192 Cal. App. 4th 770
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- California Constitution XIII B, §6 requires the State to reimburse local governments for costs of state-mandated programs; it prohibits shifting costs to districts.
- The State has deferred full funding of mandates, paying nominal amounts (around $1,000 per mandate) with intent to pay the rest later with interest.
- In 2007, California School Boards Association and districts filed suit challenging deferral as unconstitutional and seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and reimbursement of unpaid costs.
- Trial court held deferral violated constitutional/statutory requirements and granted declaratory relief and a writ; it did not order reimbursement of past, unpaid costs due to separation of powers concerns.
- On appeal, the court held deferred payments are not funded mandates; declaratory relief was proper; injunctive relief was improper for several reasons; the writ interfered with discretionary budget decisions and separation of powers; the cross-appeal regarding past debt was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deferred payments vs funded mandate | School Districts: deferral equates to unfunded mandate violating XIII B, §6. | State: nominal funding plus future payment with interest satisfies the scheme. | Deferred funding is not a funded mandate; violates XIII B, §6 and implementing statutes. |
| Declaratory relief scope | Declaratory relief clarifies that deferral violates the constitutional and statutory scheme. | Declaratory relief unnecessary or premature given other remedies. | Declaratory relief proper to settle future rights and interpretations. |
| Injunctive relief and writ authority | Writ necessary to force compliance and deter future deferrals. | Writ improperly intrudes into discretionary budgetary decisions and separate powers. | Writ improper: (a) discretionary, not ministerial duties; (b) conflicts with statutory remedies; (c) violates separation of powers. |
| Past unpaid mandate debt relief | Court should order payment from existing funds to cover unpaid mandates. | No adequate funds or proper basis to compel payment; risks injecting judiciary into budgetary process. | No, court properly refused to order payment from existing funds; adequate discretionary remedies exist and relief would violate separation of powers. |
Key Cases Cited
- County of San Diego v. State of California, 164 Cal.App.4th 580 (2008) (establishes that deferral payments violate XIII B and that equitable relief must respect budgetary process)
- Kinlaw v. State of California, 54 Cal.3d 326 (1991) (describes mandate procedure and remedies under statute)
- Tri-County Special Educ. Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne, 123 Cal.App.4th 563 (2004) (discusses §17612 relief as a non-self-executing remedy for unfunded mandates)
- Berkeley Unified School Dist. v. State of California, 33 Cal.App.4th 350 (1995) (notes about budget act deletions triggering §17612 relief timing)
- Butt v. State of California, 4 Cal.4th 668 (1992) (set limits on judicial relief in mandamus context and cautions separation of powers concerns)