In Prop 8 news today, backers of a 2010 ballot initiative to repeal the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage failed to gather enough signatures to qualify their initiative for the ballot. In Prop 8 trial news, Judge Vaughn Walker has notified trial participants that he intends to close the evidentiary record, and seeks comments on that intention by this Friday.

First, the trial news:

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the evidentiary record should not be closed. Show Cause Response due by 4/16/2010. Signed by Judge Walker on April 13, 2010. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2010)

The point of closing the evidence record, of course, would be to end the opportunity to submit any new evidence, such as the discovery materials sought by the Defendant-Intervenors from non-parties who fought Prop 8 during the election. These were the subject of last month’s hearing.

Additionally, the court filed an order earlier this week regarding new Amicus Briefs. Presumably, Judge Walker has had enough of those! While he did say (when last discussing them) that he would read them all, because the case was particularly ‘well-lawyered’ Walker expected that friends-of-the-court would have little new light to shed. But, he said, in case that new light did exist, he would read amicus briefs looking for it. But, now, he may be done with them.

Does all this activity indicate that Judge Walker is close to scheduling closing arguments in the federal case in San Francisco?

Now, the initiative news:

Backers of an initiative to repeal Proposition 8, the California ban on same-sex marriage, have failed to gather enough signatures to place it on the ballot in November.

The supporters say they will try to qualify the measure for the November 2012 election.

Gay rights activists had been split on whether to push such a measure this year or in 2012. The largest groups supported waiting for the next presidential election. Those supporting a vote this year said the division hampered their fundraising and volunteer efforts.

There has been some debate within the LGBT community about whether the gubernatorial election (2010) or the presidential election (2012) would be a better place for a repeal initiative.

Brian Leubitz touches on this at Calitics:

While this isn’t a surprise, it does end a trying divide within the LGBT community. I do not speak for the courage campaign [sic] or anybody other than myself here, but generally, I’m inclined to believe gubernatorial elections have a better electorate for our side. That is 2010 would have been better than 2008, and 2014 will be better than 2012. During off year elections, you get better educated electorates, and that correlates fairly well with those who aren’t really bothered by marriage equality. I have done some analysis looking at that, but also have spoken to a few huge voter number nerds who agree with that hypothesis. It’s still an open question, however.

That being said, time matters as well, probably even more than presidential or gubernatorial year. As more millenials spill into the voting ranks, more pro-equality votes are stacking up on our side. While 2 years won’t make a huge difference, many number nerds think it is just under 2 percent per year that the electorate moves toward equality. Obviously, that’s far from a precise number, but 4 percent would be enough to flip the Prop 8 vote around.