Perry v. Schwarzenegger/8:Findings of Fact--The Parties

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

II

FINDINGS OF FACT[2]

Having considered the evidence presented at trial, the credibility of the witnesses and the legal arguments presented by counsel, the court now makes the following findings of fact pursuant to FRCP 52(a). The court relies primarily on the testimony and exhibits cited herein, although uncited cumulative documentary evidence in the record and considered by the court also supports the findings.

THE PARTIES

Plaintiffs

  1. Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier reside together in Alameda County, California and are raising four children. They are lesbians in a committed relationship who seek to marry.
  2. On May 21, 2009, Perry and Stier applied for a marriage license from defendant O'Connell, the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder, who denied them a license due to Proposition 8 because they are of the same sex. [p. 55]
  3. Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo reside together in Los Angeles County, California. They are gay men in a committed relationship who seek to marry.
  4. On May 20, 2009, Katami and Zarrillo applied for a marriage license from defendant Logan, the Los Angeles County Clerk, who denied them a license due to Proposition 8 because they are of the same sex.

Plaintiff-Intervenor

  1. San Francisco is a charter city and county under the California Constitution and laws of the State of California. Cal Const Art XI, § 5(a); SF Charter Preamble.
  2. San Francisco is responsible for issuing marriage licenses, performing civil marriage ceremonies and maintaining vital records of marriages. Cal Fam Code §§ 350(a), 401(a), 400(b).

Defendants

  1. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the Governor of California.
  2. Edmund G Brown, Jr is the Attorney General of California.
  3. Mark B Horton is the Director of the California Department of Public Health and the State Registrar of Vital Statistics of the State of California. In his official capacity, Horton is responsible for prescribing and furnishing the forms for marriage license applications, the certificate of registry of marriage, including the license to marry, and the marriage certificate. See Doc #46 ¶ 15 (admitting Doc #1 ¶ 15).
  4. Linette Scott is the Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public [p. 56] Health. Scott reports to Horton and is the official responsible for prescribing and furnishing the forms for marriage license applications, the certificate of registry of marriage, including the license to marry, and the marriage certificate. See Doc #46 ¶ 16 (admitting Doc #1 ¶ 16).
  5. Patrick O'Connell is the Alameda County Clerk-Registrar and is responsible for maintaining vital records of marriages, issuing marriage licenses and performing civil marriage ceremonies. See Doc #42 ¶ 17 (admitting Doc #1 ¶ 17).
  6. Dean C Logan is the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and is responsible for maintaining vital records of marriages, issuing marriage licenses and performing civil marriage ceremonies. Doc #41 ¶ 13 (admitting Doc #1 ¶ 18).

Defendant-Intevenors (Proponents)

  1. Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J Knight, Martin F Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam and Mark A Jansson are the "official proponents" of Proposition 8 under California law.
    1. Doc #8-6 at ¶ 19 (Decl of David Bauer);
    2. Doc #8 at 14 (Proponents' motion to intervene: "Proponents complied with a myriad of legal requirements to procure Proposition 8's enactment, such as (1) filing forms prompting the State to prepare Proposition 8's Title and Summary, (2) paying the initiative filing fee, (3) drafting legally compliant signature petitions, (4) overseeing the collection of more than 1.2 million signatures, (5) instructing signature-collectors on state-law guidelines, and (6) obtaining certifications from supervising signature-gatherers."). [p. 57]
  2. Proponents dedicated substantial time, effort, reputation and personal resources in campaigning for Proposition 8.
    1. Tr 1889:23-1893:15: Tam spent the majority of his hours in 2008 working to pass Proposition 8;
    2. Doc #8-1 at ¶ 27 (Decl of Dennis Hollingsworth);
    3. Doc #8-2 at ¶ 27 (Decl of Gail J Knight);
    4. Doc #8-3 (Decl of Martin F Gutierrez: describing activities to pass and enforce Proposition 8);
    5. Doc #8-4 at ¶ 27 (Decl of Hak-Shing William Tam);
    6. Doc #8-5 at ¶ 27 (Decl of Mark A Jansson).
  3. Proponents established ProtectMarriage.com —— Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal ("Protect Marriage") as a "primarily formed ballot measure committee" under California law.
    1. Doc #8-1 at ¶ 13 (Decl of Dennis Hollingsworth);
    2. Doc #8-2 at ¶ 13 (Decl of Gail J Knight);
    3. Doc #8-3 at ¶ 13 (Decl of Martin F Gutierrez);
    4. Doc #8-4 at ¶ 13 (Decl of Hak-Shing William Tam);
    5. Doc #8-5 at ¶ 13 (Decl of Mark A Jansson).
  4. The Protect Marriage Executive Committee includes Ron Prentice, Edward Dolejsi, Mark A Jansson and Doug Swardstrom. Andrew Pugno acts as General Counsel. David Bauer is the Treasurer and officer of record for Protect Marriage.
    1. Doc #372 at 4 (identifying the above individuals based on the declaration of Ron Prentice, submitted under seal on November 6, 2009);
    2. PX0209 Letter from Protect Marriage to Jim Abbott (Oct 20, 2008): Letter to a business that donated money to a group opposing Proposition 8 demanding "a donation of a like amount" to Protect Marriage. The letter is signed by: Ron Prentice, Protect Marriage Chairman; Andrew Pugno, Protect Marriage General Counsel; Edward Dolejsi, Executive Director, California Catholic Conference; and [p. 58] Mark Jansson, a Protect Marriage Executive Committee Member.
  5. Protect Marriage was responsible for all aspects of the campaign to qualify Proposition 8 for the ballot and enact it into law.
    1. Doc #8-6 at ¶¶ 4, 6, 10, 11 (Decl of David Bauer);
    2. PX2403 Email from Kenyn Cureton, Vice-President, Family Research Council, to Prentice at 1 (Aug 25, 2008): Cureton attaches a kit to be distributed to Christian voters through churches to help them promote Proposition 8. Cureton explains to Prentice that Family Research Council ("FRC") found out from Pugno that FRC "need[s] to take FRC logos off of the CA version of the videos (legal issues) and just put ProtectMarriage.com on everything" and FRC is "making those changes.";
    3. PX2640 Email from Pugno to Tam (Feb 5, 2008) at 2: "I do not think it is likely, but in the event you are contacted by the media or anyone else regarding the Marriage Amendment [Proposition 8], I would encourage you to please refer all calls to the campaign phone number.... It is crucial that our public message be very specific.";
    4. PX2640 Email from Pugno to Tam (Feb 5, 2008) at 2: Pugno explains that Tam is "an exception" to Protect Marriage's press strategy and should speak on behalf of the campaign directly to the Chinese press. See Tr 1906:9-12;
    5. Tr 1892:9-12 (Tam: In October 2007, Tam was waiting for instructions from Protect Marriage regarding when he should start collecting signatures to place Proposition 8 on the ballot.);
    6. Tr 1904:3-5 (Tam: Tam participated in a debate because Protect Marriage told him to do so.);
    7. Tr 1998:23-1999:11 (Tam: Protect Marriage reimbursed individuals who ran print and television ads in support of Proposition 8.);
    8. Tr 1965:15-1966:4 (Tam: Tam signed a "Statement of Unity with respect to the Proposition 8 campaign" both "[o]n behalf of [him]self and on behalf of the Traditional Family Coalition.");
    9. PX2476 Email from Tam to list of supporters (Oct 22, 2007): "I'm still waiting for ProtectMarriage.com for [p. 59] instructions of when we would start the signature collection for [Proposition 8]."
  6. Protect Marriage is a "broad coalition" of individuals and organizations, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the "LDS Church"), the California Catholic Conference and a large number of evangelical churches.
    1. PX2310 About ProtectMarriage.com, Protect Marriage (2008): Protect Marriage "about" page identifies a "broad-based coalition" in support of Proposition 8;
    2. PX0577 Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint, Passing Prop 8, Politics (Feb 2009) at 47: "We had the support of virtually the entire faith community in California.";
    3. Tr 1585:20-1590:2 (Segura: Churches, because of their hierarchical structure and ability to speak to congregations once a week, have a "very strong communication network" with churchgoers. A network of "1700 pastors" working with Protect Marriage in support of Proposition 8 is striking because of "the sheer breadth of the [religious] organization and its level of coordination with Protect Marriage.");
    4. Tr 1590:23-1591:12 (Segura: An "organized effort" and "formal association" of religious groups formed the "broad-based coalition" of Protect Marriage.);
    5. Tr 1609:12-1610:6 (Segura: The coalition between the Catholic Church and the LDS Church against a minority group was "unprecedented.");
    6. PX2597 Email from Prentice to Lynn Vincent (June 19, 2008): Prentice explains that "[f]rom the initial efforts in 1998 for the eventual success of Prop 22 in 2000, a coalition of many organizations has existed, including evangelical, Catholic and Mormon groups" and identifies Catholic and evangelical leaders working to pass Proposition 8;
    7. PX0390A Video, Ron Prentice Addressing Supporters of Proposition 8, Excerpt: Prentice explains the importance of contributions from the LDS Church, Catholic bishops and evangelical ministers to the Protect Marriage campaign;
    8. PX0577 Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint, Passing Prop 8, Politics at 46 (Feb 2009): "By this time, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had endorsed Prop 8 and joined the campaign executive committee. Even [p. 60] though the LDS were the last major denomination to join the campaign, their members were immensely helpful in early fundraising, providing much-needed contributions while we were busy organizing Catholic and Evangelical fundraising efforts."

Notes[edit]

2 ↑ . To the extent any of the findings of fact should more properly be considered conclusions of law, they shall be deemed as such.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Perry_v._Schwarzenegger/8:Findings_of_Fact--The_Parties&oldid=4913262"