I waded into this conversation a few days ago, and though I might be leaning just slightly towards 2012, I am still a bit mixed on this one. But the sides are full of emotion.  There is the emotion of wanting to return to the ballot right now. To not rest and to fight right away.

On the other side, there is some strong emotion.  There is a very real fear that if we go back to the ballot, that we will move in the wrong direction. There is concern that we will not have the resources that we need to actually compete, and that we’ll have to deal with the CW-ish 3 strikes and you’re out theory of ballot measures. (Don’t tell that to the parental notification people)

Nonetheless, there is one player in this fight that is bigger than the rest: Equality California.  They are the biggest LGBT organization in the state, and while they might have lost some of their luster in the Prop 8 debacle, they are still clinging to primacy.  So, when they released their “Roadmap to Equality” today, people paid attention.

First, they start with this premise:

We also surveyed our membership prior to the Court upholding Prop 8 and new polling being released, and found that a majority of those who responded supported going back to the ballot in 2010, although the vast majority of our members either didn’t vote or were undecided.

Well, that’s all well and good, but the immediate discounting of their memebership kind of puts them in the category of an insider, rather than a grassroots organization. That’s not inherently bad, but certainly worth noting.

And in the end, they come up with a plan favoring 2012:

But they are not the only player in this, so the more pressing concern is what happens if it qualifies in 2010? EQCA seems to discount this in their public statements to bloggers and the media, but it isn’t really that much of a longshot. They seem to take the tack that one part of the community can go one way, and the other can go another.  I’m not sure this is true; it more sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Peep the whole report over the flip.

EQCA-WINNING_BACK_MARRIAGE_EQUALITY –  

If you ever chat with an LGBT activist, bumped into one on the street, or happen to sit near one on the train, you’ve heard about the great 2010 v 2012 debate. It’s all the rage in the LGBT community. On the surface, it’s a relatively simple point: do we go back to the ballot to repeal Prop 8 in 2010, 2012, or the rather fearsome “someday.”

First, to borrow from one activist, let me address one point which I think is frequently ignored in this debate. The decision isn’t really one between simply 2010 and 2012. It is a fight between 2010, 2012 and fear.  There are some who will always argue that it is too early. There isn’t enough money, people are mad right now, yada, yada, yada. To those people, and you know who you are: F you.

To me this is an argument of political strategy and civil rights. And with that, the question is can we build a campaign that can reasonably win in 2010? A campaign that has both smart leadership and a vibrant and successful grassroots. That is what I’m looking at with this question.  The Courage Campaign post/letter of last week talked about some of the various strategic questions.

They touched upon one of the questions, but here’s a slightly different take:

First, just the hard numbers should give us pause as we look towards the ballot in 2010. That is not to say that we cannot win in 2010, but it will be challenging. The lower turnout will skew slightly more conservative, and there is a slight advantage of just another couple of years taking their course on the electorate. If we were ONLY looking at which would be easier, it’s really not that close of a call, 2012 is a better bet.

Of course, we can’t look only at electoral ease.  LGBT families are being denied civil rights, and that is an untenable situation. As William Gladstone reportedly said, “justice delayed is justice denied.” This is certainly true, and a delay hurts not only the LGBT community, but the greater cause of civil rights in California and the nation.

Follow me over the flip, this is going to take a bit of explaining, and a bit of time mulling over the role of Equality California.

Yet we need to ensure that if we go to the ballot that we move forward, and not back.  A step backward from our 48-52 loss would be a devastating blow, and might hinder our chances at another attempt in 2012.

This is a movement in chaos.  There is no leader. There is no follower. I have been involved in many of the decision making processes.  And calling them that is rather generous.  I don’t want to sound heavy-handed here, but you can’t run a campaign through a democracy. You can’t call for votes of 50 organizations and then do something. You can’t plan everything with a conference call of 50-100 people.  This is unwieldy, and quite simply, you will not get any better result than we did last November unless we radically change how things are done.

Take the largest LGBT organization in the state, Equality California.  They’ve hired a few new folks, but the fundamental problem we had in 2008 is still there. They are a really, really good lobbying organization, and they are a valuable asset to the community in that role.  However, I’ve yet to see any evidence that they are a really good political organization. The two are vastly different tasks. Marc Solomon, who is now the “marriage director” for EQCA, has tremendous experience in Massachusetts in leading the charge for marriage equality while the case was in the courts and then helping to block it from getting on the ballot, but, to put it bluntly, he’s not what you would consider an expert on California ballot campaigns.  And as for the ED of EQCA, Geoff Kors, he’s not really given EQCA stakeholders any more reason to trust the organization. If EQCA was serious about moving forward, perhaps they should look for leadership amongst the legions of LGBT political campaigners who have had experience in working and running ballot initiatives in California.

Of course, EQCA is a 2012 leaning organization now, and you can’t blame them for that. It is, after all, in their interest. Despite polling from their own members showing strong support for 2010, as an institutional player, they are simply more slow to react. But their failures are real in a number of ways. They don’t carry the same level of trust, and their tiptoeing through the daisies has prevented any other organization from really taking the lead on this.

This lack of trust in our formerly central organization has led to a flourishing of other really interesting organizations, particularly in the LA Area, pushing for more proactive movement on the repeal.  However, EQCA is still clinging to primacy throughout the state, and that fact ensures that no other organization can take the reins, for better or worse.  We are left with a sort of cold war, played out in some very passive-aggressive actions between the old guard and the new. It is not effective for anybody, the old line organizations, the newly-formed insurgent groups, and for the community as a whole. If we are to succeed in repealing Prop 8, in 2010 or 2012, we are going to need to sort out these issues.

But our organizational problems can be overcome.  Polls alone are not enough, and organization can be built.

“If Barack Obama had relied on the polls, then he never would have run for president,” Steve Hildebrand, one of Obama’s top confidants and a gay rights advocate, told The Chronicle. Hildebrand has informally advised the Courage Campaign on the issue. “And 16 months until an election is a lifetime.”

(SF Chronicle 8/10/09)

There is yet time, but it is an ever-narrowing window. If we are going to go to the ballot, a question of which I am still not sure myself, we simply need to pull our collective shit together.  The mob mentality that we have seen in the politics of the Prop 8 repeal efforts has to be harnessed into an effective grassroots campaign with a structure that can support and nurture all that energy. We need strategists who understand California and understand the particular issue that will dedicate their time and effort to the cause.

We can’t continue simply playing pattycake and worrying that somebody’s feelings will get hurt in one of the 87 marriage equality orgs. I’m all about democracy, but we can’t let it run amok with our efforts to win in the bigger democratic arena.

So, there’s the gauntlet: get serious about 2010, or about 2012. But either way, let’s ensure that we keep our eyes on the prize: repealing Prop 8.

The recent LGBT leadership summit in San Bernardino left a very bad taste in my mouth. Much has been posted on blogs trying to gloss over the concerns of LGBT communities of color, who were effectively silenced and steamrolled by proponents of 2010. Posts on a variety of blogs characterized the meeting as the community coming together. I beg to differ.

It began with a re-writing of history. Was I wrong to think that the leadership summit was about coming to a decision-making process about moving forward on marriage equality? Apparently I was under the wrong impression. Because it all came down to this, perfectly encapsulated by the constant cries out for “I want a date!” That was my take-away from the meeting.

The proponents of 2010 co-opted the discussion at every turn, using scare-tactics, mis-information, revisionist history and mob rule that would make Karl Rove proud. They purposefully dismissed and denigrated any sort of “so-called” expert, i.e., campaign consultants, if they didn’t fall in line and support their position. If the facts were not to their liking, well, then, anecdotal evidence and their “feeling” that we will win should have been evidence enough for the community to put up the resources and gird for battle next year.

The audience reception to the Prepare to Prevail presentation was polite, at best. However, Love Honor Cherish used their time not to present their plan and make the case based on its merits, but rather attack Prepare to Prevail and go into campaign mode and use every emotional appeal to whip the room into a frenzy of “2010! 2010!” I was appalled by the personal attacks spoken from the podium. It was clear they expected everyone to “fall in line” under their leadership. They offered zero empirical evidence that anything they proposed was achievable. I was offended by their accusation that those who had legitimate concerns about proceeding hastily were defeatists. It was also clear they had no support from communities of color, education groups, labor, or any other coalition partners necessary to win a statewide election. When both groups were asked specifically about what work was being done in communities of color, you could see 2010 proponents scrambling to confer to come up with a generic response. The primary spokesperson for LHC was obviously not ready for primetime, employing the problematic and simplistic analogy to the Civil Rights Movement, and throwing in a completely inaccurate reference to Rosa Parks (to a chorus of boos). As a community, we need to be careful to honor and respect movements that have preceded us, and while we apply lessons learned from other movements, each is unique and quick comparisons have the potential to exacerbate tensions between the LGBT community and coalition partners.

Of course, because the room was stacked, they ate it up. I was left stunned by what I had just witnessed. If there was any hope of respectful dialogue or of the community coming together, it was dashed by LHC’s invective and campaign of personal destruction. They, and 2010 supporters, knowing the summit was being streamed live, even used that fact to co-opt the proceedings. At one point, while we were debating taking a (non-binding) straw poll at the end of the day, someone commandeered the microphone and basically said, “Our opponents are watching us online laughing. If we don’t take a vote now on 2010, they win.” By the end of the day, there was no clear consensus on anything, and a coalition of the willing charged ahead to create a campaign plan (with the caveat, expressed by some, that there be no veto power when and if presented after their upcoming meeting in Los Angeles this weekend).

I understand the passion in the room, but the histrionics were over the top. There was a serious miscalculation and underestimation of our opponents and the political landscape next year. This decision to engage in a ballot initiative cannot be made in a vacuum. Our community does not understand the power that reactionary, conservative ballot initiatives have in shaping the electorate. It was a gun control ballot initiative that torpedoed Tom Bradley’s bid for governor in 1982 (semi-debunking the origins of the “Bradley effect.” It was Prop 187 that helped Pete Wilson win reelection, even though his approval ratings were horrible. The possibility of a 2010 initiative to restrict services to undocumented immigrants was outright dismissed as “not a problem.” It is a problem, because that initiative will pull conservatives out of the woodwork to vote for that initiative and at the same time, against our rights. We do not yet have meaningful partnerships with immigrants’ rights groups. There was no strong coalition in place in 2008, and one does not exist for 2010. (It should be noted that the room was at most, 8% people of color, no one publicly identified themselves as representing any union or labor organization, and fewer than 15% were from Northern California, even though half of the pro-marriage equality voters needed for victory reside here.)

This attitude is symptomatic of the sense of entitlement and privilege on display in San Bernardino. Why should our straight allies, educators, communities of color, labor, care about marriage equality? It was presumptuous for the LGBT community to expect support in 2008 when the LGBT community is absent in the discussion of other communities’ struggles. So think carefully about 2010. Have those relationships with communities we need on our side to win been cultivated? A campaign without prominent support from communities of color will be a failed campaign, and that weakness will absolutely be exploited by the opposition. I was rocked out of my seat when, on more than one occasion, it was asked, “Do we need people of color to win? Can’t we just register thousands of new, young voters?” It was quite evident in the room that the LGBT community in California needs to have a frank, honest discussion about race because pretending it’s not an issue in the marriage campaign is naïve.

So I’m tired of being bashed for wanting to achieve equality by building a progressive movement in California. This is not about 2010 versus 2012. This is about doing the work necessary to attain, and then, defend, our full equality. It’s like cramming for an exam. You may stay up all night reading 10 weeks of material in one night, and pass the exam. But what happens if you have to take another exam in the same subject? Had you prepared and learned the material all along, no problem. Instead, by taking the shortcut, you have to re-cram for the next exam. It’s the same in politics. If you build a broad coalition to support marriage equality, it will be much easier to prevail and then defend our victory. It is not realistic to assume that we can just go back to the ballot box year after year until we win.

I do want to commend all the presenters for Prepare to Prevail. I felt they were composed, passionate about achieving marriage equality, and understood that the campaign to achieve full equality is part of building a strong and lasting progressive movement. I also feel that LHC owes the community a public apology for their attacks on those who had a different opinion than theirs. Vigorous debate is healthy. Attacks are destructive.  

There has been a lot of discussion about when to go back to the ballot to repeal Prop 8 over the last few months.

One thing we cannot do is let the clock run out. With that in mind, please read the statement we just put out to our community partners and chime in with your reactions in the comments.

From: Rick Jacobs, Chair, Courage Campaign and the staff of the Courage Campaign

To: Our friends, allies and partners in the marriage equality movement

Subject: 2010: It’s time to make a decision

I write to you today with urgency and seriousness. After months of discussion and debate, the time has come to make the tough decision.

In May, 83% of Courage Campaign members said that our organization should work with our partners to place a marriage equality initiative on the ballot in 2010. If the Courage Campaign and our allies in the movement want to initiate the repeal of Prop 8 in 2010, we must make that decision very soon.

Frankly, too much attention has been placed on the political consequences of running an election in 2010 or 2012. The bottom line is that we must begin now to convince the people of California that civil marriage rights should be made available to all people, period. None of us should have to wait one more day to achieve equality at any level.

And while I say that, I also don’t want to lose this critical battle. Going to the ballot in 2010 is a decision that obviously comes with potential consequences.

Our members told us to help build the movement, so over the last several months, the Courage Campaign has mobilized 44 grassroots Equality Teams in 23 counties across California. And we’ve held five Camp Courage trainings in communities from the coast to the Central Valley to train people to be successful organizers. Last weekend alone, 279 activists gathered in East L.A. at the most diverse Camp Courage yet, with tremendous support from the Latino and Asian Pacific Islander communities.

We’ve also been working with some of the smartest, most experienced campaign professionals in America — people who ran Barack Obama’s campaign, who know California and who can help our movement chart a course to victory. They’ve given us tough love, great advice and helped us outline the steps necessary to a successful outcome. This team isn’t telling us when to initiate the repeal of Prop 8, but they are telling us we need to start now with a persuasion campaign designed to win the hearts and minds of California voters — no matter which election year we wage the battle.

The Courage Campaign will support a repeal of Prop 8 in 2010 if our members — together with other major stakeholders involved in this movement — make a strong commitment to this campaign.

I want to be clear that no one organization can dominate what will need to be an independent, but accountable campaign operation. The Courage Campaign will aggressively support the effort, not run it. A small governing structure should oversee the day-to-day operations — giving an experienced campaign manager the latitude necessary to make smart, strategic and timely decisions. If a campaign for 2010 materializes, the governing structure should include those who did not necessarily support going to the ballot in 2010, but are necessary and fundamental partners to any campaign to win back marriage equality.

To win, we will need to run a smarter, stronger and more disciplined campaign. The first step in running a winning campaign is to ensure we use the most effective initiative language that a majority of California voters will support. This takes research – expert polling and focus group work that will help us gain the best understanding of the California electorate. And we must begin that research immediately.

Along with our allies, we need to raise $200,000 to conduct this research — and we don’t have much time to raise it. If the Courage Campaign can raise $100,000 and our partners and allies in the movement can raise another $100,000 — for a total of $200,000 — we can put the research effort in place and meet the late September deadline recommended by the Secretary of State for filing an initiative for 2010.

We are prepared to ask our members to raise $100,000 to meet our commitment to this goal. We are willing to ask the Courage Campaign community to make this commitment because they expressed their support for going to the ballot in 2010 by such an overwhelming margin.

If we can make this community fundraising goal, we can move forward. If we can’t make this community fundraising goal, then we will have to accept that the movement is not ready to produce the funding and resources necessary to support a campaign to repeal Prop 8 in 2010. And we will have to wait until 2012 to bring marriage equality to the ballot again.

Our people-powered organization is ready to win, but we are faced with the reality of these deadlines. If we want to convince a majority of our fellow Californians to support full civil marriage rights in 2010, the marriage equality movement has to stand up and commit to the cause now.

Together.

Rev. Eric Lee, the outstanding leader of the LA Chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Council is getting heat from the national leadership for his support of marriage equality. The New York Times has a story of the split over LGBT rights within the fabled civil rights organization. (h/t Pam Spaulding)

Mr. Lee said that his opposition to Proposition 8 had “created tension in my life I had never experienced with black clergy.”

“But it was clear to me,” he added, “that any time you deny one group of people the same right that other groups have, that is a clear violation of civil rights and I have to speak up on that.”

In April, Mr. Lee attended a board meeting of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Kansas City, Mo., and found himself once again in the minority position among his colleagues on the issue of same-sex marriage, but he was told, he said, by the group’s interim president, Byron Clay, that the organization publicly had a neutral position on the issue.

So a month later, Mr. Lee said, he was surprised to receive a call from the National Board of Directors summoning him immediately to Atlanta to explain why he had taken a position on same-sex marriage without the authority of the national board. (NYT 7/10/09)

As Pam points out, the local groups operate independently. So, it’s not particularly clear what authority the national organization has over the LA Chapter. Further, the LA Chapter’s Board, led by current CDP Secretary Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, is in support of Rev. Lee and his position on marriage equality. While it looks like Rev. Lee was and is on solid footing, the incident reminds us of how much work there is to be done.

Rev. Lee was a leader in the effort to defeat Prop 8. However, as he pointed out, there was a failure of the campaign to reach out to communities of color. However, there has been a distinct effort to learn from these failures in order to not only win marriage equality at the ballot box but to also help create a more stable progressive coalition in the state.

It is important that marriage equality advocates see this struggle in the greater context of civil rights. That means not only LGBT rights, but also the rights of immigrants and those born into poverty. It means building a coalition that stands up and fights when the powerful try to trample the powerless.  And Eric Lee has been a leader, and no matter what capacity, he will continue to be a powerful voice for those who most need it.

Saying that he wants the case to proceed beyond his court quickly, Judge Vaughn Walker denied a request for a preliminary injunction against Prop 8.  

Walker on Thursday rejected a request from the Boies/Olson team that he suspend enforcement of the gay marriage ban while the challenge to it proceeds.

He said he agreed with California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that allowing gay marriages to resume now would create unnecessary confusion for the state and same-sex newlyweds if Proposition 8 is upheld down the road.

But Walker added that he wants to put the case on an accelerated timetable because it involves serious civil rights issues. He directed lawyers for the two couples and the ballot measure’s sponsors to report back to him in writing by Aug. 7 with the issues they agree on up front and those that would need to be resolved at trial.

***

“I am reasonably sure that, given the personalities in this courtroom, this case is only touching down in this court and it will have a life after this court,” Walker said. “What happens here is in many ways a prelude to what happens later.” (AP 7/3/09)

For the time being, there are no new marriages. This, of course, did not surprise anybody, as that particular tack seemed a long shot from day one. As for when the trial will be completed, well, when federal judges want a speedy completion to a case, they have ways of making that happen to a limited extent. However, there really is no guess as to when it will emerge from Judge Walker’s court as too many variables are at play.

Of course, Olson and Boies have intended this case for an audience of 9, but that is still a couple of years away, even with a speedy trial at the district court level. The courts should be the last refuge from the tyranny of the majority, and the fact that Prop 8 violates several provisions of the Constitution mean that it should be struck down.  However, we should not rely on the courts in this instance; we are going to have to win a ballot fight at. Whether in 2010 or 2012, or whenever, a victory for marriage equality in California is only a few years away. And as California goes, so goes the nation.

The LA Times just released a new poll of LA residents on a number of questions. Today, they released their results on marriage equality:

In the state’s continuing political battles over gay marriage, both sides are targeting Latino voters, and a new Los Angeles Times poll illustrates why. Overall, the poll showed, a substantial majority of voters in Los Angeles support the right of same-sex couples to legally marry, with 56% in favor and 37% opposed. (LAT 6/19/09)

In the Prop 8 voting, LA County was almost exactly split, so this is progress. Still, if Prop 8 taught us anything, it’s that you have to take polling numbers with a grain of salt.  Apparently people like to tell pollsters they are voting for marriage equality, but when they get to actually filling out their ballots they change their minds.  

On the crosstabs, we once again see that marriage equality will not be an issue in a few years. Voters 18-29 support marriage equality at a 66-29 clip, voters 50-64 supported at a 55-39 rate.  The only group to oppose equality are seniors. Those over 65 are at 43-48.

Along ethnic lines, white voters supported at 68-27, Latinos split 45-46, and African-Americans opposed at 37-54.

All in all, this poll is relatively good news, but there is a lot of work left to be done.

A while back, David Binder and Amy Simon ran a poll paid for by a coalition of LGBT, civil rights organizations, and hey the Calitics CaliPAC. I want to thank everybody who supported the CaliPAC as we work for equality.

When asked, “Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose allowing same-sex couples to be legally married,” 47% say favor and 48% say oppose. Support for any given ballot measure will depend on the specific language of that measure. For example, results show that support increases if the language specifically includes a provision that says no clergy will be required to perform a service that goes against their faith.

In terms of 2010 vs 2012, there a ton of factors. Turnout might favor marriage equality, however, 2012 will also pull a lot of our volunteers to Nevada and other places for Obama. Who knows what else will be on the ballot to drive turnout in each of these general elections.

Links and more details forthcoming. And here is a conference call with a lot more details.

As I woke up yesterday morning and scanned the morning headlines, one thing jumped out at me: there were lots of stories about the Fresno counter-protests against marriage equality. Take this one from the LA Times:

In Fresno, about 3,000 demonstrators — the same number who turned out the day before on the other side — were told not to accept being called bigots because they support traditional marriage.

“We know we’ve been called hate-mongers. That’s not what we are,” said Jim Franklin, pastor of Cornerstone Church, just after the rally.

“We are people who believe in our values.”

With all of the wonderful planning and hard work that went into MITM4E, it is disappointing to see this kind of story in the media.  But one of the more frustrating aspects was that it didn’t have to be this way.  In many ways, we are inflicting our own wounds.  We must think about the language and images that we present. Demonizing our opponents might feel good, but it doesn’t actually help us get to our goals.  Calling people bad names validates the right-wing worldview that we are somehow out to get them.

The fact is that a large majority of marriage advocates aren’t holding signs comparing pastors to outrageous historical villains.  If we are going to win a YES campaign, we are going to need to run a positive campaign with messages that focus on the benefit to the state of marriage equality.

Unfortunately, the timing of Meet in the Middle for Equality gave the opponents a boost. They were able to hold their rally on Sunday, grab the media who was already in town for the Saturday rally, and get the media coverage on a better news day, Monday.  It’s unfortunate, but the timing favored those who oppose marriage equality.  See also: San Diego U-T, AP via Google, CBS-Fresno. On the flip side, there were some great press hits, like this one in E!, and this one from the Chronicle.

I’m not trying to say that the event wasn’t successful. I think the concept of meeting in one place to discuss our issues and to work for true marriage equality is a solid one.  My point is that we need to be reaching out as much as possible, rather than picking fights.

The key thing is that while rallies are nice and important in mobilizing our friends, the hard work is still yet to come. If we want to win, we have to do it through the hard field work that we really lacked last summer. That means knocking on doors and making personal contacts, perhaps through the Courage Campaign’s Equality Teams. That means making the phone calls, and talking to your friends, neighbors, acquaintances, that guy you see on the train who gets really emotional about his bejeweled games, and well, maybe your family too. Despite all the hoopla and the hype of big rallies with celebrities and inspiring messages, it’s the one-on-one that gets us the votes. The organizing angle was stressed at MITM4E, but as we proceed towards an initiative, we cannot let that get lost in the shuffle.

For a long time, the LGBT community has avoided bringing a federal claim regarding marriage equality.  That will change tomorrow when Ted Olson, former solicitor general under W, and David Boies, his rival in Bush v. Gore.

In a project of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Olson and Boies have united to represent two same-sex couples filing suit after being denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8.

Their suit, to be filed in U.S. District Court in California, calls for an injunction against the proposition, allowing immediate reinstatement of marriage rights for same-sex couples.

The California Supreme Court ruled in May 2008 that state law prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional under the privacy, due process and equal protection guarantees of the California Constitution. (LA Times 5/26/09)

Lamda Legal and other national LGBT legal organizations have explicitly stayed away from pressing this in federal court in order to stay away from the conservative federal courts. But, I suppose it had to happen sometime. The likelihood of success seems slim at this point, especially for the injunction. In all likelihood, we’re going to fight Prop 8 at the ballot.

That being said, we are right on the underlying argument: LGBT couples are denied the equal protection of the law.

UPDATE (by Be_Devine): Interestingly, Boies and Olson filed their lawsuit last Friday, before the California Supreme Court even decided the Prop 8 cases.  They filed the case in the Northern District of California in San Francisco, and the case was assigned to Judge Vaughn Walker.  Judge Walker currently the Chief Judge of the Northern District.  He was nominated by President George I in 1989.  Reagan nominated him earlier, but his nomination failed.  He endured anger from the left because of his membership in the Olympic Club, a private club that was, at the time, all-male and for representing the U.S. Olympic Committee in its suit to stop the use of the term “Gay Olympics.”  Judge Walker has, however, publicly called for the legalization of drugs.  He is considered a conservative judge, but if anything, he is unorthodox.

UPDATE by Brian: I’ve posted the complaint over the flip. You can also find it here.

boies complaint – Get more Business Documents