I have posted the opinion here.

All three judges on the panel rejected the facial challenge to California law requiring the public disclosure of the names of anyone giving $100 or more to political committees supporting or opposing ballot measures.

On a 2-1 vote, with Judge Wallace dissenting, the panel also rejected the as-applied challenge (claiming the donors to this particular committee faced harassment) on grounds that the challenge was moot. Judge Wallace dissented, although he conceded binding Ninth Circuit precedent supported the majority’s result. He apparently wants an en banc on the question of mootness.

Judge Wallace also added this, about the AG’s refusal to defend Prop. 8 in federal court:

To my knowledge, nothing in California law requires the Attorney General to defend the Constitution of California, and other duly enacted laws of the State of California, from challenges in the courts. Nonetheless, it seems clear that the confusion created by the decisions discussed above, and the resulting abrogation of the federal courts’ decisions due to lack of standing, could have been avoided if the Attorney General of California had defended Proposition 8 on appeal in the federal
courts. This suggests that the State of California would do well to consider legislating a process whereby the State’s elected officials would be obliged to defend the State’s duly enacted laws in court, rather than leaving it to the unfettered discretion of the Attorney General to pick and choose which of the State’s laws he or she elects to defend.