Vaughn Walker

Walker spoke about the case on June 30. Some of his remarks and reactions include:

• The case raises issues that might need to be considered at a trial, "including the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians and the intent and effects of the state constitutional amendment."^[5]

• He said he was not inclined to issue an injunction but instead to move speedily to a trial.

• Blocking or suspending Proposition 8 before a trial might "inject still further uncertainty in an important area of concern and interest to the state and its citizens."^[6]

Walker's position that a trial is needed was unpopular with Brian Raum, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund who is representing the sponsors of Proposition 8. Raum said he doesn't think a trial is necessary because the only issues he believes should be in dispute are issues of law.^[5]

On July 2, 2009, Judge Walker moved to give fast-track status to the lawsuit in which plaintiffs seek to overturn Proposition 8. Judge Walker agreed to let proponents for Proposition 8 to intervene in the case to defend the validity of the measure while California Attorney General Jerry Brown repeatedly claimed that the measure was unconstitutional. ^[7]

During the hour long hearing that took place in a packed courtroom, Judge Walker ordered the parties involved in the case to file by August 7, 2009 their case management proposals laying out the facts they agree on, the facts that still need to be tried, and a plan on how to proceed the case. ^[7]

On August 14, 2009, the judge asked both sides to issue their final briefs on how to proceed on the Proposition 8 case as there could be a possibility the case may move on without a trial. Both sides have been divisive on which additional litigants should be involved in the case as the main roadblock towards moving to trial. The two sides have agreed to be the only litigants in the case despite the City of San Francisco and other gay advocacy groups that want in on the case. ^[8]

On August 19, 2009, Judge Walker approved the case management plans of both sides and set a trial date for January 11, 2010 in which the judge will hear arguments from both sides in a full jury trial. However, the judge rejected motions to allow additional litigants in the case including some gay rights advocacy groups and the City of San Francisco. Judge Walker felt that by allowing additional litigants in the case, it would deprive the right of a speedy trial for both sides. ^[9]

Later, on October 2, 2009, Judge Walker ordered supporters of Proposition 8 to hand over their campaign strategy documents to the judge. Judge Walker is examining the campaign documents to see if supporters of Prop 8 acted in a matter of prejudice. If Judge Walker finds the ballot measure was discriminatory, then the ballot measure's results could be invalidated^[10]. Backers of Proposition 8 filed a motion to gut the January trial over past Supreme Court of the United States precedent^[11]. On October 14, 2009, Judge Walker dismissed the motion in which the trial is still moving towards its January 2010 date^[12].

An appeal was filed to the Judge's order to hand over campaign strategy documents on Proposition 8. Groups in favor of the ban on gay marriage in California, appealed the ruling over issues of freedom of speech and percieved harrassment. The Judge ruled on October 23, 2009 that there was not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to stop his order^[13].

Judge Walker has been open to the idea of having television cameras carry coverage of the Proposition 8 trial, but supporters of Proposition 8 are opposed to the idea claiming witnesses may be intimidated. The idea to have the trial be televised comes after the Ninth Circuit has been experimenting with television coverage of non-jury trials in 2009. Also, television networks like TruTV (formerly Court TV) support the idea of having the trial televised^[14].

On January 6, 2010, Judge Walker announced that the trial will be televised over YouTube^[15].

On August 4, 2010 Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, as it violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the opinion, he wrote, "“Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”^[16]

In 2011, Judge Walker came under attack for failure to recuse himself from the Prop. 8 case after he disclosed that he is gay. He announced on April 6 that he has been in a 10-year relationship with another man and added that he never considered his sexual orientation was relevant to the case. "It would not be a positive development if a judge’s sexuality, national origin or gender was pertinent to handling a case. That would be a slippery slope." ^[17]

On Tuesday, February 7, a three judge appellate panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in Perry v. Brown which upheld the rulings by district court judges Vaughn Walker and James Ware which overturned California's Proposition 8 which blocked same sex marriage in the state. The panel, consisting of Judges Michael Hawkins, Stephen Reinhardt and Randy Smith, stated that “Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California." The court ruled that the same-sex marriage ban violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The ruling states:

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted... Under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status...

In effect, the court concluded that, because domestic partnerships had already established equal rights for same-sex couples, the measure only served to deny these relationships the designation of "marriage." This, according to the court, was not a legitimate purpose for treating these couples differently under the law. The panel rendered split in its decision with Judge Randy Smith concurring in part and dissenting in part. The panel upheld both the decisions of Chief Judge Ware as well as Senior Judge Walker, whose original decision has been challenged on the grounds that Walker had an undisclosed long term relationship with another man at the time of the case. The ruling clears the way for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the subject next year.^[18] For expansive coverage of the ballot measure and ensuing legal controversy, please see: California Proposition 8, the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" Initiative (2008).