I have written this letter supporting the emergency motion of plaintiffs-appellants in the Monterey initiative cases to get a stay. I wrote this pro bono on my own behalf—not for any client.
A snippet from the letter:

Regardless of how this court ultimately resolves the application of section 203 to initiative petitions, the equities merit a stay of the district court’s order. There are strong reliance interests at stake for those who have participated in the initiative and recall processes: think of the many signature gatherers and proponents who have invested and are investing substantial time and money to qualify these measures. But beyond that, even initiative proponents who would wish to comply with section 203 cannot do so under existing state law. (See footnote 1, supra.) If section 203 ultimately is going to apply to initiative petitions, this court should give time for California authorities to rewrite their laws so as to accommodate multi-lingual petition requirements.
As this court’s experience with the California recall illustrates, delaying an election is serious business when there are significant reliance interests at stake. Shelley, supra, 344 F.3d at 919 (“If the recall election scheduled for October 7, 2003, is enjoined, it is certain that the state of California and its citizens will suffer material hardship by virtue of the enormous resources already invested in reliance on the election’s proceeding on the announced date.”). This court should follow the path taken by a federal district court in Florida facing a similar claim under section 203. In United States v. Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, 815 F. Supp. 1475 (S.D. Fla. 1993), the court found that despite the county’s failure to provide a voter information pamphlet in multiple languages as required by 203, it should not enjoin or postpone the upcoming election. “Where an impending election is imminent and the election machinery is already in progress, a Court may take into account equitable considerations when prescribing appropriate relief.” Id. at 1478-79; see also Motion at 12-13.
Finally, granting the stay pending appeal will not infringe on the voting rights of groups protected by section 203. As I noted in my Los Angeles Times oped, “The petitions serve merely to qualify initiative or recall questions for the ballot. Once those measures are on the ballot, then all voters in the jurisdiction get to vote and are entitled to relevant ballot materials in all languages required by the Voting Rights Act.”