The Brief

Election night 15 years ago — Nov. 4, 2008 — LGBTQ+ voters in California experienced a kind of political whiplash: euphoria and despair in one night as the states' voters overwhelmingly chose to elect Barack Obama president, while simultaneously taking away the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Proposition 8 — eliminating a right to marriage that had been granted to gay and lesbian couples by the California Supreme Court less than six months earlier — passed with 52% of the vote.

Two years later, on Jan. 11, 2010, two same-sex couples, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami, had their day in federal court when they sued to overturn Prop. 8 after they were denied marriage licenses.

That trial, which included expert witnesses testifying under oath about anti-gay tropes, theories and political arguments, resulted in the measure being struck down. The federal judge presiding over that two-week trial deemed the case for banning same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court essentially upheld the lower court ruling in a 5-4 decision, June 26, 2013, by declining to take up the appeal.

For more than a decade after it ended, videotapes of the trial were kept under seal, until KQED successfully fought a long legal battle that resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court allowing them to be unsealed.

After the videotapes were released, KQED invited the four Prop. 8 plaintiffs — Kris Perry and Sandy Stier along with Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo — to view them for the first time and talk about the trial, its aftermath, and its significance today.

Those videos can be viewed here and here. (Or watch them below)

Reflecting on the trial, its aftermath, and its significance now

One thing that stood out is the "Yes on 8" messages such as "Protect the Children," with television commercials saying unless the measure passed children would be encouraged to marry someone of their same gender.

Those messages still echo today in political rhetoric and legislation related to high school sports and the use of bathrooms by transgender youth.

The campaign to ban same-sex marriages in California was promoted by leaders in the Catholic and Mormon Churches.

"The sad part of it is, that campaign worked because the convenience of the lie won people over, and the lie was based on fear," recalls Paul Katami. "And that fear included children. So I would never say it was a brilliant tactic, but it was an evil tactic."

That tactic using the guise of protecting children from harm brought by LGBTQ people is still at work today by politicians and ultraconservative groups like Moms for Liberty, who talk about parental rights to push back against policies that support transgender youth and their families.

Attorney Thomas R. Burke led KQED's successful legal battle to unseal the tapes.

He says the trial tested the homophobic, hateful arguments promoted by opponents of LGBTQ+ rights. The witnesses, the withering cross-examinations, and the poignant testimony is all caught on video that is now available to anyone who wants to watch.

"The evidence didn't support you," Burke says, referring to "Yes on 8" defenders. "You had great lawyers arguing your cause and you didn't win. And if people thought you should have won, they can see and judge for themselves. If you didn't have that recorded, that couldn't happen."

The historic trial resulted in a landmark decision on Aug. 2, 2010 when Judge Vaughn R. Walker struck down the ballot measure — but it was hardly a foregone conclusion at the start.

"I remember feeling very anxious and scared, honestly, not knowing how any of it would turn out," lead plaintiff Kris Perry, now 59, says after viewing trial clips at KQED. "People were really, you know, counting on us to deliver. And there was a lot of pressure."

Perry's wife, Sandy Stier, 61, recalls what seemed like days and days of preparation before going on the stand. She remembers worrying about how the trial might affect their lives, "not only for me, what it might be like for my kids, for my parents, my siblings and my community. And so it was very, very anxious going into court that day, not knowing."

Zarrillo and Katami were the first witnesses called to testify.

"I had so many fears going into the trial," Katami says. "I was not confident because this was uncharted territory for both of us as human beings."

"I said to Paul at one point, 'Even if we lose, we can go to our graves knowing that we didn't stand for being treated as second class citizens,' " Zarrillo recalls. "We tried to do something about it."

Jeff Zarrillo (left) and Paul Katami, plaintiffs in the landmark 2010 lawsuit that overturned California's ban on same-sex marriage, sit during an interview at the KQED offices in San Francisco on March 3.

(

Kori Suzuki

/

Kori Suzuki / KQED News

)

Trial makes people aware of rights denied

The trial was originally going to be televised on closed circuit TV via YouTube until Prop. 8 attorneys objected and the U.S. Supreme Court intervened to prevent it. But Judge Walker recorded the trial anyway, he said, for his personal use in writing the decision.

On the stand, Katami was asked by one of the attorneys who represented the plaintiffs, David Boies, what the big deal was about not being able to marry when they had the option of domestic partnership.

"The big deal is it's creating a separate category for us. And that's a major deal because it makes you into a second, third ... and fourth class citizen," Katami said that day in January 2010.

Reflecting on his testimony Katami, says until the Prop. 8 trial, many heterosexuals didn't know the hundreds of rights automatically afforded straight couples — but denied to LGBTQ people. For example, some rights are not automatically afforded same sex couples, like social security benefits of a partner who dies.

"And if you don't have that protection because marriage allows that protection, there's a bright spotlight that shines down on those rights when you don't have them," Katami says.

Viewing the trial tapes, Zarrillo notes that, "When you're on the stand like that, you have to really figure out, 'how do I answer this question [in a way] that is not going to hurt our cause?' " he says.

When Perry was asked in court to describe her relationship with Stier, whom she met while both were students at U.C. Santa Cruz, Perry testified that, "I met Sandy thinking she was maybe the sparkliest person I ever met. And I wanted to be her friend."

On the stand, Stier testified that after meeting Perry she "really felt like the thunderbolt of change for me." Unlike Perry, Stier wasn't an out lesbian at the time.

"I had moved to California, got married to a man, had two kids, and knew that something wasn't working for me," Stier tells KQED.

The trial tapes reveal the humanity of the issue, ably presented by the four plaintiffs, said Judge Walker recently.

"Both of the couples were very able witnesses — very attractive witnesses. ... So we're talking about matters that are intensely personal and important to them. That's pretty compelling testimony under any circumstances," Walker told KQED.

But the audible and visible emotion of their testimony was out of view, until the trial tapes were unsealed.

Of course, unlike TV shows, where every courtroom scene is riveting and entertaining, real-life trials are mostly "hours and hours of tedium broken episodically by sometimes emotions (or) events of great interest. But they are few and far between," Walker said.

Paul Katami (center left), a plaintiff in the landmark 2010 lawsuit that overturned California's ban on same-sex marriage, greets fellow plaintiffs Kris Perry (center right) Sandy Stier (right),and KQED Politics Editor Scott Shafer (left) ahead of an interview at the KQED offices in San Francisco on March 3.

(

Kori Suzuki

/

Kori Suzuki / KQED News

)

Tapes show how courts deal with social issues

Still, the retired judge said the tapes will be useful in law schools to show students how courts deal with" a social issue or a constitutional issue of widespread importance."

After Prop. 8 was struck down in 2010 both couples soon married and remain so today. But LGBTQ people are still under attack by people hoping to use them as political fodder on behalf of conservative causes.

"I think that is incredibly dangerous," says transgender activist Honey Mahogany. "These are tropes that have always been a part of emotionally manipulating people to advantage a certain political group or cause, right? They're not based in fact."

Mahogany, who also chairs the San Francisco Democratic Central Committee, says release of the trial tapes helps to humanize issues and the plaintiffs.

"Seeing what happened during the trial behind the scenes is really important because it helps expose the truth," Mahogany says. "It helps expose the fact that this is just about two people loving each other, wanting to cement their relationship, wanting to protect each other ... and their children."

Mahogany says given the risks of failure, what the Prop. 8 plaintiffs did was "incredibly important and brave."

She hopes their example will embolden others to come forward today to humanize LGBTQ issues. "We can learn from history. We can, you know, find our champions and also our storytellers to help us tell our stories," Mahogany says.

With the videotapes now accessible online, the couples' stories told under oath can be seen by anyone who wishes to watch.

"They fought for a decade that this would not be seen," says attorney Burke. "And I think there's a reason for that," Burke adds, implying their arguments simply didn't hold up under legal scrutiny.

Although Walker's ruling striking down Proposition 8 was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, the wording of the Prop. 8 constitutional amendment remains in the California Constitution. But voters will have the chance to change that next November.

The State Legislature placed a measure on the fall 2024 ballot that removes that now-unenforceable language of Prop. 8 and replaces it with the statement that "marriage is a fundamental right" for all couples and is among " the inalienable rights to enjoy life and liberty and to pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy."

It's an affirmation of the right of all couples to marry in California.

Topline:

Key topics: The candidates each had about 45 minutes to individually answer questions from Erin Stone, an LAist senior reporter focused on climate and environment.

Here are some of the topics they covered:

• Extreme heat
• Emergency preparedness and recovery
• Protecting communities from pollution
• Water
• Public transit

About the organizers: The event is organized by a coalition of local environmental and environmental justice groups including: Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters, SCOPE-LA, Sierra Club, Clean and Healthy California, Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance and Communities for a Better Environment

LAist will have more coverage and analysis of the conversations Friday morning.

The Trump administration is taking steps to advance a mysterious and unprecedented project to compile state-by-state lists of people it has decided are eligible citizens over the age of 18 who can vote in the upcoming midterm election. But it will no longer meet its own deadline to publish that information on a portal on Friday, which is 60 days before Election Day.

Department of Justice attorneys told opposing counsel in two separate lawsuits that instead of meeting the Sept. 4 deadline, they would give 48-hours notice to plaintiffs' counsel before the state citizenship portal was launched, according to recent court filings.

The U.S. has never attempted to create a comprehensive list of American citizens before this administration. Maintaining voter lists is the responsibility of states, not the federal government, as the Constitution dictates that states control elections. But President Trump has repeatedly taken steps to try to exert executive control over elections.

The basis for the federal government creating state citizenship lists is an executive order Trump signed on March 31. A lower court had blocked implementation of key parts of that executive order in 23 states and Washington, D.C., but the Supreme Court stayed that injunction late last month, opening the door for the plan to be implemented after all.

The March 31 executive order directs U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration to create "State Citizenship Lists" of individuals the agencies believe are citizens in each state, and send those lists to state officials "no fewer than 60 days before each regularly scheduled Federal election."

The next section of the executive order says the U.S. attorney general will prioritize investigating and prosecuting state and local officials who issue federal ballots to anyone not eligible to vote.

"States here have a strong incentive to actually use these lists to try to avoid federal investigation," said Jules Torti, counsel at the nonprofit Protect Democracy, in an interview with NPR. "But we know that these lists are going to be based on really inaccurate data. So the risk of disenfranchisement here is really, really palpable."

The privacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center, along with individual voters, filed a motion Thursday asking a federal judge in Maryland to block the administration from creating the citizenship lists and publishing them on a portal. Specifically, they seek to block a June 8 implementation memo authored by USCIS director Joseph Edlow that outlines the plan.

The motion, which was brought by Protect Democracy, along with another nonprofit legal group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argues the administration's plans to share Americans' personal data between agencies and then disseminate the data to states violates multiple federal laws, including the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. Under the Privacy Act, federal agencies must give the public 30 days notice and the opportunity to comment before they collect and disseminate Americans' personal data for a new purpose.

The EPIC lawsuit also argues the government does not have access to accurate, up-to-date information on American citizens, especially those who move frequently, have changed their names, or are foreign-born. For example, Social Security's citizenship data often isn't updated when people naturalize, and the SAVE data system, operated by USCIS, frequently doesn't include records for people who became citizens as minors when their parents naturalized.

Torti said it is "deeply concerning" that the administration is still planning to go ahead with the creation of citizenship lists but is no longer going to meet the deadline, since that means the lists will be completed even closer to Election Day.

"It means additional chaos, additional confusion for the state election officials and just for voters," Torti said. "And I think that's the point. The point here is to create chaos in advance of the election."

Neither the Department of Justice, nor the Department of Homeland Security, which is tasked with compiling the citizenship lists, responded to NPR's request for comment.

The June 8 implementation memo stated that the portal for state election officials would be available around June 30 and a second portal where citizens could check their information would be available at a later date – but that deadline passed without further updates.

The federal government has secured a domain for the state citizenship lists portal. While the portal is not currently online, it was briefly live in recent days with a landing page that said "Coming Soon," according to court filings.

Lawyers representing Democratic party groups that had challenged the March 31 executive order in a separate lawsuit filed in April, accused the administration in a recent filing of failing to notify the court or the parties about its plans to move forward with the state citizenship portal. They asked the judge to require the federal government to give immediate updates about their plans to implement the executive order.

This latest legal battle over the administration's plans to compile state citizenship lists comes as the Department of Homeland Security is ramping up its efforts to analyze state voter rolls with the goal of identifying potential noncitizens who are registered to vote. Previous audits have found instances of noncitizens casting ballots to be incredibly rare. 

Additionally, last week, ICE published a request for information on a federal procurement site seeking vendors who can compile public voter rolls and voter history files from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and U.S. territories, "to support Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) fraud detection and data segmentation activities."

NPR's Hansi Lo Wang contributed reporting to this story. 
Copyright 2026 NPR

A group of California lawmakers called on federal officials to halt and reject a proposed land exchange in Yosemite National Park that would allow a private developer to take control of a strip of land in the park for an access road to the park’s main attractions.

The letter to Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Wednesday was signed by a bipartisan group of 61 state legislators led by Assemblymember Greg Wallis, a Republican who represents Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

“Republicans and Democrats from both houses of the Legislature are standing together because some things are bigger than politics,” Wallis said in a statement. “Yosemite is not a subdivision. It is not a bargaining chip. And it is not for sale. Secretary Burgum and the administration should put an end to this proposal.”

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum (center) visited the Tunnel Tops in San Francisco in 2025 after he and then-Attorney General Pam Bondi toured Alcatraz ahead of their announcement to reopen the former federal prison.

(

Katie DeBenedetti

/

KQED

)

The group argued that the proposed land exchange is counter to the mission of the National Park Service and the founding of Yosemite in 1864, which set aside the start of the park for public use and protection for the first time in the history of the federal government.

“What is being proposed now runs directly against that founding principle, more than a century and a half later,” the letter states.

It continues later: “Our national parks belong equally to every American. They are not the Department’s to trade away, and they are not for sale.”

The proposal was first reported by news outlet NOTUS, which published a story last week alleging that members of the Trump administration were meeting with representatives of Kingsbarn Realty Capital, a private equity group that owns an 83-acre parcel next to the park. In an email to KQED, Kingsbarn’s lawyer Lanny J. Davis confirmed the group is pursuing the land exchange to build a new access road from its property to the park.

Previous owners have pushed for the same deal since the early 2000s and failed in court.

State Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), who signed on to the letter, called the proposal “indefensible,” and said he’s looking at state laws to ensure a similar proposal could never slip through.

“If the Trump administration can’t defend this publicly in broad daylight, then they shouldn’t be doing it,” he said.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Marin) told KQED’s Forum on Wednesday that he’s worried there isn’t enough opposition among his Republican colleagues in Congress to stop the Trump administration’s efforts.

“I have not seen a single Republican colleague willing to stand up to Donald Trump when he decides that he’s just going to do something,” Huffman said. “So that is my concern, that he just plows ahead with this — even if it has dubious legal authority, or even if it’s an open violation of the law. He’s doing stuff like that anyway. And in this Congress, there’s no one here to stop him.”

In a statement to KQED, state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil (R-Modesto), whose district includes parts of Yosemite, said she will “keep pressing the Department [of the Interior] for a clear answer that this exchange will not proceed.”

Since the news of the deal broke late last week, it has sparked condemnation from a number of Democratic state leaders, including Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, as well as Attorney General Rob Bonta and Bonta’s predecessor, Xavier Becerra, who leads the race for California governor.

“The secretive backroom land-exchange scheme has gotten everyone’s attention,” said Neal Desai, senior Pacific regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association. “I can’t recall another issue — and I’ve been working in the conservation space for over a couple of decades — where the response has been this sharp and so one-sided that this is a terrible idea that should not happen.”

The backlash comes at a turbulent time for National Park Service employees, who have faced layoffs, staffing cuts and fear of retaliation for speaking up against Trump administration policies since the start of the second Trump administration.

Some former employees have also raised concerns about a potential reorganization of the National Park Service, according to a separate letter sent to Burgum’s office Wednesday. According to an email seen by KQED, park superintendents have been asked to attend in-person regional meetings in September — with no clear agenda beyond discussing “agency priorities, our FY 2026 outlook, and other matters important to the work ahead.”

The letter to Burgam, signed by 20 retired parks superintendents warns: “An ill-advised and hastily planned reorganization could dismantle that structure, putting our parks — and those who visit them — at great risk.”

Emily Thompson, executive director of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, which organized the letter, said the email about regional meetings “raises some alarm bells.”

“The Park Service is already operating from a difficult place, from a place of crisis,” she said. “And any additional cuts, any movements or actions that would further jeopardize the capacity of the folks that are left, that’s concerning. It’s worrying, and it’ll have a devastating impact on the Park Service.”

Among the letter’s signatories is Don Neubacher, retired Yosemite superintendent, who has been a vocal advocate for parks amid the Trump administration’s changes.

Thompson said she’s worried parks leaders will be stretched even further than they already are, and local decision-making over parks could be in jeopardy.

“Morale is low,” Thompson said. “It’s a hard time to be a federal employee. Anything that … contributes to this culture of fear, it’s just not acceptable.”

This story first appeared on Long Beach Post.

Long Beach is offering up to $1,500 for local business owners and landlords to equip their storefronts with safety measures like cameras, floodlights, alarms and point-of-sale systems.

The grant program is accepting online applications now. You can apply here.

Businesses with storefronts of 1,500 square feet or less may receive grants of up to $750, while businesses between 1,500 and 5,000 square feet are eligible for up to $1,500.

Nonprofit organizations are eligible as well, and landlords can apply on behalf of commercial storefronts that are vacant or occupied. Franchises can also receive the grant.

To qualify, a business must:

• Have an active business license for a storefront within the city
• Be independently owned and operated (franchises are eligible)
• Be currently open and active for business
• Earn no more than $5 million in annual gross revenue
• Hold “active” status with the California Secretary of State for corporations, limited liability companies and limited partnerships

The funds will be provided as a reimbursement after eligible security improvements are installed. Grants will be given out until funds are exhausted.

It’s a great idea, according to Edwin Jara, who manages a pet store in Belmont Heights and was on the receiving end of a break-in earlier this year.

His store had security measures already in place — two cameras and an alarm system — but even that wasn’t enough to deter a masked burglar who grabbed $1,000 cash and a handful of dog treats.

Despite having footage of the burglar, Jara said police haven’t been able to catch the person and that a detective never responded after he filed a police report.

The grant program is being paid for with $350,000 from the city’s Redvelopment Agency along with $50,000 from Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn’s office.

“Our local small businesses are part of the fabric of our neighborhoods, and when business owners feel unsafe, the whole community feels it,” Hahn said in a statement.

In a statement, Mayor Rex Richardson said the program is a “direct investment in the hardworking business owners who make our commercial corridors vibrant and welcoming.”

Jara said he would consider applying for a grant if the city could send someone to help him and the store’s owner fill out the application.

He was offered a separate grant to replace a glass door the burglar smashed, but the store’s owner opted not to fill out the application.

“There was a lot of stuff that we needed to do, and I don’t have a lot of that information,” Jara said.