California's Prop 8 Backers File Emergency Petition to Supreme Court to Halt Gay Marriage

Yes, but republican is different from democracy. In a republic you elect/select people to represent you and they get to make the decision which includes the right not to act. Your right to act is limited by rules set up in founding the republic.

Which people? How many people are required to create standing. The requirement to have standing to be a party to a law suit is a good rule. They could solve the problem by a state constitutioal change that requires the state to appoint an independant counsel to defend the position of those who voted for an initiative when the state chooses not to defend it. The same argument would apply that the state chose to use in Prop 8. They argued that it was the States position Prop 8 was unconstitutional. If I remember correctly the argument was made that if an initiative passed that allowed slavery the state would have no business defending that obviously unconstitutional law. Remember California is a one party state controlled by the left wing of that party.
n

Generally, republican government is where the people's authority is exercised through their representatives, not directly by ballot initiatives.

You’ve caused me to do some more reading. Thank you.

There is an interesting discussion that argues that ballot initiatives are a part of “republican form of government.” It does this in a pdf article entitled, “Are Initiatives and Referenda Contrary to the Constitution’s “Republican Form of Government?" by Robert G Natelson. If I could provide a link to the pdf article I would, but I don’t know how to do that. You might try looking it up on Bing or Google.

Here are excerpts from Justice Anthony Kennedy's dissent in the Prop 8 case with respect to who has standing in the case. He was joined by Alito, Thomas, and Sotomayor. Sotomayor? Strange grouping.

Under California law, a proponent has the authority to appear in court and assert the State’s interest in defending and enacted initiative when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so. The State deems such an appearance essential to the integrity of its initiative process. Yet the Court today concludes that his state-defined status and state–conferred right fall short of meeting federal requirements because the proponents cannot point to a formal delegation of authority that tracks the requirements of the Restatement of Agency. But the State Supreme Court’s definition of proponents’ powers is binding on this Court. And that definition is fully sufficient to establish the standing and adversity that are requisites for justiciability under Article III of the United States Constitution.

… The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and bypass public officials – the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.

Here are links to a couple of articles that discuss initiatives and this case: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/06/27/2563665/supreme-court-gay-marriage-ruling.html and http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/30/critics-say-supreme-courts-proposition-8-ruling-ta/?page=2

Denied without comment by Judge Anthony Kennedy on Sunday:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323297504578577610486721152.html

Thanks for that research. When I looked it up I saw that "republican government" and "representative democracy" were defined slightly differently. But rather than look into that I lumped them together. The issue of who has standing was discussed in other threads like this: The "Doctrine Of Standing" - What A Crock !!! and most people agreed that someone has to have standing in the higher court to avoid judicial tyranny in the lower court.