Litigation

CA's Proposition 8 Supporters Seek Hearing

California's Proposition 8 supporters filed a motion on April 27, arguing that former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker's judgment striking down the state's gay marriage ban should be vacated because he may have had a personal interest in the outcome.

Walker, who struck down the ban last year, is gay and in a long-term relationship. While he was silent about his personal life while hearing the case, he acknowledged his orientation in an interview with reporters earlier in the month.

At the very least, lawyers for the proponents wrote, Walker should have told the parties he was gay. But he may have been required to go further, they wrote: “For if at any time while this case was pending before him, Chief Judge Walker and his partner determined that they desired, or might desire, to marry, Chief Judge Walker plainly had an 'interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding'” requiring disqualification.

The filing is the first time the Prop 8 backers have broached Walker's sexual orientation in court papers. Two weeks before the filing, they accused him of misusing a video recording of the trial.

Walker, who left the bench at the end of February and has started his own practice focusing on alternative dispute resolution, did not return a call seeking comment. In April, when he disclosed his sexual orientation, he told reporters that he did not think it provided grounds for recusal any more than a judge's race or gender would.

The proponents are seeking a July hearing date. Walker's ruling is on appeal at the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which kicked a question on standing to the state Supreme Court. The state justices haven't yet set an argument date. ' Ginny LaRoe, The Recorder

CA's Proposition 8 Supporters Seek Hearing

California's Proposition 8 supporters filed a motion on April 27, arguing that former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker's judgment striking down the state's gay marriage ban should be vacated because he may have had a personal interest in the outcome.

Walker, who struck down the ban last year, is gay and in a long-term relationship. While he was silent about his personal life while hearing the case, he acknowledged his orientation in an interview with reporters earlier in the month.

At the very least, lawyers for the proponents wrote, Walker should have told the parties he was gay. But he may have been required to go further, they wrote: “For if at any time while this case was pending before him, Chief Judge Walker and his partner determined that they desired, or might desire, to marry, Chief Judge Walker plainly had an 'interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding'” requiring disqualification.

The filing is the first time the Prop 8 backers have broached Walker's sexual orientation in court papers. Two weeks before the filing, they accused him of misusing a video recording of the trial.

Walker, who left the bench at the end of February and has started his own practice focusing on alternative dispute resolution, did not return a call seeking comment. In April, when he disclosed his sexual orientation, he told reporters that he did not think it provided grounds for recusal any more than a judge's race or gender would.

The proponents are seeking a July hearing date. Walker's ruling is on appeal at the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which kicked a question on standing to the state Supreme Court. The state justices haven't yet set an argument date. ' Ginny LaRoe, The Recorder