Perry v Brown Case

Introduction

The federal courts updated the names of the Perry defendants to reflect California's newly-elected political officials, who took office on January 3. The docket now reflects that, since the Perry case began, Jerry Brown has replaced Arnold Schwarzenegger as California's governor, and former San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris has replaced Brown as the state's attorney general. The docket change is an automatic substitution that occurs when a suit is pending against any public official “in his or her official capacity,” meaning that the defendants are being sued as state figureheads and not as individuals with personal liability. The case is now formally known as Kristin Perry, et al v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. Its Ninth Circuit docket number remains 10-16751. (Leff, 2009)

Section 2012 of the New York Education Law provides that in certain school districts residents who are otherwise eligible to vote in state and federal elections may vote in the school district elections only if they own or lease taxable realty in the district or are parents or custodians of children enrolled in the local public schools. Appellant, a bachelor who neither owns nor leases taxable real property, challenged the constitutionality of the section. A three-judge district court ruled 2012 constitutional. Held: Section 2012 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 625-633.

(a) Where a state statute grants the right to vote to some bona fide residents of requisite age and citizenship and denies the franchise to others, it must be determined whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Pp. 625-630.

(b) Assuming, arguendo, that New York legitimately might limit the franchise in these school district elections to those "primarily interested in school affairs," the 2012 classifications do not accomplish this purpose with sufficient precision to justify denying the franchise to appellant and members of his class, since the classifications include many persons at best only remotely interested in school affairs and exclude others directly interested. Pp. 630-633.

Perry v Brown Case

Having spent years trying to strip gay and lesbian Californians of the right to marry, Proponents now aim to strip gay and lesbian judges of their ability—and their duty—to preside over cases challenging such discrimination. Proponents'motion to vacate the judgment is nothing more than a belated and regrettable attempt to divert attention from the merits of Plaintiffs'constitutional challenge to Proposition 8 by attacking the judge who presided over the case. The Court should not countenance this tactic, which has been tried repeatedly in civil rights cases throughout history, and has been rejected every time. (Leff, 2009)

The district court correctly concluded that neither Chief Judge Walker's sexual orientation nor his same-sex relationship required him to recue himself from this case. As longstanding case law uniformly makes clear, merely sharing circumstances or characteristics in common with the members of the public who will be affected by a ruling is not a basis for judicial disqualification.

Statement of Jurisdiction

The district court had jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ...