protectmarriage.com - Yes on 8 v. Debra Bowen

Opinion by Judge MILAN D. SMITH, Jr.; Dissent by Judge WALLACE.

OPINION

Appellants bring facial and as-applied challenges to California’s Political Reform Act of 1974, Cal. Gov.Code. §§ 81000-91014(PRA), and seek (1) an injunction exempting them from the PRA’s future reporting deadlines, and (2) declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the State to purge all records of Appellants’ past PRA disclosures. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State of California on all counts. We affirm the district court’s judgment with regard to Appellants’ facial challenges. We dismiss this appeal as non justiciable with regard to Appellants’ as-applied challenges. And, we remand with instructions that the district court vacate the portion of its opinion concerning Appellants’ as-applied challenges.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The PRA requires political committees to report certain information about their contributors to the State. Specifically, po *831 litical committees must file semi-annual disclosures, which, among other things, identify those individuals who have contributed more than $100 during or after a campaign, in addition to each contributor’s…

dissenting in part:

I do not disagree with the majority’s disposition of Appellants’ facial challenges. The majority is correct that our precedent, including our decision in Family PAC v. McKenna, 685 F.3d 800 (9th Cir.2012), forecloses those challenges. However, I disagree with the majority’s determination that Appellants’ as-applied challenges are nonjusticiable.

The majority offers three rationales for its holding that Appellants’ as-applied challenges are non-justiciable. First, the majority concludes that those challenges are moot, insofar as various Internet websites have republished the information contained in Appellants’ disclosures. (Majority Op. at 834.) Second, the majority concludes that Appellants cannot avail themselves of the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness. The majority reaches this conclusion on the ground that this exception only applies to cases in which there is an “inherent limit” on the “duration of [the] controversy,” and faults Appellants for not seeking and obtaining immediate relief from our court after the district court denied their motion for a temporary restraining order. (Id. at 836-38.) Finally, the majority…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM - YES ON 8, No. 11-17884

A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA

RENEWAL; NATIONAL D.C. No. ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE 2:09-cv-00058- CALIFORNIA, Yes on 8, Sponsored MCE-DAD by National Organization for Marriage; NATIONAL ORGANIZATION

FOR MARRIAGE CALIFORNIA PAC; OPINION

JOHN DOE #1, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

DEBRA BOWEN; ROSS JOHNSON;

CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE;

KAMALA HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; EUGENE

HUGUENIN, JR.; LYNN

MONTGOMERY; RONALD ROTUNDA;

ANN MILLER RAVEL, in her official capacity as Chair of the Fair Political Practices Commission; SEAN ESKOVITZ, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Fair Political Practices Commission;

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS CITY

AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO;

DENNIS J. HERRERA, City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco; DEAN C. LOGAN; JAN

SCULLY,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief…