It's interesting--I wish I knew more about the legality of the situation, which is so hard to tell from the article. I think it's telling that the (gay-hating) defendants are claiming that the Prop. can't be overturned on a constitutional basis "because there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage", whereas the (gay-activist) plaintiffs are claiming the Prop. is constitutionally invalid because it "disfavors a group in a way that's unconstitutional" (my emphasis).

That sure makes it sound like the defendants are trying to wiggle out of a legitimate constitutional conundrum--and trying to make it sound like it sets a bad precedent.

What I want to know is how this case compares not to other civil rights cases, but to other cases of campaign investigation. Is this judge asking for anything more than any campaign would be asked for? And don't campaigns have to make their papers a matter of public record anyway?