Plaintiffs contend, however, that
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (hereinafter “
AOE ”), controls here and bars initiative sponsors from intervening in judicial challenges to the initiative. Plaintiffs misread
AOE. There, the plaintiff (Yniguez), a state employee, brought an action against the State of Arizona alleging the adoption of an initiative which declared English “the official language of [Arizona]” violated the First Amendment.
Id. at 49, 117 S.Ct. 1055. Yniguez complained she often spoke Spanish with Spanish-speaking persons as part of her state job, and the initiative's mandate for state employees to “act in English” could expose her to sanctions.
Id. at 50, 117 S.Ct. 1055. After a bench trial, the district ruled the initiative was unconstitutional as overbroad.
Id. at 54, 117 S.Ct. 1055. The Arizonans for Official English Committee (“AOE”)—which was the principal sponsor of the initiative—then brought a motion to intervene, seeking to defend the constitutionality of the initiative
on appeal. Id. at 56, 117 S.Ct. 1055. The district court denied the motion. Yniguez then resigned from her employment with the state. AOE appealed nonetheless, and this court determined AOE had
Article III standing to pursue the appeal in defense of the initiative, and the action was not moot because of Yniguez's resignation.
Id. at 58–60, 117 S.Ct. 1055. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. The Court observed that AOE was not an elected representative, nor did any Arizona state law appoint initiative sponsors as agents “to defend, in lieu of public officials, the constitutionality of initiatives made law of the State.”
Id. at 65, 117 S.Ct. 1055. On that basis, the Court stated: “We thus have grave doubts whether AOE ... ha[s] standing under Article III to pursue appellate review. Nevertheless, we need not definitively resolve the issue. Rather, we will follow a path we have taken before and inquire, as a primary matter, whether originating plaintiff Yniguez still has a case to pursue.”
Id. at 66, 117 S.Ct. 1055. The Court concluded Yniguez's resignation after the district court's judgment but before appeal mooted the case, and the Court then
vacated the decision of the district court and the court of appeals.
Id. at 72, 75, 117 S.Ct. 1055.