*1 No. 29706. In Bank. June [L.A. 1970.]
ALHAMBRA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF Petitioners, al., LOS v. ANGELES COUNTY et MIZE, Offiicer-Clerk, etc., JAMES S. as Executive Respondent No. 29707. In Bank. June [L.A. 1970.]
ALHAMBRA CITY OF HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT al., Petitioners, LOS ANGELES et v. COUNTY MIZE, Officer-Clerk, etc., JAMES S. as Executive Respondent. No. 29708. In [L.A. Bank. June 1970.]
PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF al., Petitioners, LOS ANGELES COUNTY et v. MIZE, Officer-Clerk, etc.,
JAMES S. as Executive Respondent; RULE, RALPH R. Real in Interest. Party No. 29709. In Bank. [L.A. June 1970.]
ROSEMEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES al., Petitioners, COUNTY et MIZE, Officer-Clerk,
JAMES S. etc., as Executive Respondent. *2 Counsel Counsel, and James W.
John D. H. Edward Maharg, County Gaylord Counsel, Burke, Sorensen, Assistant Williams & County George Briggs, W. Wakefield and Eric Olson for Petitioners. Stanton, Jr., Stanton, Johnson, and Mar-
Johnson Gardiner Thomas E. & shall A. Staunton as Curiae on behalf Amici of Petitioners. Delamer, Goethals,
Schell & Richard B. Martin A. Yester and Garrin J. Shaw for and Real in Interest. Respondent Party Bourke and James A. City Jones Attorney, Doherty, Roger Amebergh, Assistant City Amici Curiae on behalf of Attorneys, Respondent. Wilson, Jones, Morton & and Ernest A. as Amici on Lynch Wilson Curiae behalf of in Nos. 29706 and Respondent 29707.
Opinion SULLIVAN, J. cases, These four considered because of their re together lated XI, factual issue: setting, legal whether former article sec present single 18, West- XIII, tion now article section of the California Constitution ante, brook Mihaly, fn. 1 471 P.2d pp. [87 Cal.Rptr. 487] fn. for an of the of the constitutional renumbering explanation provision here involved and of our for our reference its former reasons thereto under and section of the
numbering) Education insofar as re- they greater than quire majority vote issuance of school district approve general obligation violate the clause of the Four- equal protection teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Article section 18 town, in relevant as follows: provides, “No part, county, city, township, education, district, or school shall incur indebtedness or lia- any *3 in manner bility any or for in the income any purpose exceeding any year revenue and for such without the assent of two-thirds of the provided year, thereof, electors at qualified voting an election to be held for pur- . . .” pose, Education Code section 21754 “If it from provides: appears the certificate of election results that the cast the two-thirds of votes on of bonds of the district are in favor of the proposition issuing issuing the board the cause governing of school district shall an of that fact entry to be made its minutes. The shall then upon governing certify the board of over the whose of schools supervisors county superintendent has district, jurisdiction of the all had the in proceedings premises. of of schools shall send a of the certificate superintendent copy election results to the board of of the county.”
Petioners in L.A. are the Alhambra City School District of Los Angeles,1 Board of of Los Angeles Supervisors County, Robert O’Neil. Petitioner O’Neil is a voter and registered taxpayer in the district and a of a child parent a district attending school. At an election held in 1968, he September voted in favor of a which proposition sought authoriza- tion for the district to incur bonded indebtedness in the amount of $10,900,000 in order to expand school improve facilities.2 Those voting in favor of the constituted proposition 66.24 cast, of the total votes percent a substantial but majority less than the two-thirds section 18.3 required by
Petitioner in L.A. 29707 are the District,4 Alhambra City High School Board of of Supervisors Los Angeles County, Rowlett. Betty Petitioner governing 1 The board of the district is the City Alhambra Board of Education. Pursuant to section 1002 of the California Education prosecuted the board has this action in the name of district. 2 Petitioners claim that pressing there are needs within the district to which the proceeds of the bonds were applied. A adopted by the district’s board education, infra, of discussed recites that housing “critical school conditions exist within the district and double sessions have been eight elementary established in schools.” 3 As do the petitioners individual in L.A. L.A. 29708 and L.A. petitioner alleges O’Neil brings that he petition this “on his own behalf and on behalf of all other electors who voted in favor of said Bond Proposition at said Election.” City 4 The Alhambra School District and City High the Alhambra School District legally separate are governed board, school districts the same the Alham City bra Board of Education. The City Alhambra School District is one of the “component” elementary City High school districts of the Alhambra School District. Rowlett the district and the of registered is a voter and in taxpayer parent above, voted in at a she district school. At election mentioned pupil for the which authorization sought favor of a voter separate proposition $10,468,000 district in provide to incur a bonded indebtedness of order to facilities. The votes in favor of the school expanded improved propo- sition constituted a but less than the (64.93 constitutionally percent) two-thirds. required Unified
Petitioners in L.A. the Pasadena School District 29708 are Los Los Angeles County, Angeles County, Board Supervisors John district Cushman. Petitioner Cushman is a voter and taxpayer and the He voted favor two children district schools. attending parent of a submitted to the voters at an election in proposition, April $34,080,000 of a to incur in bonded indebted- approval proposal ness scale facilities.5 A majority to district large school improvements *4 (50.6 but less favor of the than two-thirds voted in percent) proposition. the of Los
Petitioners in L.A. are Rosemead School District 29709 the Corin Angeles County, Los Board of and Angeles County Supervisors' Childs. the district voted in Petitioner Childs is a in who voter taxpayer at an favor of a of the district bond submitted to the voters proposition for election in authorization February 1969. proposition, $1,854,000 the district to incur bonded indebtedness in the amount of of school the received 59.55 improvement purposes percent approval those voting. Mize, are the James executive of the
Respondents officer-clerk petitioner Board of (who is named as Angeles respondent Los Supervisors County Rule, in in each voter and R. a proceeding) registered taxpayer Ralph Pasadena Mr. the against Unified School Rule voted bond propo- District. sition at the He is named “real in interest” election. as party April L.A. but is to herein only, referred “respondent.” the fact that none of the
Despite propositions described above received the two-thirds vote XI, affirmative by article section 18 and required section by 21754 of the Education the board governing of each district adopted a resolution on the calling Angeles Los Board of to County sell Supervisors the total amount of bonds the for which had sought propositions approval 5 According a by to adopted calling district’s on the bonds, board of to sell the proceeds were applied to the following “(1) purposes: racial by Alleviate imbalance providing new facilities school integrated, which integrated activities, creating by would be Elementary Area Curriculum Centers for by integrating schools; (2) all secondary Relieve over crowding by providing classrooms; (3) the needed by building class size Reduce needed additional ratio; classrooms to (4) affect a [sic] lower Construct pupil-teacher libraries and resource centers. . . .” resolutions, the board of Code, 21800). of these receipt Ed. Upon “be issued and sold that the bonds an order directing
supervisors adopted voted,” instructing were respondent for the for which [they] purpose the bonds Bids” offering a “Notice Inviting Mize to secure publication Code, 21811.) (Ed. for sale. §
Mize, however, of the refused to on the ground publication comply funds since notices would constitute an unlawful expenditure public bonds, was based issued, if would be invalid. His this regard, position, in vote affirmative the failure of each to receive the two-thirds upon proposition section 18. by required our original
Petitioners initiated these invoking proceedings, thereupon VI, Peti- section 10 of the California Constitution. under article jurisdiction than a a two-thirds rather tioners contend that insofar as they require simple to the issuance of school district obligation vote authorize majority general uncon- section 21754 are article section 18 and Education Code those bonds which re- (1) stitutional. Petitioners a declaration that seek: been for sale by ceived affirmative vote have authorized duly voters; (2) district of mandate commanding writ respond- Mize as directed the Los Angeles ent the Notice Bids by publish Inviting Board of County Supervisors. made
We issued to which have alternative writs of mandate respondents we have necessarily return demurrer and answer. In those writs granting *5 determined that each a for the exercise of our jur- case is one original proper Court, 56(a)) Cal. and that have no isdiction Rules of rule petitioners v. (County law. Sacramento course of remedy adequate ordinary 609, 593]; (1967) 841, Hickman 66 Cal.2d 428 P.2d 845 Cal.Rptr. [59 846, Hospital (1964) etc. Court 61 Cal.2d 850 Superior Corona Dist. v. 745, 817].) 395 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [40 re-
Petitioners’ be as the two-thirds may summarized follows: position others, some than dilutes the by votes effect according greater quirement, man, of affirmative the “one voters. This dilution contravenes voting power vote” and must be one established cases principle reapportionment to achieve a shown state interest. Under modern necessary compelling no such interest exists and the two-thirds therefore conditions requirement clause.6 violates equal protection argument attacking constitutionality herein make aft additional 6 Petitioners counties, They claim that the distinction between cities and school districts
section 18. (to govern requirement applies) which the constitutional two-thirds and other local (to not) special arbitrary districts which it and there mental bodies such does is makeweight protection to the voters in a equal fore a denial of the former. This is argument, by authority, supported no which we need and do not reach. not observe that the Respondents cases are distin- factually reapportionment that be confined to guishable urge their facts. that the they They deny standard of review that a applicable two-thirds vote is requires showing that, to á achieve state but necessary interest it compelling argue assuming is, the test is met. ante, Mihaly, supra, 765, Westbrook
In filed this we hold p. day, that those of the constitutional our at- portions engaging provision (i.e., XIII, tention former art. 40), now renumbered as § art. § Government Code section and Education Code section 21754 counties, that bond require general obligation proposals cities and school be districts a two-thirds approved the voters in a referendum violate the popular clause equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We further hold that our that, decision be effect given prospective only accordingly, affirmative relief be denied. The issues involved herein are identical to those is, resolved in Westbrook therefore, and our decision there fully of the instant cases. dispositive (L.A.
In L.A. L.A. each of the cases foregoing 29709), mandate is and the L.A. the alternative writ of discharged petition writ is denied. J., McComb, J., Tobriner, J., Schauer, J.,* C. concurred. Wright, MOSK, J. I concur in the conclusion the two-thirds majority require ment violates the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection Constitution, the United States but I dissent from the denial of relief to these for the reasons discussed in my dissenting concurring opin petitioners, ante, 839, 471 P.2d Mihaly, in Westbrook v. p. Cal.Rptr. ion [87 487]. *6 Westbrook that the are now rationale in elections forgotten prevailing Here,
is in these cases. after the not majority—but particularly inapposite elections, two-thirds—vote each district board of to sell the board of adopted calling upon bonds for which the had and the board propositions approval, Westbrook, as in the court tell the sev- Again, acquiesced. eral boards that and we their of the law was correct adopt interpretation * assignment by Retired Supreme sitting Associate Justice of the Court under Chairman of the Judicial Council. court relief. denies affirmative
their conclusion. And again, inexplicably, is to rationalize. This result impossible has Mr. Peters
I would writ of mandate. Justice issue the writ. me he would also issue the authorized to say