Domestic Partnership Appeal at Pioneer Courthouse

We’re about thirty minutes away from the 20-minute arguments on either side of the federal appeal over signatures to put a domestic partnership referendum on the fall ballot.

Austin Nimocks, attorney for the anti-gay coalition, is sitting in a wing-back chair here in the wifi-equipped courtroom annex, scribbling in his notes. I’d love to snap a picture of this for you, but the guards here are no-nonsense. I already screwed up by leaving my bag in the courtroom while I dashed to the restroom, only to come back and find out I couldn’t re-enter the courtroom until lawyers were done arguing about something. What is this, a baseball game?

Meanwhile, that’s Restore America’s David Crowe (I’m pretty sure) in the middle, here from Tennessee to join the anti-gay crowd. And on the far right, that’s the light of god shining on him, no doubt. Because Crowe does what Jesus would do.

Check back here soon for updates. We won’t have a decision today, but I’ll pass along the argument highlights and the judges’ questions.

The case up now is about “nine baggies of marijuana,” or approximately 6.2 grams says the government’s attorney, which were found on a guy carrying $690. Oooo, interesting! How many ounces is 6.2 grams, one judge asks? “Now you’re testing my math skills,” says the attorney. “You’re the government, aren’t you supposed to know everything?” the judge shot back. These guys are a hoot.

Oy, so liveblogging is tricky. The attorneys and judges are talking fast, as they’ve only got twenty minutes per side… I’ll sum up as soon as we’re done.

Nimocks is up now, and he’s getting tough questions–like how the state’s signature verification process tends to err on the side of validating signatures. The judges have refuted his argument that if the state can give due process for vote-by-mail when signatures are in question, they can do the same for petitions; they aren’t the same thing, as evidenced by signature fraud on petitions.

The state’s attorney, Kaye McDonald, and Basic Rights Oregon’s attorney Margaret Olney also wrangled with the judges on the state process’ logistics, with Olney pointing out that most states treat petition signatures the same way Oregon does, by looking to whether or not the signatures match.

She also argued that the opponents of domestic partnerships simply failed to meet the threshold for getting a referendum on the ballot. The law is now in effect, so it’s too late for a referendum. “There are other procedures for opponents of domestic partnerships… they cannot resurrect the referendum simply by asking for new rules here.”

On the whole, constitutional questions were largely avoided, and the judges and attorneys spent the vast majority of the time debating the state’s process and whether it’s fair, plus whether signature petitions and vote by mail are similar.

We may have a decision in 30 days, according to what Nimocks told reporters outside the courthouse after the hearing. He declined to predict what the court might do, but my money’s on them denying Nimocks and Co’s appeal.