initiative
authorized
california
law
appear
assert
state
interest
initiative
validity
appeal
judgment
invalidating
measure
public
officials
ordinarily
defend
measure
appeal
judgment
decline
perry
brown
cal
relying
answer
ninth
circuit
concluded
petitioners
standing
federal
law
defend
constitutionality
proposition
california
reasoned
standing
defend
constitutionality
laws
prerogative
independent
sovereigns
decide
may
assert
interests
perry
brown
quoting
diamond
charles
federal
need
determine
state
suffered
harm
sufficient
confer
standing
party
seeking
invoke
jurisdiction
authorized
state
represent
interest
remedying
harm
merits
ninth
circuit
affirmed
district
held
proposition
unconstitutional
rationale
decision
romer
evans
ninth
circuit
view
romer
stands
proposition
equal
protection
clause
requires
state
legitimate
reason
withdrawing
right
benefit
one
group
others
whether
required
confer
right
benefit
first
place
ninth
circuit
concluded
taking
away
official
designation
marriage
couples
continuing
afford
couples
rights
obligations
marriage
legitimate
interest
state
proposition
view
violated
equal
protection
clause
served
purpose
impose
gays
lesbians
public
law
majority
private
disapproval
relationships
ibid
granted
certiorari
review
determination
directed
parties
also
brief
argue
whether
petitioners
standing
article
iii
constitution
case
ii
article
iii
constitution
confines
judicial
power
federal
courts
deciding
actual
cases
controversies
one
essential
aspect
requirement
person
invoking
power
federal
must
demonstrate
standing
requires
litigant
prove
suffered
concrete
particularized
injury
fairly
traceable
challenged
conduct
likely
redressed
favorable
judicial
decision
lujan
defenders
wildlife
words
federal
authority
constitution
settle
dispute
party
must
seek
remedy
personal
tangible
harm
presence
disagreement
however
sharp
acrimonious
may
insufficient
meet
art
iii
requirements
diamond
supra
doctrine
standing
recently
explained
serves
prevent
judicial
process
used
usurp
powers
political
branches
clapper
amnesty
usa
slip
light
overriding
concern
keeping
judiciary
power
within
proper
constitutional
sphere
must
put
aside
natural
urge
proceed
directly
merits
important
dispute
sake
convenience
raines
byrd
omitted
standing
cases
consider
whether
plaintiff
satisfied
requirement
filing
suit
article
iii
demands
actual
controversy
persist
throughout
stages
litigation
already
llc
nike
slip
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
means
standing
must
met
persons
seeking
appellate
review
must
met
persons
appearing
courts
first
instance
arizonans
official
english
arizona
therefore
must
decide
whether
petitioners
standing
appeal
district
order
respondents
initiated
case
district
california
officials
responsible
enforcing
proposition
parties
contest
respondents
article
iii
standing
couple
expressed
desire
marry
obtain
official
sanction
state
unavailable
given
declaration
proposition
marriage
california
solely
man
woman
app
district
declared
proposition
unconstitutional
enjoined
state
officials
named
defendants
enforcing
however
inquiry
article
iii
changed
respondents
longer
injury
redress
state
officials
chose
appeal
individuals
sought
appeal
order
petitioners
intervened
district
district
ordered
refrain
anything
standing
litigant
must
seek
relief
injury
affects
personal
individual
way
defenders
wildlife
supra
must
possess
direct
stake
outcome
case
arizonans
official
english
supra
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
however
petitioners
direct
stake
outcome
appeal
interest
district
order
reversed
vindicate
constitutional
validity
generally
applicable
california
law
repeatedly
held
generalized
grievance
matter
sincere
insufficient
confer
standing
litigant
raising
generally
available
grievance
government
claiming
harm
every
citizen
interest
proper
application
constitution
laws
seeking
relief
directly
tangibly
benefits
public
large
state
article
iii
case
controversy
defenders
wildlife
supra
see
lance
coffman
per
curiam
refusal
serve
forum
generalized
grievances
lengthy
pedigree
allen
wright
asserted
right
government
act
accordance
law
sufficient
standing
alone
confer
jurisdiction
federal
massachusetts
mellon
party
invokes
judicial
power
must
able
show
sustained
immediately
danger
sustaining
direct
injury
merely
suffers
indefinite
way
common
people
petitioners
argue
california
constitution
election
laws
give
role
initiative
process
one
authority
responsibilities
differ
supporters
measure
reply
brief
quoting
cal
true
enough
comes
process
enacting
law
upon
submitting
proposed
initiative
attorney
general
petitioners
became
official
proponents
proposition
cal
elec
code
ann
west
responsible
collecting
signatures
required
qualify
measure
ballot
signatures
collected
proponents
alone
right
file
measure
election
officials
put
ballot
petitioners
also
possessed
control
arguments
favor
initiative
appear
california
ballot
pamphlets
proposition
approved
voters
measure
became
duly
enacted
constitutional
amendment
statute
cal
petitioners
role
special
otherwise
enforcement
proposition
see
petitioners
possess
official
authority
directly
enforce
initiative
measure
question
therefore
personal
stake
defending
enforcement
distinguishable
general
interest
every
citizen
california
defenders
wildlife
supra
article
iii
standing
placed
hands
bystanders
use
simply
vindication
value
interests
diamond
matter
deeply
committed
petitioners
may
upholding
proposition
zealous
advocacy
post
kennedy
dissenting
particularized
interest
sufficient
create
case
controversy
article
iii
defenders
wildlife
see
arizonans
official
english
ever
identified
proponents
defenders
measures
advocated
bankrupt
washington
committee
continental
nat
bank
trust
chicago
summarily
dismissing
lack
standing
appeal
initiative
proponent
decision
holding
initiative
unconstitutional
iii
without
judicially
cognizable
interest
petitioners
attempt
invoke
someone
else
assert
even
cognizable
interest
appealing
district
judgment
state
california
may
assert
interest
state
behalf
however
fundamental
restriction
authority
ordinary
course
litigant
must
assert
legal
rights
interests
rest
claim
relief
legal
rights
third
parties
powers
ohio
certain
limited
exceptions
rule
ibid
even
allowed
litigants
assert
interests
others
litigants
still
must
suffered
injury
fact
thus
giving
sufficiently
concrete
interest
outcome
issue
dispute
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
diamond
charles
example
refused
allow
diamond
pediatrician
engaged
private
practice
illinois
defend
constitutionality
state
abortion
law
case
group
physicians
filed
challenge
illinois
statute
federal
state
initially
defended
law
diamond
professed
conscientious
object
abortions
defend
alongside
state
seventh
circuit
affirmed
permanent
injunction
enforcing
several
provisions
law
state
chose
pursue
appeal
diamond
state
attorney
general
filed
interest
explaining
state
interest
proceeding
position
issues
set
forth
diamond
enough
held
allow
appeal
proceed
explained
ven
private
party
standing
defend
constitutionality
challenged
statute
one
diamond
able
assert
injury
fact
omitted
without
judicially
cognizable
interest
diamond
maintain
litigation
abandoned
state
reasons
explained
petitioners
likewise
suffered
injury
fact
therefore
ordinarily
standing
assert
state
interests
petitioners
contend
case
different
california
determined
authorized
california
law
appear
assert
state
interest
validity
proposition
cal
agreed
federal
need
determine
state
suffered
harm
sufficient
confer
standing
party
seeking
invoke
jurisdiction
authorized
state
represent
interest
remedying
harm
petitioners
put
need
show
personal
injury
separate
state
indisputable
interest
validity
law
california
attorney
general
legislative
leaders
held
standing
karcher
may
reply
brief
karcher
held
two
new
jersey
state
speaker
general
assembly
alan
karcher
president
senate
carmen
orechio
intervene
suit
state
defend
constitutionality
new
jersey
law
new
jersey
attorney
general
declined
since
new
jersey
legislature
authority
state
law
represent
state
interests
district
appeals
held
speaker
president
official
capacities
vindicate
interest
federal
legislature
behalf
far
supporting
petitioners
standing
however
karcher
compelling
precedent
legislators
case
intervened
official
capacities
speaker
president
legislature
one
doubts
state
cognizable
interest
continued
enforceability
laws
harmed
judicial
decision
declaring
state
law
unconstitutional
maine
taylor
vindicate
interest
state
must
able
designate
agents
represent
federal
see
poindexter
greenhow
state
political
corporate
body
act
agents
agent
typically
state
attorney
general
state
law
may
provide
officials
speak
state
federal
new
jersey
law
state
presiding
legislative
officers
karcher
see
significant
karcher
happened
appeals
decision
case
karcher
orechio
lost
positions
speaker
president
nevertheless
sought
appeal
held
explained
able
participate
lawsuit
official
capacities
presiding
officers
incumbent
legislature
since
longer
hold
offices
lack
authority
pursue
appeal
point
karcher
state
authorize
private
parties
represent
interests
karcher
orechio
permitted
proceed
state
officers
acting
official
capacity
soon
lost
capacity
lost
standing
petitioners
hold
office
always
participated
litigation
solely
private
parties
cases
relied
upon
dissent
see
post
provide
petitioners
support
dissent
primary
authorities
fact
discuss
standing
see
young
ex
rel
vuitton
et
fils
providence
journal
none
comes
close
establishing
mere
authorization
represent
third
party
interests
sufficient
confer
article
iii
standing
private
parties
injury
dissent
highlights
discretion
exercised
special
prosecutors
appointed
federal
courts
pursue
contempt
charges
see
post
citing
young
supra
prosecutors
enjoy
degree
independence
carrying
appointed
role
one
suppose
subject
ultimate
appointed
see
also
journal
supra
recognizing
control
exercised
solicitor
general
special
prosecutors
dissent
remaining
cases
least
consider
standing
readily
distinguishable
see
vermont
agency
natural
resources
ex
rel
stevens
justifying
qui
tam
actions
based
partial
assignment
government
damages
claim
well
nigh
conclusive
tradition
actions
english
american
courts
dating
back
century
whitmore
arkansas
justifying
next
friend
standing
based
similar
history
dating
back
century
requiring
next
friend
prove
disability
real
party
interest
significant
relationship
party
gollust
mendell
requiring
plaintiff
suit
maintain
financial
stake
outcome
litigation
avoid
serious
constitutional
doubt
whether
plaintiff
demonstrate
standing
required
article
iii
limitation
petitioners
respondents
seek
support
dicta
arizonans
official
english
arizona
plaintiff
arizonans
official
english
filed
constitutional
challenge
arizona
ballot
initiative
declaring
english
official
language
state
arizona
district
declared
initiative
unconstitutional
arizona
governor
announced
pursue
appeal
instead
principal
sponsor
ballot
initiative
arizonans
official
english
committee
sought
defend
measure
ninth
circuit
analogizing
sponsors
arizona
legislature
ninth
circuit
held
committee
qualified
defend
initiative
appeal
affirmed
district
finding
case
mooted
events
expressed
grave
doubts
ninth
circuit
standing
analysis
reiterated
tanding
defend
appeal
place
original
defendant
demands
litigant
possess
direct
stake
outcome
quoting
diamond
recognized
legislator
authorized
state
law
represent
state
interest
may
satisfy
standing
requirements
karcher
supra
noted
arizona
committee
members
elected
representatives
aware
arizona
law
appointing
initiative
sponsors
agents
people
arizona
defend
lieu
public
officials
constitutionality
initiatives
made
law
state
arizonans
official
english
supra
petitioners
argue
virtue
california
decision
authorized
act
agents
people
california
brief
petitioners
quoting
arizonans
official
english
supra
never
described
petitioners
agents
people
anyone
else
ninth
circuit
ninth
circuit
asked
california
answered
whether
petitioners
authority
assert
state
interest
initiative
validity
cal
california
decision
stands
far
california
concerned
petitioners
may
argue
defense
proposition
mean
proponents
become
de
facto
public
officials
authority
enjoy
simply
authority
participate
parties
action
assert
legal
arguments
defense
state
interest
validity
initiative
measure
interest
definition
generalized
one
precisely
proponents
assert
interest
lack
standing
precedents
petitioners
plainly
agents
state
formal
otherwise
see
post
initial
matter
petitioners
newfound
claim
agency
inconsistent
representations
district
proponents
sought
intervene
case
purport
agents
california
argued
instead
party
case
ould
adequately
interests
official
proponents
motion
intervene
nd
cal
emphasis
added
unique
legal
status
official
proponents
agency
relationship
people
california
petitioners
claimed
endow
ed
significantly
protectable
interest
ensuring
district
undo
ha
done
obtaining
enactment
proposition
point
basic
features
agency
relationship
missing
agency
requires
mere
authorization
assert
particular
interest
essential
element
agency
principal
right
control
agent
actions
restatement
third
agency
comment
hereinafter
restatement
yet
petitioners
answer
one
decide
review
arguments
make
make
unlike
california
attorney
general
elected
regular
intervals
elected
see
cal
art
provision
provides
removal
one
amicus
explains
proponents
apparently
unelected
appointment
unspecified
period
time
defenders
initiative
however
whatever
extent
choose
defend
brief
walter
dellinger
relationship
two
persons
one
agency
agent
owes
fiduciary
obligation
principal
restatement
comment
petitioners
owe
nothing
sort
people
california
unlike
california
elected
officials
taken
oath
office
cal
art
xx
prescribing
oath
public
officers
employees
executive
legislative
judicial
california
explained
petitioners
bound
simply
ethical
constraints
apply
parties
legal
proceeding
cal
free
pursue
purely
ideological
commitment
law
constitutionality
without
need
take
cognizance
resource
constraints
changes
public
opinion
potential
ramifications
state
priorities
finally
california
stated
question
bear
responsibility
attorney
fee
award
entirely
distinct
question
emphasis
added
hornbook
law
principal
duty
agent
expenses
losses
incurred
agent
defending
actions
brought
third
parties
agent
acted
actual
authority
taking
action
challenged
third
party
suit
restatement
comment
issue
fees
entirely
distinct
authority
question
authority
based
agency
neither
california
ninth
circuit
ever
described
proponents
agents
state
plainly
qualify
iv
dissent
eloquently
recounts
california
reasons
deciding
state
law
authorizes
petitioners
defend
proposition
see
post
disrespect
disparage
reasons
post
question
california
sovereign
right
maintain
initiative
process
right
initiative
proponents
defend
initiatives
california
courts
article
iii
apply
dissent
acknowledges
see
post
standing
federal
question
federal
law
state
law
matter
reasons
fact
state
thinks
private
party
standing
seek
relief
generalized
grievance
override
settled
law
contrary
article
iii
requirement
party
invoking
jurisdiction
federal
seek
relief
personal
particularized
injury
serves
vital
interests
going
role
judiciary
system
separated
powers
refusing
entertain
generalized
grievances
ensures
courts
exercise
power
judicial
nature
lance
ensures
federal
judiciary
respects
proper
properly
limited
role
courts
democratic
society
daimlerchrysler
cuno
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
alter
role
simply
issuing
private
parties
otherwise
lack
standing
ticket
federal
courthouse
never
upheld
standing
private
party
defend
constitutionality
state
statute
state
officials
chosen
decline
first
time
petitioners
satisfied
burden
demonstrate
standing
appeal
judgment
district
ninth
circuit
without
jurisdiction
consider
appeal
judgment
ninth
circuit
vacated
case
remanded
instructions
dismiss
appeal
lack
jurisdiction
ordered
kennedy
dissenting
dennis
hollingsworth
et
petitioners
kristin
perry
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
justice
kennedy
justice
thomas
tice
alito
justice
sotomayor
join
dissenting
opinion
correct
state
california
careful
acknowledge
proponent
standing
defend
initiative
federal
question
federal
law
proper
resolution
justiciability
question
requires
case
threshold
determination
state
law
question
california
defines
elaborates
status
authority
initiative
proponents
seek
intervene
defend
initiative
adoption
electorate
issues
addressed
meticulous
unanimous
opinion
california
california
law
proponent
authority
appear
assert
state
interest
defending
enacted
initiative
public
officials
charged
duty
refuse
state
deems
appearance
essential
integrity
initiative
process
yet
today
concludes
status
right
fall
short
meeting
federal
requirements
proponents
point
formal
delegation
authority
tracks
requirements
restatement
agency
state
definition
proponents
powers
binding
definition
fully
sufficient
establish
standing
adversity
requisites
justiciability
article
iii
constitution
view
article
iii
require
california
deciding
may
appear
defend
initiative
behalf
comply
restatement
agency
view
state
make
laws
structure
government
reasoning
take
account
fundamental
principles
practical
dynamics
initiative
system
california
uses
mechanism
control
bypass
public
officials
officials
defend
initiative
injury
leaves
unremedied
decision
also
implications
use
initiative
popular
referendum
system
like
california
may
choose
initiative
proponents
stand
state
public
officials
decline
defend
initiative
litigation
see
waters
initiative
referendum
almanac
submission
article
iii
requirement
justiciable
case
controversy
prevent
proponents
day
premises
respectful
dissent
explains
state
california
sustained
concrete
injury
sufficient
satisfy
requirements
article
iii
district
nullified
portion
state
constitution
see
ante
citing
maine
taylor
determine
whether
justiciability
continues
appellate
proceedings
state
executive
acquiesced
district
adverse
judgment
necessary
ascertain
persons
authority
state
law
represent
state
interests
federal
karcher
may
see
also
arizonans
official
english
arizona
notes
california
elections
code
face
prescribe
express
terms
duties
rights
proponents
initiative
becomes
law
ante
end
matter
analysis
somewhat
force
end
matter
california
determine
whether
extent
elections
code
provisions
instructive
relevant
determining
authority
proponents
assert
state
interest
postenactment
judicial
proceedings
likewise
say
state
must
determine
substance
meaning
laws
statute
judicial
decision
combination
two
see
sweezy
new
hampshire
plurality
opinion
dreyer
illinois
state
decide
determining
substance
state
law
bound
state
construction
state
statute
wisconsin
mitchell
california
response
certified
question
submitted
case
determined
state
elections
code
provisions
directed
initiative
proponents
inform
instruct
state
law
respecting
rights
status
proponents
postelection
judicial
proceedings
reliance
statutes
california
constitution
state
held
proponents
authority
california
law
appear
assert
state
interest
initiative
validity
appeal
judgment
invalidating
measure
public
officials
ordinarily
defend
measure
appeal
judgment
decline
perry
brown
cal
reasons
california
gave
holding
special
relevance
context
determining
whether
proponents
authority
seek
remedy
state
concrete
substantial
continuing
injury
class
official
proponents
small
identifiable
group
see
cal
elec
code
ann
west
cum
supp
many
decisions
must
unanimous
see
necessarily
number
identities
public
commitment
substantial
see
west
cum
supp
obtaining
petition
signatures
monetary
fee
west
drafting
arguments
official
ballot
pamphlet
know
understand
purpose
operation
proposed
law
important
requisite
defending
initiatives
complex
matters
taxation
insurance
gone
great
lengths
convince
voters
enact
initiative
stake
outcome
necessary
commitment
provide
zealous
advocacy
thus
california
proponents
play
unique
role
initiative
process
cal
unique
relationship
measure
makes
especially
likely
reliable
vigorous
advocates
measure
viewed
whose
votes
secured
initiative
enactment
law
ibid
see
also
special
relationship
initiative
measure
proponents
obvious
logical
private
individuals
ably
vigorously
defend
validity
challenged
measure
behalf
interests
voters
adopted
initiative
law
proponents
authority
state
law
contrivance
fictional
construct
product
california
constitution
california
elections
code
basis
set
aside
california
determination
state
law
california
explained
holding
consistent
recent
decisions
sportsmen
fifteenth
jud
mt
mont
montana
unanimously
held
initiative
sponsors
may
best
position
defend
interpretation
initiative
direct
substantial
legally
protectable
interest
lawsuit
challenging
interpretation
entitled
intervene
matter
right
alaska
reached
similar
unanimous
result
alaskans
common
language
kritz
noted
except
extraordinary
cases
sponsor
direct
interest
legislation
enacted
initiative
process
concomitant
need
avoid
appearance
conflict
interest
ordinarily
preclude
courts
denying
intervention
right
sponsoring
group
reasons
california
held
california
elections
code
article
ii
california
constitution
afford
proponents
authority
assert
state
interest
validity
initiative
state
officials
decline
cal
repeated
unanimous
holding
times
uncertain
terms
see
see
also
kennard
concurring
suffice
resolve
central
issue
federal
question
turns
ii
concludes
proponents
lack
sufficient
ties
state
government
notes
elected
answer
one
lack
fiduciary
state
ante
quoting
restatement
third
agency
comments
deems
deficiencies
proponents
connection
state
government
state
saw
essential
qualifications
defend
initiative
system
object
initiative
system
establish
lawmaking
process
depend
upon
state
officials
california
popular
initiative
necessary
implement
theory
power
government
ultimately
resides
people
cal
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
right
adopt
initiatives
described
california
courts
one
precious
rights
state
democratic
process
ibid
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
historic
role
initiative
system
grew
dissatisfaction
governing
public
officials
widespread
belief
people
lost
control
political
process
ibid
initiative
primary
purpose
afford
people
ability
propose
adopt
constitutional
amendments
statutory
provisions
elected
public
officials
refused
declined
adopt
ibid
california
determined
purpose
undermined
officials
initiative
process
seeks
circumvent
parties
defend
enacted
initiative
challenged
legal
proceeding
see
cf
alaskans
common
language
supra
noting
proponents
must
allowed
defend
enacted
initiative
order
avoid
perception
correct
interests
proponents
defended
vigorously
executive
branch
giving
governor
attorney
general
de
facto
veto
erode
one
cornerstones
state
governmental
structure
see
cal
light
frequency
initiatives
opponents
resort
litigation
impact
veto
substantial
miller
direct
democracy
courts
initiatives
approved
arizona
california
colorado
oregon
washington
challenged
consequence
california
finds
necessary
vest
responsibility
right
defend
initiative
initiative
proponents
state
executive
declines
yet
today
demands
state
follow
restatement
agency
see
ante
reasons
however
california
might
conclude
conventional
agency
relationship
inconsistent
history
design
purpose
initiative
process
state
may
wish
associate
proponents
views
outside
extremely
narrow
limited
context
litigation
cal
bear
cost
proponents
legal
fees
state
may
also
wish
avoid
odd
conflict
formal
agent
state
initiative
proponent
arguing
favor
law
validity
state
officials
attorney
general
contend
proceeding
found
invalid
furthermore
clear
principal
agency
relationship
make
little
sense
governor
attorney
general
frustrate
initiative
system
purpose
circumventing
elected
officials
fail
refuse
effect
public
principal
must
people
california
ultimate
sovereign
state
see
quoting
cal
art
ii
political
power
inherent
restatement
may
offer
workable
example
agent
representing
principal
composed
nearly
million
residents
state
cf
restatement
second
agency
scope
note
noting
restatement
state
special
rules
applicable
public
officers
restatement
first
agency
scope
note
concern
proponents
unaccountable
fear
neither
well
founded
sufficient
overcome
contrary
judgment
state
must
remembered
elected
officials
initiative
proponents
receive
authority
speak
state
california
directly
people
apparently
believes
elected
officials
acceptable
agents
state
see
ante
subject
ongoing
supervision
principal
people
state
initiative
proponents
governor
attorney
general
recalled
voted
office
subsequent
election
proponents
authority
terminated
initiative
overridden
subsequent
ballot
measure
finally
proponents
attorneys
like
litigants
counsel
appear
federal
subject
duties
candor
decorum
respect
tribunal
alike
guard
possibility
initiative
proponents
somehow
fall
short
appropriate
standards
federal
litigation
contrary
suggestion
precedents
indicate
formal
agency
relationship
necessary
karcher
may
speaker
new
jersey
assembly
karcher
president
new
jersey
senate
orechio
intervened
support
school
law
state
governor
attorney
general
declined
defend
considering
question
standing
looked
new
jersey
law
determine
whether
karcher
orechio
authority
state
law
represent
state
interest
district
appeals
concluded
new
jersey
ha
granted
applications
speaker
general
assembly
president
senate
intervene
behalf
legislature
defense
legislative
enactment
karcher
held
standing
proper
district
appeals
ibid
time
case
arrived
karcher
orechio
lost
presiding
legislative
offices
without
lacked
authority
represent
state
new
jersey
law
held
deprived
standing
contrast
proponents
authority
california
law
contingent
officeholder
status
standing
unaffected
fact
hold
office
california
government
ante
arizonans
official
english
arizona
consistent
premises
dissent
rationale
opinion
see
ante
noted
serious
doubts
aspiring
defenders
standing
arizona
law
appointing
initiative
sponsors
agents
people
arizona
defend
lieu
public
officials
constitutionality
initiatives
made
law
state
use
word
agents
read
context
evident
intention
demand
formal
agency
relationship
compliance
restatement
rather
used
term
shorthand
party
state
law
authorizes
represent
state
interests
ibid
appeals
california
mindful
precedents
sought
comply
state
noting
importance
arizonans
official
english
expressed
understanding
high
doubts
official
initiative
proponents
standing
case
based
least
substantial
part
fact
aware
law
appointing
initiative
sponsors
agents
people
arizona
defend
constitutionality
initiatives
made
law
state
cal
quoting
based
passage
concluded
nothing
arizonans
official
english
indicates
state
law
authorize
official
proponents
initiative
assert
state
interest
validity
challenged
state
initiative
public
officials
ordinarily
assert
interest
declined
proponents
standing
assert
state
interest
initiative
validity
federal
lawsuit
appeals
mindful
requirement
perry
brown
although
panel
divided
proper
resolution
merits
case
unanimous
concluding
proponents
satisfy
requirements
article
iii
compare
majority
opinion
smith
concurring
part
dissenting
part
central
premise
ignored
today
state
highest
held
california
law
provides
precisely
arizonans
found
lacking
arizona
law
confers
official
proponents
initiative
authority
assert
state
interests
defending
constitutionality
initiative
state
officials
ordinarily
assume
responsibility
choose
majority
opinion
appeals
state
ignore
arizonans
official
english
faithful
approach
case
also
tension
cases
permitted
individuals
assert
claims
behalf
government
others
instance
federal
rule
criminal
procedure
allows
appoint
private
attorney
investigate
prosecute
potential
instances
criminal
contempt
rule
special
prosecutor
agent
appointing
judge
indeed
prosecutor
determination
persons
targets
investigation
methods
investigation
used
information
sought
evidence
charge
decisions
critical
conduct
prosecution
made
outside
supervision
young
ex
rel
vuitton
et
fils
also
proponents
authorized
represent
state
california
rivate
attorneys
appointed
prosecute
criminal
contempt
action
represent
providence
journal
appointed
solely
pursue
public
interest
vindication
authority
young
supra
interest
like
california
interest
validity
laws
unique
sovereign
providence
journal
supra
although
dismisses
proponents
standing
claim
initiative
proponents
elected
decide
review
arguments
make
make
defense
enacted
initiative
ante
charges
leveled
equal
greater
force
special
prosecutors
discussed
see
young
supra
similar
questions
might
also
arise
regarding
qui
tam
actions
see
vermont
agency
natural
resources
ex
rel
stevens
suits
involving
next
friends
litigating
behalf
real
party
interest
see
whitmore
arkansas
suits
see
gollust
mendell
agency
relationship
settings
instant
case
yet
nonetheless
permitted
party
assert
interests
another
qui
tam
actions
next
friend
litigation
may
longer
historical
pedigree
initiative
process
see
ante
basis
finding
article
iii
standing
requirement
met
cases
lacking
short
today
unsettles
longtime
understanding
basis
jurisdiction
litigation
leaving
law
unclear
district
judgment
accompanying
statewide
injunction
effectively
immune
appellate
review
iii
much
irony
approach
justiciability
case
prime
purpose
justiciability
ensure
vigorous
advocacy
yet
insists
upon
litigation
conducted
state
officials
whose
preference
lose
case
doctrine
meant
ensure
courts
responsible
constrained
power
opinion
today
means
single
district
make
decision
effects
reviewed
rather
honor
principle
justiciability
exists
allow
disputes
public
policy
resolved
political
process
rather
courts
see
allen
wright
refuses
allow
state
authorized
representatives
defend
outcome
democratic
election
opinion
disrespects
disparages
political
process
california
opinion
california
case
california
expresses
concern
vigorous
representation
california
recognizes
necessity
avoid
conflicts
interest
california
comprehends
real
interest
stake
litigation
identifies
proper
party
defend
interest
california
opinion
reflects
better
understanding
dynamics
principles
article
iii
opinion
course
must
cautious
entering
realm
controversy
legal
community
society
large
still
formulating
ideas
approaches
difficult
subject
shortsighted
misconstrue
principles
justiciability
avoid
subject
california
recognized
question
us
involves
fundamental
procedural
issue
may
arise
respect
initiative
measure
without
regard
subject
matter
cal
emphasis
original
federal
must
rule
constitutional
point
either
confirms
rejects
people
expressed
initiative
necessary
least
necessary
insist
rules
ensure
committed
vigorous
adversary
arguments
inform
rulings
courts
end
fails
grasp
accept
basic
premise
initiative
process
essence
democracy
right
make
law
rests
people
flows
government
way
around
freedom
resides
first
people
without
need
grant
government
california
initiative
process
embodies
principles
done
century
structure
government
character
exercise
government
authority
state
defines
sovereign
gregory
ashcroft
california
permit
initiatives
popular
referendums
people
exercised
inherent
sovereign
right
govern
today
frustrates
choice
nullifying
failure
comply
restatement
agency
state
decision
holding
state
law
authorizes
enacted
initiative
proponents
defend
law
state
usual
legal
advocates
decline
opinion
fails
abide
precedent
misapplies
basic
principles
justiciability
errors
necessitate
respectful
dissent