SAIDUL Z. CHOUDHRY еt al., Petitioners, v. HARRY M. FREE, Individually and as County Clerk, etc., Respondent; IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT et al., Real Parties in Interest.
L.A. No. 30516
Supreme Court of California
Aug. 3, 1976.
660 | 16 Cal. 3d 660
S. Wyanne Bunyan as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
R. L. Knox, Jr., and Horton, Knox, Carter & Foote for Real Parties in Interest.
Kenneth A. Kuney and Berryhill, Kuney & Burckhardt as Amici Curiae.
MOSK, J.—Section 21100 of the Water Code provides that the director of an irrigation district formed under the Irrigation District Law (
Choudhry, a resident and voter of the district, sought to file a nominating petition for director in August 1975, but respondent Free, the cоunty clerk, refused to accept the petition on the ground that Choudhry was not a freeholder. Thereafter, petitioners sought a writ of mandate from this court, to compel Free to accept the nominating papers for filing.3 We issued an alternative writ to examine the claim that section 21100 is unconstitutional.4
Neither respondent nor the real parties in interest oppose petitioners’ assertion that section 21100 is unconstitutional. Their аpparent willingness to jettison the provision virtually eliminates all adversary aspects to this litigation. However, the Association of California Water Agencies, an organization which represents 69 of the state‘s 104 irrigation districts, has filed an amicus curiae brief in defense of the constitutionality of the section. The Secretary of State, expressing her interest in voting qualifications, appears as amicus curiae in support of petitioners.
Thе formation of an irrigation district may be initiated by the filing of a petition signed by a majority in number and value of the holders of title to land susceptible of irrigation, or by not less than 500 electors of the proposed district, who hold at least 20 percent of the value of the
The board of directors is charged with conducting the affairs of the district (
The district derives its revenues from assessments upon the land within its boundaries (
According to petitioners, the Imperial Irrigation District is the largest in the state, with 501,265 acres of irrigаted farm land and more than 1 million acres of total area. It supplies all the water and electrical power needs of Imperial County, and to portions of Riverside and San Diego Counties; the residents of that vast area have no practical alternative to the district as a source of water and power. The district is the second largest employer in Imperial County, with a work force of almost 1,000 full-time employees and an аnnual $13 million payroll, the largest in the county. Imperial County, which contains only a portion of the district‘s residents, has a population of 74,000, 67 percent of whom live in urban
Petitioners’ primary contention is that section 21100 denies them equal protection of the laws because it prohibits Choudhry from seeking the public‘s suffrage and restricts the right of choice of the two petitioners who are voters. As is customary in deciding claims made on equal protection grounds, our first inquiry is directed to the test to be applied in considering the validity of the classification. If petitioners’ claim is measured by the “compelling interest” test, the state must demonstrate that a classification serves a compelling governmental interest and that there are no reasonаble, less intrusive means by which the goals of the state can be achieved. (Dunn v. Blumstein (1972) 405 U.S. 330, 342-343 [31 L.Ed.2d 274, 284-285, 92 S.Ct. 995].) On the other hand, under the less demanding “rational relation” test a classification does not deny equal protection if any set of facts may reasonably be conceived in its justification. (McGowan v. Maryland (1961) 366 U.S. 420, 426 [6 L.Ed.2d 393, 399, 81 S.Ct. 1101].)
Because the right of franchise is fundamental in character, the stricter of these standards has often been applied to test the validity of restrictions upon the right to be a candidate. Although not every classification created by an election law is subject to strict scrutiny, the “compelling interest” measure must be applied if a classification has a “real and appreciable impact” upon the equality, fairness and integrity of the electoral process. (Bullock v. Carter (1972) 405 U.S. 134, 144 [31 L.Ed.2d 92, 100, 92 S.Ct. 849].) A number of cases have held that the strict scrutiny test is therefore applicable to a law which requires a candidate to pay a filing fee as a condition of access to the ballot (Bullock v. Carter, supra, 405 U.S. 134, 144 [31 L.Ed.2d 92, 100]; Knoll v. Davidson (1974) 12 Cal.3d 335, 345 [116 Cal.Rptr. 97, 525 P.2d 1273]), to certain durational residence requirements for candidacy (Johnson v. Hamilton (1975) 15 Cal.3d 461, 468 [125 Cal.Rptr. 129, 541 P.2d 881]; Thompson v. Mellon (1973) 9 Cal.3d 96, 101-102 [107 Cal.Rptr. 20, 507 P.2d 628, 65 A.L.R.3d 1029]; Zeilenga v. Nelson (1971) 4 Cal.3d 716, 720-723 [94 Cal.Rptr. 602, 484 P.2d 578]), and to a statute reserving the top place on the ballot to incumbents (Gould v. Grubb (1975) 14 Cal.3d 661, 670-672 [122 Cal.Rptr. 377, 536 P.2d 1337]).
When considered in the light of these decisions, the limitation involved in the present case has an appreciable impact upon the equality
Indeed, the restriction involved here is in some respects more pervasive than those considered in the several election casеs cited above, because here the potential candidate is entirely excluded from the ballot on the ground that he is not a freeholder, and neither the payment of a fee, the fulfillment of a durational residence requirement, nor a willingness to allow the placement of his name on the ballot below that of the incumbent can qualify him as a candidate.
Nevertheless, amicus asserts, section 21100 does not unfairly affect the electоral process because an irrigation district is an entity which exercises limited powers and its functions have a disproportionate effect upon landowners. In this connection, amicus relies upon an analogous line of cases involving a closely related problem, i.e., whether the right to vote in a special purpose district election may be limited to landowners. As we have seen, all electors of an irrigation district are entitled to vote. The argument goes as follows: Although it is true that all electors of an irrigation district are entitled to vote in district elections, the Legislature was not required to afford this right to nonlandowners because it is constitutional to require ownership of property as a condition of voting in elections in a special purpose district which has only limited powers if the exercise of those powers has a disproportionate effect upon landowners. An irrigation district comes within this exception to the general right of franchise, and since the right to vote is more fundamental than the right to become a candidate for office, it follows that the Legislature
We are unpersuaded by this rationale and the premise upon which it is based. In our view, the pervasive powers exercised by this irrigation district over all residents within its vast area, whether or not they are landowners, are such that neither the right to vote nor the right to serve as a director may be confined to freeholders.
In a virtually unbroken line of recent decisions, the United States Supreme Court has struck down statutes requiring property qualifications for voting in special purpose districts. The sole exception to this trend, Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District (1973) 410 U.S. 719 [35 L.Ed.2d 659, 93 S.Ct. 1224], will be discussed infra.
The court has invalidated property requiremеnts for voters in a school district election (Kramer v. Union School District (1969) 395 U.S. 621, 632 [23 L.Ed.2d 583, 592-593, 89 S.Ct. 1886]) as well as elections to approve the issuance of bonds for the construction of a city library (Hill v. Stone (1975) 421 U.S. 289, 297 [44 L.Ed.2d 172, 178-179, 95 S.Ct. 1637]), revenue bonds for the use of a municipal utility district (Cipriano v. City of Houma (1969) 395 U.S. 701, 705-706 [23 L.Ed.2d 647, 651-652, 89 S.Ct. 1897]), and general obligation bonds to finance municipal improvements (Phoenix v. Kolodziejski (1970) 399 U.S. 204 [26 L.Ed.2d 523, 90 S.Ct. 1990]).
In Burrey v. Embarcadero Mun. Improvement Dist. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 671 [97 Cal.Rptr. 203, 488 P.2d 395], we held that a statute imposing a property qualification for voting was invalid in a municipal improvement district because the district exercised powers normally held by a municipal government.
The consistent theme of these cases is that in order to deny the franchise to some voters the excluded class must be substantially less affected by the results of the election than those who are entitled to vote. In applying this rule, it was held that all voters have an important interest in the benefits of adequate service and favorable rates of a utility district (Cipriano), that both property owners and those who do not own property are сalled upon either directly or indirectly to pay for the improvements acquired from the proceeds of bonds (Phoenix, Hill), and that those who do not own property may have as direct an interest in school affairs (Kramer) or in a library (Hill) as those who do.7
Amicus contends that no valid distinction may be made between the powers exercised by water storage districts and irrigation districts and that in both types the activities of the district disproportionately affect landowners.
Although many of the powers of a water storage district referred to in Salyer are also exercised by irrigation districts, there are significant differences between the operations of the two entities. The basic function of a water storage district is to acquire, store and distribute water for farming. In connection with this primary purpose, the district may аcquire and operate works for drainage, reclamation and the generation of hydroelectric power as well as for the distribution of water, and engage in flood control activities. An irrigation district, by contrast, may produce or purchase electric power and operate flood control facilities without regard to whether such functions are ancillary to irrigation and, in addition, it may operate sewage disposal works, if authorized by the electorate, and recreational facilities in connection with property under its control.
Moreover, in the present case, unlike Salyer, assessments against land are not the sole means by which the district‘s expenses are paid. The district may collect charges for the sale of domestic water, electric power, sewage disposal and other services in lieu of assessments, and such charges are paid by both landowners and those who do not оwn land. And it is authorized to pay its bonds from revenues other than assessments.
Furthermore, there is a very great difference between the actual functions and effects of the water storage district involved in Salyer and
The district‘s nonlandowning voters are no less interested in the results of the election for director than were the voters whose exclusion from the franchise was invalidated in the cases we have cited. If a voter who does not own property cannot constitutionally be excluded from voting on a bond issue for the construction of a library (Hill) or bonds to be used by a municipal utility district (Cipriano) a fortiori, he may not be deprived of the right to vote in an election for director of an irrigation district, which exercises the broad powers and provides the essential services rendered by Imperial. Indeed, the very fact that the Legislature granted the franchise to electors who do not own land indicates that they have an appreciable stake in the affairs of the district.
It follows that we must test the constitutionality оf section 21100 by whether it furthers a compelling state interest. Amicus curiae does not claim that such an interest is present, nor do we perceive that the freeholder requirement meets this exacting standard.8 Thus we find section 21100 unconstitutional as applied to real parties in interest on the ground that it deprives both candidates and voters in Imperial Irrigation District of equal protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution and the Califоrnia Constitution.9
Because we have concluded on equal protection grounds that section 21100 is unconstitutional insofar as it applies to candidates for director of the Imperial Irrigation District, we do not reach the remaining question: whether section 21100 also violatеs section 22 of article I of the California Constitution, which provides, “The right to vote or Hold office may not be conditioned by a property qualification.”11
Since it has served its purpose, the alternative writ heretofore issued is discharged and the peremptory writ is denied. (Green v. Layton (1975) 14 Cal.3d 922, 928 [123 Cal.Rptr. 97, 538 P.2d 225].)
Petitioners are to recover their costs and reasonable attorney‘s fees from the Imperial Irrigation District, real party in interest. (
Wright, C. J., Tobriner, J., and Sullivan, J., concurred.
RICHARDSON, J.—I concur in the majority opinion to the extent that it holds unconstitutional section 21100 of the Water Code as applied to
On the other hand, there exist numerous smaller irrigation districts throughout this state whose primary function is, as the name implies, the irrigation of farmland, and whose principal сonstituents are property-owning farmers or ranchers. As the majority appear to recognize and accept, a requirement that district directors own real property within the district may be constitutionally proper in those situations wherein it may be demonstrated that the district‘s functions have a disproportionate effect and impose a distinctive burden upon landowners. This principle was recently recognized by the United States Suprеme Court in its consideration of California water storage districts. (
The special importance to property owners of the financial burdens imposed by an irrigation district has long been legislаtively recognized. This may be seen in the requirement that in the formation of a district under either of the statutory alternative methods, the holders of title, on the one hand, to a majority, or, on the other hand, to 20 percent in value of the land, must join in the proposal. (
I suggest that the question whether section 21100 is constitutional as applied to irrigation districts other than Imperial must await a case-by-case determination in the light of the principles announced by the Unitеd States Supreme Court in Salyer.
McComb, J., and Clark, J., concurred.
On September 2, 1976, the judgment was modified to read as printed above.