ERNEST J. DRONENBURG, JR., in his official capacity as County
Clerk of San Diego County,
Petitioner,
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., in his official capacity as Governor of the
State of California; KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of California; RON CHAPMAN, in his
official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public
Health; TONY AGURTO, in his official capacity as State Registrar of
Vital Statistics and Assistant Deputy Director of Health Information and
Strategic Planning of the California Department of Public Health, Respondents....
...By this Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate, Petitioner
Ernest J. Dronenburg, Jr., in his official capacity as
County Clerk of San
Diego County, hereby respectfully requests a writ of mandate ordering
Respondents—Edmund G. Brown Jr., in his official capacity as Governor
of the State of California; Kamala D. Harris, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of California; Dr. Ron Chapman, in his
official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health;
and Tony Agurto, in his official capacity as State Registrar of Vital
Statistics and Assistant Deputy Director of Health Information and
Statistics and Assistant Deputy Director of Health Information and
Strategic Planning of the California Department of Public Health (hereafter
referred to as the State Registrar)—to execute their supervisory duties,
which do not include control over county clerks issuing marriage licenses,
consistent with state law limitations.
2. Petitioner also requests an immediate temporary stay during
the pendency of these writ proceedings (1) that orders Respondents not to
enforce the State Registrar’s directive commanding county clerks to issue
marriage licenses contrary to state law defining marriage as the union
between one man and one woman, and (2) that directs Petitioner to refrain
from issuing marriage licenses contrary to state law defining marriage as
the union between one man and one woman until this Court settles the
important issues raised in this Petition.
Petitioner has been placed in an
unsustainable position because, among other things, he has been threatened
with legal action by the Attorney General for exercising his public duties
consistent with state law defining marriage as the union between one man
and one woman. The urgency demanding this immediate temporary stay
derives primarily from the need to provide legal clarity regarding
Petitioner’s duty to issue marriage licenses in accordance with state law.
This Petition raises fundamental questions of state law that
affect Petitioner’s legal duty to issue marriage licenses. Respondents have
ordered Petitioner to stop enforcing state law that defines marriage as the
union between one man and one woman. In support of their order,
Respondents claim that Petitioner is bound by a federal court injunction
that prohibits enforcement of that state marriage law because, according to
Respondents, state law provides them with authority to supervise or control
county clerks issuing marriage licenses. Petitioner, however, asserts that
state law does not give Respondents this authority over him, and for this
reason, among others discussed in the accompanying Memorandum of
Points and Authorities....
This Court should grant the relief requested in this Petition
because
state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman
continues to govern throughout the State; Respondents’ clear and present
duties do not afford them supervisory control over Petitioner; Respondents
have ordered Petitioner not to enforce state law defining marriage as a
union between a man and a woman; Petitioner has a beneficial interest in
enforcing state marriage law as provided in duly enacted constitutional and
statutory provisions free of unlawful supervision or directives; Petitioner
has a beneficial interest in obtaining legal clarity regarding his duty to issue
marriage licenses in accordance with state law; and (since Petitioner is not
bound by the above-mentioned federal court injunction) Petitioner must
enforce state marriage law notwithstanding Respondents’ contrary order.
http://savecalifornia.com/images/stories/PDFs/clerkwritpetition.pdf
