*1 Dec. No. 31415. 1982.] [L.A. DISTRICT, HIGH SCHOOL JOINT UNION
FULLERTON Appellant, Plaintiff EDUCATION, Defendant and Appellant. BOARD OF
STATE *5 Counsel Covert, Jr., Covert, H. E. for Parker Plaintiff Clayton Spencer &
Parker and Appellant. General, Warriner, Thomas E. Assistant At- Attorney Deukmejian,
George Sanders, General, John Anne S. Pressman and H. Deputy Attorneys torney Markman, Andrew V. D. Hanson for General, Arczynski Ralph L. James and Appellant. Defendant
Opinion
BROUSSARD, J. of Yorba community Linda has its own The elementary district, but is school of the part Fullerton Joint Union School High District HSD). The (Fullerton State Board of (State Education Board) approved plan Plan) (the to create a new Yorba Linda Unified School District1 and transfer for school high education of Yorba responsibility Linda students from the Fullerton HSD to the new district. The State Board directed that the proposal be in an election submitted limited to the approval residents of Yorba Linda. Fullerton HSD for mandate to petitioned prevent the election. The trial court decision, of the State portions Board’s but upheld held invalid other portions, limitation franchise to including residents, Yorba Linda and accord- barred the election. Both ingly parties appealed. three issues: Did the appeal presents State Board with the re- comply of Education Code section
quirements specifies conditions met which must be before State Board authorizes the creation of a new (2) Is school district? the State Board’s decision invalid for with noncompliance (Pub. the California Environmental Act Quality Code, Resources 21050 et § (3) Does the State Board’s decision seq.)? vote to limiting Yorba Linda residents of the laws to deny equal protection other residents of the Fuller- ton HSD? issue,
With to the first parties agree that respect court reviewing in- whether the State Board’s decision was only quire arbitrary, or en- capricious, review, that standard lacking evidentary support; applying tirely we find conclude, that the State Board’s decision section 4200. complied We however, State Board’s failure to undertake a threshold environmental *6 Act, Environmental violated the California and Quality that its study limitation electoral franchise was unconstitutional. of the 1. Statement of facts. Yorba Linda School District is Elementary
The surrounded completely north, unified Brea-Olinda west, school districts: and Placentia to two included in The the Yorba Linda territory south and east. School Elementary HSD, of Fullerton but being is also surrounded two other part District districts, to the remainder Fullerton HSD. Because there contiguous is 1,200 Yorba in Yorba Linda Linda school approximately high no school high grades kindergarten through is one which offers courses district” 1 A “unified school presently only grades Elementary kindergarten School District serves Linda Yorba twelve. through eight. miles, of Placentia Unified be bused 5 to 7 across portion must students School, District, the nearest school in the Fullerton high to Troy High School system. HSD of Fullerton HSD from of the Yorba Linda the re- portion isolation
The a number of school students had High district created problems. of the mainder to and from school. The round each distance also im- day a lengthy trip to make who wanted to in extracurricular ac- on students participate burdens posed ' facts, the Committee on School Orange County In view of these tivities. Committee) the Plan to create a Yorba (County prepared Organization District effect, In School District. the Yorba Linda High portion Unified Linda and become unified with HSD would “secede” Yorba Linda Fullerton Elementary. Education Code2 that a school 4200 of the requires organization Section plan conditions; (a) the new meet the districts will have substantially following
must enrollment; (b) the new districts will be in terms of financial adequate adequate will each have a substantial (c) (d) the new districts ability; community identity; will result in an division of and equitable property facilites of the district; (e) the formation of the new district will not racial original promote or segregation. or ethnic discrimination Committee found that all were County statutory requirements met and addition, the Plan to the State Board for In
submitted approval. County that the election be held in the area Committee determined for unifica- (Yorba Linda), and not the entire throughout tion Fullerton HSD. only Plan, the State Board must find Before substantial approving compliance of section and it must also review statutory requirements the pro- Committee’s County designation territory which the elec- priety Board, be held. To assist the State the State Department tion will Education conditions, which each of the analyzed found report statutory submitted the election to the Yorba approved limiting substantial Linda compliance, first the State Board further information on hearing requested area. At its HSD, Yorba Linda from the Fullerton removing but after con- racial impact it voted unanimously that information Plan. approve sidering HSD, the unification filed a Fullerton opposed proposal, petition *7 court, that the Plan did not meet the contending of mandate in the superior writ and that the election was restricted to Yorba Lin- improperly criteria statutory that the Plan met the substantially trial court ruled of ade- requirements da. The Code, be to the Education unless otherwise indicated. shall Education code references 2 All reorganized numbers of the code. shall be the section references Code 786 enrollment, financial ability, community identity, and adequate
quate equitable However, the trial court held that the of the State Board had property. division and acted arbitrarily (1) abused its discretion because capriciously Plan discrimination; or ethnic not intend to racial or promote segregation (2) did Act; did not with the California Environmental State Board comply Quality reasons, of the (3) for a voters entire Fullerton HSD variety should vote Plan, and their exclusion from the election violated on the their fundamental to vote. right with section 4200. Compliance
2. The action the trial court initially agree was a traditional parties to Code of Civil mandate Procedure section proceeding pursuant 1085 and not mandamus an administrative Code of Civil pursuant Procedure section further They 1094.5. the exercise agree the State for the authority formation of approve proposals unified school to the directive of legislative districts sections is a pursuant 4200-4419 “quasi- act.3 legislative” decisions,
In such the trial reviewing quasi-legislative court does not whether, instance, if it had to act in the first inquire power would have taken taken the action administrative agency. authority the court is limited to whether the decision of the determining was agency arbitrary, entirely or capricious, lacking evidentiary support, unlawfully procedural 824, (Pitts (1962) unfair. v. Perluss 58 Cal.2d ly 19, [27 83]; (1952) P.2d Brock v. Court Superior 109 Cal.App.2d 605-607 [241 283].) P.2d review, this test of we examine the State
Applying Board’s finding Plan with the substantially of section complies requirements 4200. That section in relevant as follows: part provides
“The State Board of Education may approve
for the
proposals
formation of
districts based
the division of the
upon
territory
districts,
existing high school
determined,
that the board has
provided
respect
and the
new districts that the
conditions
resulting
following
are substantially met:
limitations,
3 Subjectonly to constitutional
Legislature
plenary power
has
over the forma
tion,
change
(Cal. Const.,
IX,
dissolution or
of boundaries of
5;
school districts.
art.
§
(1916)
Worthington Dist. v. Eureka Dist.
437];
S.
S.
“(b) consideration shall ability, given financial determining purposes . . . valuation tax rates. pupil, assessed per per pupil, limits revenue substantial are each the basis organized the new districts “(c) That identity. community will in an division of property result
“(d) equitable That proposal district. original facilities will not and the formation of new districts pro-
“(e) That ...” segregation. or ethnic discrimination mote racial noted, Board that all five criteria had been we have the State found As condition, i.e., court ruled that the last Plan met. trial substantially was not met. On Board not racial State segregation, appeal, must promote Plan does not racial while Fullerton promote segregation, contends not with the conditions of enroll- comply adequate contends that does HSD ment, division of the ability financial and equitable property.
(a.) Specific Findings HSD that the State Board argues Fullerton action was
Preliminarily, state how the Plan because it did not specifically substantially complied invalid (a)-(e). enumerated section subdivisions Fullerton with the conditions 1094.5, section of Civil Procedure administrative man relies on Code HSD the administrative agency ad impliedly requires damus provision, “to bridge analytic to make some between findings gap decisions judicatory Assn. (Topanga decision or order.” Scenic and ultimate the raw evidence (1974) 11 Cal.3d Angeles Los County Community stated, However, have as we the Plan the approving 522 P.2d function reviewable tradi a “quasi-legislative” was exercising State Proc., 1085.) Because the decision (Code Civ. approving § mandamus. tional was Unified School District Yorba Linda create the Plan to adjudicatory in which law a re hearing of a proceeding the result made as decision taken, to be Code of Civil Procedure required and evidence be given quired are such dealing adjudicatory hearings and cases 1094.5 section inapplicable.
Furthermore, even where are findings required, the administrative agency to make formal as would be required findings in a required court of An law. administrative agency adopt findings by another prepared body. View, (Carmel Valley Ltd. v. Board 817, Supervisors Cal.App.3d The State in Board effect adopted of the findings in Committee as contained County Plan.4 These proposed are findings fully allow review of adequate meaningful judicial quasi-legislative action the State Board for the purpose determining whether action was ar or without bitrary, capricious evidentiary support.
(b.) Enrollment Adequate
Fullerton HSD contends that the State Board acted in find arbitrarily Yorba Linda ing proposed Unified School District would be in adequate terms of number of enrolled. pupils 4200, (a) does
Section subdivision not itself what is meant specify “ade- mandate, of number enrolled.” Pursuant pupils terms quate statutory Code, 5, (Cal. Admin. tit. regulations the State Board adopted 18570- §§ 18574) as whether a guidelines determining to serve with proposal complies will, each Those advise that school guidelines section 4200.5 district proposed effective, be becomes if it proposal adequate substantially at the time com- standards; enrollment following plies District.............................................................3,500 Elementary District............................................................1,500 School High District..................................................................5,000 Unified Code, 5, 18573.) tit. The Plan states that attendance in (Cal. Admin. Yorba § 2,511 K-8, 1,200 school the 1976-1977 was and during year grades Linda 3,711. 9-12, for a total of grades 3,711 enrollment HSD because it
Fullerton refers objects figure time the time the Plan was not at the approved at the figures Fullerton HSD the Plan is argues, defective becomes effective. Consequently, County findings segrega did find the Committee’s the racial 4 TheState Board not at first further adequate. segregation State Board received evidence on racial fully But the tion issue issue, may be State adopted adopted the Plan. On this issue it said that the after which report Department State plan in the in the addendum findings contained Education. regulations simply guidelines for the these administrative are emphasized 5 It should development They of a do not the State Board’s plan. diminish County Committee (a) (e) of through in subdivisions section if the specified waive the criteria authority to present exceptional justify situation sufficient to the circumstances Board determines State (c).) Code, (See Admin. tit. subd. proposal. § Cal. approval of the Yorba Linda Unified School District not show that it does because 5,000 in when the Plan was intended to 1979-1980 an enrollment have would *10 for that enrollment 1979-1980 projected in fact shows effect. The evidence take 1,050 2,050 and in K-8 in grades approximately be approximately would 3,100; 3,100 HSD 9-12, Fullerton that is urges for a total enrollment grades 5,000. with the guideline substantial compliance not is less than specified guidelines, enrollment projected Although determined, discretion, its that in the exercise of well have State the Yorba Linda area residents of should not deprive low enrollment relatively school district. Yorba Linda Elementary, to form unified the opportunity under-enrolled, existed as district. In already separate somewhat although factors and of the fact that the community of the special geographic view enrollment is due to the school preexisting elementary low relatively largely district, Board acted say arbitrarily finding we cannot State met the for enrollment.6 substantially guidelines adequate enrollment projected (c.) Ability Financial Code, 5, California Administrative title the time the Plan was approved,
At 18573, will (b)(2) subdivision district affected be provided section “Each if either the revenue limit unit ability per in terms of financial adequate of the from vary attendance district does not average daily proposed limit the assessed valuation attendance daily per of average unit per revenue affected districts by all of the more than attendance daily of average unit 15%.”7 HSD that both the revenue limit unit argues per
Fullerton of average (ADA) and the assessed valuation ADA for per attendance daily proposed by Unified School District more than from those vary Yorba Linda percent Plan shows that the value per Fullerton HSD. The assessed ADA varies by for shows that the revenue limit ADA per It also deviates percent. only 29.42 HSD out that incorrect but Fullerton were used to points figures 5.27 percent, conclusion. It was inaccurate determine the deviation of at that Yorba arrive Code, (b)(1) title section subdivision has since been 6 TheCalifornia Administrative enrollment, guidelines adequate e.g., as elemen figures lower 901 for provide amended districts, 1,501 districts, figures high for unified districts. These revised 301 for school tary unreasonably guidelines high. were found to be previous suggest that (b)(2) been read: has since amended to subdivision 7 Section adequate ability in terms of financial if: “(2) affected will Each district average daily does “(A) per proposed limit unit attendance district revenue The average daily all of the per unit of attendance in affected districts revenue limit vary from the %, than 15 more territory by for the more costs to the State affected than “(B) does not increase 10%.” revenue limit from the average revenue limit of
Linda Unified School District’s Fullerton HSD and school elementary districts within its boundaries. The deviation Yorba Unified School Linda District revenue limit HSD from Fullerton revenue limit—excluding elementary school districts—in fact is 17.19 percent.8 however, us, is not Plan
The issue before whether the conforms to the ad- It whether the State ministrative Board acted guidelines. arbitrarily, evidentiary or without support concluding Plan capriciously, substantially statutory complied requirements. Despite the deviation *11 set the the administrative the figures by regulations, from record does not the that State Board acted or arbitrarily, demonstrate without capriciously, when it found that the Yorba Linda evidentiary support proposed Unified would have financial adequate School finance ability its educational District program.9 Property Division of
(d.) all real Plan proposes appraise property, improvements, personal of and funds Fullerton HSD and to divide the value of all such property proper- the of ADA ratio between the Yorba on basis Linda and the ty portion remain- of Fullerton HSD. The real and portion property improvements will ing remain located, the in that of district in which are portion they but monetary credit will be to a of the district if portion the located given property there was less its than share based ADA ratio. The proportional Plan further divides of ratio, bonded indebtedness Fullerton HSD to ADA according but provides one that district choose to of accept greater the bonded in- portion that for debtedness offset district an imbalance in charges against real proper- received that ty, improvements personal property by district. Fullerton HSD the Plan complains proposes an inequitable distribution of in violation of property section (d). subdivision Since section 4123 specifies real shall property remain the of the property located, it district in which it argues the State Board should not complex by taking calculation was obtained 8 This rather the 1976-1977 revenue limit for the District, Elementary extrapolating Yorba Linda School to determine applicable the limit if that district, comparing a unified and district became with the revenue of limit the Fullerton HSD. district, ability proposed of the financial of the Because issue unified although raised court, Appeal, not argued trial court and before the Court was before this we avoid a detailed analysis of the calculation. complains any further that the Plan provision 9 Fullerton HSD fails make for the revenue by required district as section To contrary, limit of the 4364. proposes the Plan $1,439.35 1978-1979, limit for the new district establish a revenue for year prior effective, proposal new district was to become year when the and thus requirements meets the section 4364. 4370, however, value real Section account the authorizes property. take into division of the Committee drafting property the County Moreover, “the and location of the school property.” consider value funds to division of the and facilities property 4200 mandates equitable section any were read to consideration of the preclude HSD. If section 4123 Fullerton State Board would fail its necessarily attempt the real value of property, equitably. to divide property District, School under interpretation urged Linda Unified
Yorba HSD, the one of land owned Fullerton HSD would receive parcel Fullerton Linda and a 7.8 share funds. All other real percent the Yorba area located in district all personal property all improvements, property, in- HSD. Such distribution would manifestly remain with Fullerton would Thus, did not act arbitrarily capriciously ap- the State Board equitable. to divide the values of the even property, though the Plan’s provision proving district where it is located. itself remains in portion the property indebtedness, the Plan that one *12 provides portion As to the bonded bonded share the indebtedness than its accept greater district opt owed, if order to offset the amount on account of any, share in proportional the value of the other assets. Fullerton HSD contends that this division of provi- XVI, 18, Constitution, Plan section of the California sion of the violates article education, “No . . board of that: . or pertinent part provides school district, . . . any shall incur indebtedness without assent two-thirds of thereof, electors at an election to be held for voting that qualified ...” purpose, is total
The answer this that the amount bonded indebtedness argument been voters of Fullerton HSD. qualified By has voted already by district, of a does not lose its identity of boundaries school district or change legal entity (Hughes Ewing, cease same was before. supra, 387, 419; Bates v. 89 Cal. P. Gregory Cal. see also event, made; rata that distribution be require nonpro the Plan does any In free to its share of the bonded in accept HSD is proportional Fullerton only. debtedness Fullerton HSD that the Plan does not
Finally, argues provide of the because distribution of cash division property equivalent equitable Linda’s share real proportional Linda for Yorba im property Yorba Yorba would Fullerton HSD. Linda’s financially impoverish pro provements ratios) on ADA based (7.8 share of the estimated property percent portional that, it assumed all the even if bonded in- argues $4 at million. Fullerton HSD debtedness and Yorba Linda all the gave personal property, balance owed to Linda would out its Yorba assets. wipe liquid record, the actual effect of the present On property division is quite uncertain, the values upon eventually assigned to the depending real property new Yorba Linda District as against value of that acquired retained HSD. If it turns Fullerton out the division imposes substantial HSD, on Fullerton the two districts are burdens free to make arrangements for account of the that take economic realities. All that the State Board payment did was divide the so Yorba Linda would property receive its proportional assets, of the district and such a division clearly share with the complies re- (d), of section subdivision that the be divided quirement property equitably. Ethnic
(e.) Segregation Racial or (e), Section subdivision provides that school reorganization discrimination must “not racial ethnic promote plan segregation.” The Board at issue in criterion, State determined this case met this the trial court ruled to the contrary, but Plan finding would promote an area of removing white students from an segregation “by primarily area that more becoming integrated.” is increasingly to the State
Statistics the trial court presented showed that in the school the Fullerton HSD had a year 1976-1977 white enrollment of 84.6 per- cent, Yorba and that the Linda unified district would have a white *13 Fullerton enrollment of 91.6 HSD percent. presented testimony predicting that increase, of the enrollment most Fullerton HSD would minority steadily but the Yorba racial and ethnic of Linda would composition remain relatively to Additional evidence this court verified this presented stable. as of prediction; the the white Fullerton HSD November 1980 as a whole percentage has of Linda to 80 but that Yorba to 90.9 If only declined Yorba percent, percent.10 HSD, the Fullerton the remaining Linda seceded from of the portion district of 66 have a white percentage percent. would must not or “promote The racial ethnic statutory language, has not received discrimination or definition. We segregation,” judicial believe a State Board more than stringent its constitutional imposes obligation in the of to which would exist absence section 4200—not duty approve duty—a 1981, evidence, 17, produce granted June we motion of Fullerton HSD additional 10 On of additional and admitted into evidence the declaration James Bremmer. The evidence consists figures, accuracy disputed. of enrollment which is not primarily 1979 and 1980 of also Board should schools.11 State segregated of a district the creation new of both the ability Plan upon of secession effect a into the inquire of district original adapt present portion and district remaining students, and to of its implement and composition ethnic racial and anticipated Education, v. supra, (cf. integration programs voluntary of Crawford Dist. v. Johnson School (1971) Francisco San 280, 294; Cal.3d Unified 309, 669]). 479 P.2d 937, Cal.Rptr. 951-952 [92 Cal.3d of section the deci- statutory this view of purpose against Measured The Plan will carve out from increas- State Board questionable. sion of the is, remain, which a enclave and will district small 90 percent integrated ingly do not the motives those who question we propose Although white.12 it as an to isolate the white Plan, attempt in the area see students many with a number of students. significant minority Any from contact Linda Yorba to obtain a more of Yorba Linda school district balanced racially efforts future school, identification as a “white” community and to avoid body, high student and area. be frustrated small size stable likely demography will Moreover, white of the stable enrollment from Yorba Linda will the removal to a for Fullerton HSD racial and adapt changing it more difficult make difficulty result in some in that may eventually ethnic schools population, schools. minority becoming predominantly district 17 Cal.3d 303-304 v. Board Education 11 In Crawford , “|T]n determining particular ‘segregated’ a . we 28], whether school is . . we stated that P.2d established, inor percentages
do and can be absolute terms not believe set racial ethnic either in particular population. a district’s student Under the California composition terms of the racial Constitution, segregated is not Constitution is or school will as under federal ‘[w]hat particular case. In addition to the racial ethnic com necessarily depend on the facts of each and factors, such racial ethnic body, composition other as the a school’s student position of school, staff[,] community and attitudes toward the must be and the administration faculty and Supreme explained As the United States Court consideration.’ [Citation omitted.] into taken possible identify it is assignment, where “white school” ‘Independent of student . . . : staff, composition quality racial teachers simply reference “Negro school” activities, prima organization sports or the case of equipment, buildings and of school facie rights ... is shown.’ constitutional [Citation omitted.]” of substantive violation constructed, High School has been we have no informa- proposed Yorba Linda Since staff, community whether programs, and cannot determine concerning facilities its tion white, segregated institution. We likewise lack information as to how as a will view that school *14 remaining Fullerton Conse- individual schools in HSD. of Linda will affect Yorba the secession in actually segregated the Plan will result schools in either predict whether quently, we cannot the Fullerton HSD. or balance of Linda the Yorba main Supreme Court decisions hold that division of a school district to United States 12 Two (United v. violates the Fourteenth Amendment. States racially identifiable white school tain a L.Ed.2d 75, 92 (1972) 2214]; Wright 407 484 Education U.S. S.Ct. [33 Neck Bd. Scotland of 2196].) (1972) Although City Emporia 407 451 92 S.Ct. U.S. L.Ed.2d Council of of distinguishable litigation—they involved factually present from the the division of both are cases large designated white school retained a jure segregated system de ensure previously a integrated cases division an students—these demonstrate that of district proportion of white illegal segregation. constitutes off white students fence said, however, As we have the issue before us is limited to whether the State arbitrarily, acted or without capriciously, evidentiary This stan- support. of limits the our review. The severely scope dard State Board’s is finding sup- evidence that both Yorba Linda and the of remaining portion the ported white; are HSD if we presently predominantly Fullerton look to the present of the districts and future changes dismiss as composition we could speculative, Board’s decision State as classify arbitrary We therefore capricious. State finding Board’s this issue. uphold 3. with the Environmental Act. Compliance Quality California the California
Under Environmental Quality (CEQA) (Pub. Act Code, 21050 et seq.), any public Resources agency directly undertaking § have a effect on may significant the environment must first con project of such study a threshold If impact. study duct shows that the will project effect, the significant may not have a so declare in a agency brief negative declaration; effect, if it demonstrates that the have a project may significant (No Oil, an environment must Inc. agency prepare impact report. v. City Los Cal.3d Angeles 529 P.2d Plan secession in the Implementation present case involves the of a Secession will significant likely possibility impact. construction require high of a new school Yorba Linda and result in abandonment some remaining facilities in the Fullerton HSD.13 portion It will bus change schedules, and routes and affect traffic patterns. it is Although uncertain whether the total an impact significant enough require environmental will.be it is clear that it is sufficient to impact report, require least initial study to into the need for such report. inquire Board, however, ruled that it had no duty State undertake such study Plan. Judicial review its ruling
before approving
governed by Public
21168.5,
Code section
which limits
Resources
judicial
into “whether
inquiry
discretion,”
abuse of
was a
prejudicial
provides
there
“[a]buse
if the
has not
agency
is established
in a
proceeded
discretion
manner required
if the
or decision
law or
determination
is not
by substantial
supported
case,
In the
evidence.”14
present
principal
concerns whether
controversy
required
grades
13 Thenew district will be
to devise
plan
house students in
9-12. It is cur
$6
rently
that it will cost in excess of million to
necessary
estimated
construct
facilities. The
upon testimony
court
relied
proposed plan
trial
also
effect
would cause a reduction
the number of students
the Fullerton HSD
which would necessitate
either
inefficient use
closing
HSD facilities or the
some of
Fullerton
its facilities.
question
merely
14 The
here is not
whether
the State Board’s determination
arbitrary,
was
Court,
(Cf.
Brock
Superior
supra,
capricious
entirely lacking
evidentiary
support.
Rather,
594.)
Cal.App.2d
applicable
standard of review
under
is a much more
CEQA
*15
within the pur-
of the Plan constitutes
“project”
Board’s
the State
approval
on undisputed
which can be decided
is an issue of law
CEQA.15 This
view of
of
no question
thus the
appeal presents
record on appeal;
present
data in the
of evidence.
substantiality
or review of
discretion
agency
deference
an environmental
CEQA’s
of a
concept
“project” requiring
We explained
(1975)
Com.
stringent as discretion. showing incorrectly by be established that the State Board Such an abuse discretion with, assessed, “required (Pub. comply proper procedure did not and thus law.” Code, 21168.5) Resources § argues County agency Committee the lead responsible Board also was 15 TheState suit, study, consequently that Fullerton HSD’s because it was threshold preparation action, County days from the Committee’s was barred the statute of within 180 not filed Code, 21167.) (See agency” as public defines “lead “the CEQA Pub. Resources § limitations. (Pub. carrying approving project.” principal responsibililty for out agency has the Code, 21067.) assuming study Consequently, environmental should take Resources § opinion—the agency later in this role of lead in our election—an issue discussed place before the Plan, though County Committee formulated the Board. Even opinion falls on the State Plan, it, approve to review the and submit responsibility final had the State Board days within 180 after the State Board’s brought present action Fullerton HSD Since voters. timely. its action was approval, *16 796
The Board State first points Code, to California Administative title sec- 15037, which (b) tion in subdivision states that “[p]roject does not include . . . (4) The submittal of ato vote of the proposals of the State or people of a par- community.” ticular clear, however,
It is that Board’s of the Plan approval is not from exempt CEQA merely because that bemust approval ratified the voters. As the court in ex rel. People Younger v. Local explained Agency Formation (1978) Com. 400], 81 464 in Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. holding LAFCO [146 of approval a CEQA, deannexation was proposal subject here is ‘project’ more than “[t]he ’ of Rather, the ‘submittal to a vote of the proposals it is but people. the first step statute aon deannexation required by proposal consequent substantial im- on the and human pact (81 environment.” physical at 479.) Cal.App.3d p. The State Board relies on Simi Valley also Recreation & Park Dist. v. Local (1975) Com. 51 Formation Agency Cal.App.3d 648 635], which Cal.Rptr. [124 LAFCO of an concerned election approval detach area from a recreation district. Noting asserted environmental park was impact simply of one of group managers by others who replacement hold might different future of the land in views use the court question, held that under these circumstances the LAFCO was not a approval CEQA. under “project” Com., v. Local Distinguishing Bozung Agency Formation supra, 13 Cal.3d Valley Simi stated the earlier case “dealt only with the situation where awas in the necessary LAFCO and in approval step development effect con for use for such . stituted an entitlement . . The development. evaluation [f] CEQA relates to the effect contemplated process changes make, a about agency world which is to either public authorize or physical fund, every change not to which organization personnel may affect future (51 to the environment.” relating determinations 665- Cal.App.3d pp. 666.)16 not Valley set out Simi is between
The distinction of a approval proposal an election and which does requires approval not. It is be- not, Valley course, from Simi quoted language 16 The is a test determining whether concept under governmental “project” encompasses action comes CEQA. CEQA many development, which do relate to land activities but involve some other environmental Valley Obispo County e.g., Edna Assn. v. San Luis (See, Coordinating etc. Council impact. (1977) Cal.Rptr. [approval regional Cal.App.3d transportation plan]; 444 67 665] Bridge (1976) Gate etc. v. Golden Dist. Cal.App.3d Shawn Cal.Rptr. 867] [in tolls].) bridge crease v. Education 5], The decision in Prentiss Cal.App.3d 847 [169 of a not a because the “project” the closure school is school board had not decided whether use, questionable. unlikely It single the land to different that the closure of a put significant impact apart would environmental from its elementary school have effect on the use school board in Prentiss filed negative property—the possibility declaration—but rejected categorically. cannot be *17 culminating essential which constitutes an step approval governmental tween of a reor- and (Bozung) environment approval affect the which may action (Simi the environment action affecting no particular which portends ganization Valley). v. Local Formation Bozung Agency resembles closely case more
The present
Com.,
environmental
here stems
The
impact
A closer question an before the election would The of en- study premature. timing vironmental “ can delicate ‘Statements must be writ- study present problem. vironmental information, ten contain enough development process meaningful late be written so whatever information contained they early enough but must ” Oil, (No as an into the decision input making process.’ can serve practically 5, 68, 13 Cal.3d 77 fn. Angeles, supra, Los Scientists’ City quoting Inc. of Inst, (D.C.Cir. 1973) Inc. v. Atomic Com’n. 481 F.2d Info., Energy Pub. 1079, 1094.) have been formulated for construction of a new yet high Specific plans Linda or for the education in the changes school Yorba program remaining study the Fullerton HSD. Thus an environmental until after delay portion a more study. result in useful might specific problem the election however, as a matter it alternative is that practical precludes such a delay, Once the voters the secession Plan the new quo. approve the status continuing school, Unified School District will have to build a high Linda Yorba to the loss of the Yorba Linda students. adjust will have to Fullerton HSD CEQA The fundamental is to ensure “that purpose environmental role in governmental play significant considerations decision-making” v. Board Supervisors Mammoth 8 Cal.3d (Friends 1049]). 502 P.2d it is desirable that Consequently, environmen “at the earliest tal be furnished decision-maker possible stage’’ information Com., 13 Cal.3d supra, 282). v. Local Formation (Bozung Agency In the State Board and the voters are the present setting, decision- makers; secession, whether approve must decide they ap new which entails school and other actions necessarily building high proval decision, effect. In making have an environmental State have the benefit relevant Board and the voters should data and environmental Com., v. Local Younger Agency Formation ex People supra, (See rel. analysis. *18 464,481.)17 We conclude that the initial environmental of study 81 Cal.App.3d detaching of Yorba Linda from the Fullerton HSD should have the effect been the State Board Plan and it to approved undertaken before submitted voters, in study and that to undertake State board violated the re failing CEQA.18 of quirements to
4. Limitation
the election
residents
Yorba Linda.
of
of
contends that the decision of
Fullerton HSD
the State
to
Board
ap
the election to residents of Yorba
limiting
Linda denies the
prove
equal protec
tion of the laws to the
residents
Fullerton HSD.
other
this contention
to
step
The first
is
determine the
evaluating
level
applicable
v. Supervisors (1972)
Curtis
review.19 In
ciples
“[T]he
*19
legislation
to
to
which excludes certain
apply
voting
potential
been held
long
(1969)
v.
(Kramer Union
District
395 U.S.
from
School
participation.
voters
583,
1886];
(1969)
v.
Houma
Cipriano City
L.Ed.2d
89 S.Ct.
395
621 [23
of
Board,
647,
1897];
S.Ct.
Curtis v.
Supervisors
U.S.
L.Ed.2d
89
701 [23
of
942.)
Cal.3d
There has been a
refinement of this
1
[supra]
subsequent
general
analysis
voting
as it
to
classifications: an exclu
legislative
principle
applies
strict constitutional
has been held to mean an
scrutiny
sion of voters invoking
(Weber
(1973)
v. City
class’
voters
Council
Kolodziesjki
523,
The State
contends that geographical classifications con-
rule,
stitute
that exclusion
exception
of voters because of their
place
strict scrutiny
residence
if the
requires
only
exclusion serves some impermissi-
(see
ble
such
end
as racial discrimination
Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960) 364
125]).
U.S.
L.Ed.2d
81 S.Ct.
They
rely
this
[5
on two
proposition
Court,
decisions of the United States Supreme
v
Lockport
Com-
Citizens for
(1977)
Action
430 U.S.
munity
L.Ed.2d
1047],
97 S.Ct.
and Holt
Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa
U.S.
L.Ed.2d
Lockport upheld requiring adoption of a new county charter be approved by separate majorities city noncity residents.20 When a charter was approved by residents, majority city but residents, the less numerous noncity defeated proponents of the charter *20 one-man, the claimed the statute violated one-vote principles by giving noncity voters an excessive voice. court, however, one-man,
The
noted that
one-vote
had
principles
little ap-
to a
referendum since
state
the
could
plication
single-issue
“determine whether
will have a
its
on an
adoption
rejection
disproportionate impact
identifiable
321])
of voters”
266
L.Ed.2d at
(p.
and
its
group
p.
election re-
shape
[51
The court observed
if
accordingly.
that
and
city
noncity
had
quirements
voters
charter,
in the
of the
adoption
rejection
identical interests
“any distinc-
. . between voters drawn on the basis of
tion
.
residence” would be unconstitu-
322].)
if
(P.
tional.
268
L.Ed.2d
the
p.
Conversely,
interests of one
[51
other,
the
the court
that
far
the state could
the
outweighed
implied
limit
group
(See
321],
to
266
franchise
the former
L.Ed.2d at
group.
p.
p.
citing Salyer
[51
(1973)
District
Land
v. Tulare Water
410 U.S.
L.Ed.2d
Co.
however,
in
statute
in-
Lockport,
S.Ct.
The
challenged
presented
decision,
essentially
counterpart
Supreme
an earlier United States
20 Lockport is
the
of
Court
40], Hunter,
Pittsburgh
Such court that if the and residents. The city noncity explained of majorities current of annexation “. . were context posed pro . question constitutional and the residents of the city fact the residents of annexing that ceedings, sufficiently different constituencies with sufficiently be annexed formed area to The fact of union impending could be readily perceived. different interests one not so them into interest as constitu merge community alone would referendum to any that their votes be aggregated approve tionally require 207 U.S. that Pittsburgh, Similarly, Cf. Hunter 161. annexation. districts to form consolidated unit could join surely subject several school to voter approval each constituent school district. [1] . . . [T|n terms interests, and separate potentially opposing constituencies recognizing annex or consolidate is similar in to the decision to decision impact structural case, in New York. In voter county separate each government ap restructure the real and are based im perception long-term proval requirements of local is felt the dif restructuring government quite differently by pact similar units that a sense compete provide constituent county ferent in these units are dif directly services. Voters constituent governmental restructuring affected which ferentially county government, more remote services and less voters’ public subject make provider influence, law here in no of New York provisions question individual [f] of these in substantially than realities electoral recognize differing more to these Granting provisions constitutionality terests. presumption entitled, we are enacted state federal law unable to con every duly Protection violate Clause the Fourteenth Amend they Equal clude omitted; U.S., L.Ed.2d, (Fn. 324-325].) 271-272 at pp. at pp. ment.” Lockport from makes it clear the state can language The quoted *21 and, areas different residents of different have interests in recognize referendum, concurrent But constitutionally can require majorities. single-issue vote to in endorses measures which the residents Lockport deny entirely nothing areas, such measures to strict escape judicial scrutiny. of nor permits of one the of from the California decision Lockport gains only reading support This Ventura, on In Hawn v. voting County to limits rights. relating geographical of 1009, the an ordinance county enacted providing supra, Cal.App.3d whole or in within an part to establish located in comity airport any decision of The by city county voters. city majority must approved incorporated Force within the partially City a former Air base located to acquire undertook Court of city the limits. The partially beyond Appeal applied and Camarillo of and, ordinance the franchise to scrutiny limiting strict residents find- city in both and residents interested the issue city county directly of loca- ing airport tion, the restricted franchise invalid. held decision, of Lockport the Court observed
Distinguishing Appeal that “[i]t that the New York law involved in readily is apparent Lockport dif- quite from the initiative ordinance before us. airport ferent did not deal with Lockport on On which excluded voters based residence. statute the statute contrary, to the Lockport recognition interests gave equal noncity voters a new as it charter did interests voters. county city The rationale to the contention that lends Lockport support airport ordinance before us discrimination constitutes an invidious against noncity residents and voters of (P. 1021.) . . . .” County Ventura Lockport does not
We conclude support proposition that geographical the franchise are immune from restrictions on strict We therefore scrutiny. turn Board, Tuscaloosa, the State to the second case relied Holt Civic Club v. 60. That case 439 U.S. concerned Alabama supra, statutes which permitted their police regulation cities to extend licensing authority unincorporated city Nonresidents, however, within three miles limits. areas were im- licenses, mune from taxes business city (except at charged one-half the rate limits), within the city city zoning authority, assessed other many powers who within government. Although lived city appellants, the three-mile area limits, did not seek the beyond city directly vote in right elec- municipal tions, claimed that because they they were denied the vote the city’s exercise of extraterritorial was unconstitutional. jurisdiction court reviewed voting rights
The cases in which it had strict applied and noted that the cases involved scrutiny, a common characteristic: “The case denied challenged statute each the franchise to individuals who were within the resident boundaries of physically geographic the governmental entity 300].) at (P. concerned.” L.Ed.2d p. geographic entity involved Tuscaloosa, at was the City case hand and since the statute did not deny line, the vote within that strict anyone scrutiny was not required; “[t]he . line . . marked this Court’s voting qualifications decisions coincides with issue, boundary governmental unit at geographical and we hold that case, homes, like their falls on the (P. farther side.” appellants’ L.Ed.2d a less test—whether the p. Applying rigorous state bore a plan rational a state relationship legitimate purpose—the court upheld the challenged *22 statutes. State Holt that distinctions,
The Board reads as holding geographical unlike classifications, all other never voting strict We require scrutiny. read the case view, which with the that distinctions coincide only it holds In our differently. concerned, no one and exclude entity physical- the governmental boundaries boundaries, If, on the scrutiny. do not strict those require within resident ly to the and hand, existing entity deny carve up political the state attempts other residents—if, had denied for Holt statute example, to its some of vote who lived within the Tuscaloosa limits—then city to some persons the vote is scrutiny required. still strict on we cannot avoid of strict requirement scrutiny
Accordingly, here imposes the decision in restrictions on question geographical ground examined in residency than the limitations cases. property prior rather voting boundaries, determine Instead, relevant constitutionally we must “the (Holt governmental of the concerned” Civic Club entity boundaries geographic Tuscaloosa, 300]), U.S. at L.Ed.2d at to p. p. subject v. supra, measure which limits within those boundaries. scrutiny voting any strict case, Linda, Board could argue the State Yorba not the the present In HSD, area, and that the the relevant exclusion voters geographic Fullerton is HSD, subject scrutiny. thus is not strict The Fullerton Yorba Linda outside however, incidentally a district affected the seces- merely neighboring is Linda, entity authority but the over existing legal sion of Yorba high Linda; the of the secession in Yorba is impact large part school education of the Fullerton authority status district. For ex- consequence present Board, State Fullerton HSD a under incur plan approved ample, District, Linda Unified School a debt debt to the new Yorba substantial be the residents in the Fullerton remaining have to HSD. paid by will Moreover, built and staffed school educate the children Yor- high having Linda, others, will the withdrawal Yorba Linda leave the district among ba educational None of these effects and affect its programs. with excess capacity districts; HSD on Fullerton and its residents is impact affect neighboring the entire Fullerton HSD the relevant We conclude that present unique. constitutional applying requirements area for purpose geographic equal protection.21 on another exception requirement State Board relies primarily
The district of election limited involving special powers an scrutiny—that strict aof affect members particular group, activities disproportionately whose does not encounter strict scrutiny. the franchise to limiting group measure Land Co. Tulare Water Salyer relies in particular The State 21 Note, Right Municipal Annexations 88 Harv.L.Rev. 1571 discusses to Vote in city” may right to vote in an elec a “source denied analogous residents of issue—whether city. another The note city of that and annex approve portion detach a tion to city area to be any denying to source residents outside the measure the vote concludes that 1585-1587.) scrutiny (Pp. standard. meet the strict detached must
804
District,
Salyer a upheld franchise restricted landowners for the election of directors aof water district. The storage decision relied on the limited powers of the district, the disproportionate effect of its activities on landowners as a group, and of financing district activities solely by levies the landowners. California courts have a applied similar analysis elections concerning (Simi recreation and park district Recreation Valley & Park Dist. v. Local Com., Formation Agency supra, 648), 51 Cal.App.3d reclamation district v. Hotchkiss Tract (Philippart (1976) Reclamation Dist. 799 54 Cal.App.3d 42]) 797 and small Cal.Rptr. irrigation (Schindler district v. [127 Palo Verde (1969) Irrigation Dist. 1 831 61]). Cal.App.3d [82 Free, in Choudhry 660, Our decision v. supra, 17 Cal.3d explored the limits of this concerned a exception. Choudry statute which that directors required of District be freeholders. Imperial Irrigation noted the of opinion size largest district—the district irrigation state—its substantial its payroll, and facilities, electrical power operate power and flood acquire control and to finance ability its operations through charges such services. Dis- Salyer virtue of the by larger size and tinguishing impact on nonlandowners of District, Irrigation the court held that the Imperial restriction must be tested scrutiny. standard strict districts, broad Mindful of the school and the powers possessed impact the life of the upon community, district actions courts have consistently applied same they standards school district elections as and apply municipal District, 621, In v. elections. Kramer Union School supra, state 395 U.S. elelctions, a statute the franchise in school board limiting which involved “ stated that the Court of citizens to ‘alleged infringement right Supreme ” (P. must scrutinized.’ 626 carefully meticulously vote L.Ed.2d at [23 533, (1964) 506, 589], Reynolds Sims L.Ed.2d quoting p. U.S. Curtis v. 84 S.Ct. Our decision in Supervisors, supra, decisions, Kramer and other court high Cal.3d reviewed concluded cases, in those strict including judicial scrutiny the standards established state, restrictions, to “the government city, county, voting applied [the] district, (P. 960). agencies general power.” and other governmental school (Italics added.) note in the decision United States Court in Supreme
We
particular
District
It cannot claim a interest in compelling they (Carrington voters because how vote. Rash may excluding L.Ed.2d 85 S.Ct. To the extent 380 U.S. 94 [13 Board seeks to exclude some Fullerton voters their that the State because vote secession, the State Board’s is constitu justification defeat might however, If we one of ex as tionally impermissible. rephrase justification, voters in uninterested order the interests of protect persons vitally cluding concerned, case, we a state interest which an might, encounter appropriate character. compelling achieve case. Without
This is not such a interests of Yorba Linda denigrating residents, is nonetheless Fullerton apparent remaining it HSD residents earlier, interest in the election. As we a substantial noted the seces- also have HSD, and future racial will affect Fullerton present composition sion difficult for the make more district cope and increasing We also note that the Plan number of students. the State minority approved by Fullerton a substantial debt HSD which impose Board may might require is, or a tax increase. neither consideration in our Although economies stringent in itself us overturn the enough compel State Board’s opinion, approval racial the secession and financial of that Plan proposal, impact are matters concern to the residents who will remain in the Fullerton great HSD. The *25 further indicates that the withdrawal of record the Yorba Linda students from school, School Fullerton necessitate High May Troy closing or at least a of its substantial curtailment facilities and curriculum. Such measures will the of HSD, affect education offered the seriously quality by Fullerton as well burden on its as the financial residents.22 sum, the
In we do view clasification at issue here as one which separates voters, interested and uninterested but one which divides two each with groups, a substantial different interest in the although election. In such case the state to franchise has no interest the to compelling grant one and group it to deny the Board, other. We therefore conclude that the decision the of State to the extent it Fullerton HSD excluded residents from at voting the election to approve of Yorba HSD, the secession Linda from the Fullerton denied such the of residents the laws. equal protection the court respecting
5. Conclusions trial judgement. of found State Board’s the Plan Having approval violated Education Code section the trial court issued mandate state prohibiting and local of- from taking any ficials action whatsoever the secession Plan. we Since con- Plan that the Board’s was not clude or un- approval arbitrary, capricious, evidence, we cannot with the trial by agree court’s order supported barring any Board, The further action. State our opinion, may proceed consider the Plan, CEQA so it conforms to the of as and does not long requirements exclude from Fullerton HSD residents election to any voting any the Plan. approve trial court further the relevant officials “from prohibited notic- calling, an election on March conducting other ing, any time what- submitting soever” for the of Plan the voters. purposes This portion overbroad, below is and should be modified to the order prohibit elec- only to the residents less than the entire tion limited Fullerton HSD. court the State the trial directed vacate its
Finally, approval election conducted before the any Plan and State Board had prohibited complied however, CEQA. Compliance CEQA, with is re- requirements adopted findings drafted judge promote trial counsel to the effect that the Plan 22 The would HSD, quality programs offered segregation, interfere with the Fullerton and racial To significant impact. findings, judge environmental each of these may have added in his handwriting words “the entire Fullerton District own should vote on Plan.” We share financial, racial, judge; and require of the trial environmental effect of the view Plan open to Fullerton vote all residents HSD. takes but before the State Board grants before an election place, not only quired Code, 21050.) (See The judgment the Plan. Pub. Resources § approval final accordingly. be modified should cause remanded with court is reversed the superior
The judgment with the views conformity expressed modify judgment directions substantially will afford Fullerton HSD the modified judgment Since herein. seeks, its costs on it shall recover appeal. relief J., Mosk,
Bird, J., concurred. C. *26 in the I have NEWMAN, J. reluctantly. signed concur concur- judgment I Kaus, Forced Annexation v. Local Against Agency J. ring opinion Citizens 423, 193], 654 P.2d also Formation Com. (1982) post, page Cal.Rptr. [187 I him state rationally arrange filed that the today. agree may special-issue smaller, election to the vote concerned vitally geographic group prevent of a with in from overwhelmed ballot being by contrary larger population view, so decision to do need manifestly terests more diffuse. In the state’s my “strict scrutiny not invoke review.” fact, is contra. that I Acknowledging
The lead opinion Citizens determination here that an election the entire Fuller involving in the acquiesce District is necessary. ton here have second concern relates to the deference ac- plurality
My
view
Yorba
from
departure
the Board of Education’s
Linda’s
corded
will not “promote
District
racial or ethnic
or
discrimination
segrega-
Fullerton
Code,
(Ed.
(e).)
subd.
...”
As
v. Board
my
McKinny
tion.
dissent
§
P.2d
Proposals municipal boundary lines or the reorganization of local entities political frequently pit interests of those residents who will be most affected directly change—the residents of the area that bemay to, from, annexed or severed an existing municipality district—against the interests the current residents of the annexing entity of the remaining *27 residents of the that some entity may of its lose constituents. There are many a state choose to resolve ways may these conflicting interests to ensure that school district and lines are municipal boundary established on a well- logical, basis that serves the interests of the planned whole, as a region as well as the in- terests of the most immediately affected entities. Under the that procedures are in this case—and in challenged the companion (see case fn. ante) Citizens —this state has that once a simply provided reorganization proposal has been the regional or statewide adopted proper planning agency, the reorganiza- can take effect if it is tion a approved by of those majority persons most directly i.e., affected the residents who live in the plan, area that is to be annexed majority’s equal protection analysis 1 Mydifferences with extend well majority’s as companion Against Agency Forced Annexation v. Local reasoning Forma in the case Citizens tion Com. (1982) post, page 816 654 P.2d which concerns an annexa 193] tion, rather than a secession election. Although voting procedures quite in the two cases are similar, matters, majority opposite upholding reaches conclusions in the two the constitu Citizens, tionality procedure striking procedure in but down the here. attempts explain inconsistency majority by suggesting to this in result that the state has a “compelling” procedure interest in the annexation than the procedure, more secession but the secession, strained at best. In the case of both suggested distinction seems annexation and assuring boundary that local comparable a interest lines are drawn so govern- state has Moreover, reasonably are accessible to all citizens and are ment services cost-efficient. in both legitimate granting the state also has a interest in local instances communities some measure of destiny. over their own control believe Unlike the I do not majority, district. existing from severed to or to “strict “constitutionally suspect” subject is such a procedure who also be af areas neighboring because residents merely scrutiny” are not vote reorganization granted right manner by some fected veto, I As United on, governing the proposal.3 explain, and potentially very establish that states broad discretion enjoy Court decisions States Supreme reorganization formation or local sub for the political devising procedures divisions, which aware decision of I am this broad discre suggests no authority carefully include the limited measure of grant does not tion local want to declare their community residents of a who in autonomy to from, with, an existing Although affiliation unit. political dependence course, could, residents of areas the give choose other opportunity state I errs in believe majority suggesting equal pro block such a change, these other other grants clause constitutional presumptively persons tection veto to such power. right its in the failure to take note majority’s analysis
A flaw major adequate States Court decision Hunter v. Supreme Pittsburgh the United 40], 28 S.Ct. the seminal L.Ed. constitutional decision ad- U.S. to a state the formation and challenge procedure regulating organiza- dressing Hunter, entities. In residents Penn- governmental Allegheny, tion local of a state validity statute authorized con- challenged sylvania cities—Allegheny of two of the total Pittsburgh—if majority solidation in the a referendum two cities approved votes cast in consolidation. The out that because had a much pointed Pittsburgh greater in Hunter plaintiffs state law effectively Pittsburgh than Allegheny, permitted population any without to the wishes of the regard Allegheny Allegheny “swallow” *28 residents; that such a reorganization contended was un- they procedure patently fair and unconstitutional. require only in this does not be held 2 Actually, governing statute case election in the district, existing simply but the territory be severed from an instead authorizes relevant the organization on school to “determine if ... shall be
county district election held committee Code, (Ed. 4375.) Although county territory.” authority committee’s only § in such matter, may, is to be held as a practical permit area in which the vote commit designate the outcome, has power no claim been made that the committee’s particular to affect a election’s tee statutory aspect and I do not address this scheme. regard is itself unconstitutional in this adjoining in do not suggests point at one because residents areas vote in majority 3 The election, procedures deny at issue in this case and in Citizens or annexation secession (See directly either or their elected officials.” through “any voice to individuals] [these Citizens, however, 816.) totally ignores post, p. played the critical role in the suggestion, This county by regional planning agencies—the committee on process pertinent reorganization case, county Legislature and the LAFCO in The Citizens. reorganization in this district school membership regional agencies planning of these to assure that the consciously designed the has Code, (See regions. Ed. broadly representative of all citizens the affected agencies are 4290-4293; Code, 54780-54784.) Gov. §§ §§ Hunter court that constitutional unanimously rejected The challenge, explain- broad discretion which a state in exceedingly enjoys the for- ing regulating mation or subdivisions within its reorganization political boundaries: State, are subdivisions of the “Municipal corporations political created as con- for such of the exercising venient agencies governmental powers State as number, to them. . . . The be entrusted nature and duration of may the powers these and the territory conferred over which shall upon corporations they be ex- rests in the absolute discretion of the State. . ercised . . The State ... at its or withdraw all such modify . . . may powers or contract the pleasure expand area, territorial unite the whole or a of it with part another municipality, repeal done, All destroy the charter this be corporation. may conditionally citizens, with or without the consent of the unconditionally, or even against their In all these the State is respects and its protest. supreme, legislative body, constitution, will, action to the its state do conforming may as unrestrained by of the Constitution of the United any States. provision Although inhabitants may inconvenience, owners such suffer by changes and their property in be lessened value the burden of by increased taxation property . . . there is in Federal Constitution which them nothing protects from these injurious the State and those who power for the consequences. legislate State are alone any unjust (207 exercise of it.” responsible oppressive U.S. at 159].) L.Ed. at 178-179 pp. p. [52 cases have
Although subsequent
properly recognized
Hunter’s broad
must
a state’s
necessarily
fundamental
language
qualified
constitutional
(see,
to avoid racial or other invidious discrimination
obligation
e.g., Gomillion
(1960)
The decision
preceded
voting rights cases of the
decades,
and 1970’s
several
and the
has
majority
1960’s
apparently conclud-
*29
under those cases the referendum
ed that
issue here is
procedure
constitu-
because it
the
grants
vote to some
tionally suspect
right
individuals who will
be affected
the
residents who live in the
by
proposal—the
area to be severed
to,
from,
annexed
district or
existing
city—but
not to
residents
other
will be in
areas who also
some
affected
the
way
by
There is a
proposal.
fun-
however,
difference,
between the
damental
discrimination
voting
cases relied
and the
now before
In
cases
us.
by
majority
voting discrimination
the fact that the
statutes
challenged
claim arose from
cases, the equal protection
voters within a single
one class of
excluded,
against,
potential
or discriminated
within a ci-
real
owners
affording
entity—most
property
typically
governmental
to a matter
voice than
owners
nonproperty
respect
or county greater
ty
(See,
Kramer v. Union School District
e.g.,
concern.
governmental
general
1886];
S.Ct.
Curtis v. Board
L.Ed.2d
U.S. 621
(1969) 501 P.2d
In the
7 Cal.3d
(1972)
942 [104
Supervisors
contrast,
arises from
cases,
“discrimination”
is
only
present
by
present
localities.
separate
between
decision-making authority
allocation
the state’s
Linda
of the Fullerton High
in the non-Yorba
portion
who reside
Individuals
case,
of Rancho Palos
District—and,
the residents
School
Citizens
on the
not barred from
Verdes,
city”—are
voting
“annexing
like;
do not own real
or the
rather the
because they
property
reorganizations
that in matters of local
the more
reorganization
decided
has
Legislature
districts or cities should not invariably
school
existing
numerous populations
of a smaller
which wants to run its
community
the destiny
to control
be able
view,
decisions of the United States
Court
recent
Supreme
In my
own show.
such a
the Constitution does
prohibit
procedure.
clear that
make it
Community Action
The Supreme outset, the court explained equal protection prin- At the “[t]he contention. the fairness of an election the choice of involving in gauging ciples applicable [i.e., the one vote are of limited person-one representatives cases] legislative distinctive voter in- the propriety recognizing ... in analyzing relevance referendum, the In a of voter expression referendum. in a ‘single-shot’ terests that the voters’ views will be ade- direct, no need to assure and there is iswill *30 their in the The through representatives legislature. policy quately represented of a referendum is also different kind from the of impact choosing impact of off to the state sending legislators to vote on capítol representatives—instead issues, the referendum one discrete issue to puts multitude of the voters. That least, analyzed at of to determine whether being issue is its capable, adoption have a on an identifiable will of disproportionate impact voters. rejection group found to have such disproportionate impact, question If it is then is that either by a State can the franchise to recognize impact limiting whether (430 affected or their votes a by giving special voters specially weight.” those at L.Ed.2d p. U.S. p. New York could believe that reasonably county that charter concluding
After have a differential dwellers impact city noncity because might revisions transfer some functions or duties from revisions would towns frequently such court went on to the constitutionali- county, Lockport uphold cities to the that has language particular significance the challenged procedure of ty Because of its I at some before us. pertinence, quote passage the cases whether, stated: “The ultimate then is the dif- question given The court length. voters in the of a new noncity of city adoption county interests fering York, differences are sufficient under the Protec- those Equal in New charter made New York law. . . . that the classification Clause to justify tion If annexation in the context proceedings, were posed question of fact the area to be annexed and the residents annexing city residents of formed of with sufficiently constituencies interests could sufficiently different different union alone would not so impending merge be readily perceived. fact of as that their constitutionally interest community require one into them annexation. Cf. Hunter v. approve in any aggregated be votes referendum several school districts Similarly, 161. 207 U.S. Pittsburgh, join each constituent form a consolidated school district. unit [1] could . . . surely [I]n terms subject recognizing to voter approval constituen- interests, the structural decision to and potentially opposing cies separate to the decision to restructure county in impact is similar or consolidate annex case, voter requirements York. In each separate approval in New government of a restructuring that the real and long-term impact on the perception are based the different constituent differently by county is felt quite of local government similar services. Voters governmental compete provide in a sense units that affected the restruc- and differentially are directly units constituent in these services make the provider public county government, turing more remote and less subject to the voters’ individual influence. [1] Theprc..- the realities no more than recognize law here question York New sions to these Granting provisions interests. electoral differing substantially these enacted state and every duly to which constitutionality presumption federal violate the Protection entitled, they Equal to conclude are unable we law is
813 omitted; added; 430 U.S. (Italics fns. Amendment.” Fourteenth of the Clause 324-325].) at L.Ed.2d pp. 271-273 at pp. [51 First, it in a number of respects. is instructive Lockport from passage
This for annexation pro- a referendum procedure in fashioning that clear makes be annexed of an area to that residents recognize may a state properly ceedings, have and “separate will entity very frequently annexing residents that—contrary annexation and in the proposed interests” opposing potentially which between distinguishes electoral process suggestion—an the majority’s to of constitutionality.” retains its “presumption affected groups differently these electoral that a state devise its decision establishes Second, Lockport entities, and may interests separate political the distinct to protect procedures even if this defeats the entity prevail of a less-populous the views permit the decision. by who will be affected of all persons of a majority wishes course, in the cases before us the electoral procedures in Lockport, Unlike veto, but limit the instead entity residents of each separate give do not area to be annexed or severed. Supreme voters of the referendum U.S. 60 Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa 439 in Holt decision Court’s however, 383], to rest claim that this difference lays any S.Ct. L.Ed.2d At issue in that case was an Alabama unconstitutional. renders procedure to vote for a city’s legislators only which granted right scheme statutory boundaries, but at the same time gave city the city within residing persons certain governed and other regulations to enact authority police Holt, of an limits. The residents city areas outside plaintiffs populated Tuscaloosa, contended that this scheme denied statutory on the outskirts area that because were affected they directly asserting protection, them equal residents—should have the city’s right regulations they—like city’s police in its elections. vote claim, the constitutional that its Court rejected emphasizing
The Supreme the vote to recognized legitimacy limiting cases had all voting rights past vested with the entity authority residents of the political who were those persons decision. The court observed that many legislative a particular to make outside the boundaries of the but have effects municipality, decisions municipal been considered sufficient bestow nonresi- have never effects such vote in elections. municipal Spuming suggestion right a constitutional dents to vote to some affected right persons which denies system any test, under a strict Holt scmtiny must be evaluated decision municipality’s that states have “extraordinari- Hunter with approval—reaffirmed court—citing subdivisions and con- various creating types political ... wide latitude ly 303]) U.S. at L.Ed. 2d at (439 p. p. them” authority ferring upon was whether the scheme statutory question simply protection equal held (Id., to a state legitimate rational relationship purpose.” some p. “bear[s] *32 302].)4 at p. L.Ed.2d Holt, case, as in the scheme is not statutory constitutionally In this suspect the because it limits the vote to residents of area to be annexed or simply be a yet this area not may technically political severed. enti- Although separate that its residents’ interests are Lockport sufficiently makes clear ty, different a affected the that state can it as a properly from others treat proposal distinct Furthermore, for there is rational basis the clearly statutory classifica- entity. here: the state could decide—as a reasonably tion at issue matter substantive regional when a statewide policy—that planning agency con- reorganization is in the that a best interest of the reorganization proposal region cludes and af- entities, when the residents of the local community fected local whose af- is to be altered desire the individuals change, living filiation other local areas not have the block the state reorganization. should the could power Although that another was decision-making have concluded there process preferable, cer- irrational in the at here. is issue tainly nothing procedure Hunter, sum, the combined Lockport In and Holt teachings demonstrate election before us is not the unconstitutional. The procedure majority’s in- that of the standard is not true to these scrutiny vocation strict cases and reads into for preference the clause constitutional centralized protection decision- equal As warranted. one federal court recently observed in making simply an annexation to that issue procedure comparable here: upholding “[A]nnex- cons, its and . . . under our ation has pros Constitution’s principle federalism, it is the of the individual states resolve the prerogative conflicting in annexation as see fit. disputes interests involved . . . The they Constitu- . enacts neither of consolidated principles tion . . metropolitan government nor in the Holt absolutely nothing opinion support majority’s 4 Ifind claim that that decision authorizes, beyond state-prescribed or even a court requires, to look boundaries of a local unit in governmental constitutionally order “determine the relevant . . boundaries . and sub (Ante, scrutiny any voting measure which limits ject to strict within those p. 803.) boundaries.” Holt contrary, just specifically rejected such an approach, holding On the Alabama were to under though they statutes be measured the rational basis test even denied the vote to city’s city directly legislative who were affected nonresidents acts. the Holt decision regard, directly reasoning undermines In this of the earlier Court Ap County in Hawn Ventura Cal.App.3d peal decision Cal.Rptr. 111], 1009 [141 Hawn, heavily majority relies. In upon applied scrutiny which the court the strict standard in county gave incorporated residents striking city ordinance of an opportunity down an any “in airport borders, to locate whole or in part” city’s vote on within the but comparable noncity might not afford a vote to which did voters who also live in the vicinity of a Holt, however, airport. light scrutiny In strict test appears inappropriate; Hawn, Holt, police airport proposal regulations like although may have directly af residents, voting Holt makes clear that that is not suffi nonvoting as well as fected nonresidents Instead, process constitutionally suspect. Holt establishes that a state the electoral cient to render city’s reasonably permit a electorate to decide may city matters which affect but which also effec have some extraterritorial ts . (Moorman and towns.” v. Wood government villages of decentralized those 467, 473, 477.) 1980) 504 F.Supp. (E.D.Ky. attributable to an concern underlying conclusion is perhaps majority’s case, electoral favor reorganiza-
that, procedure the facts this In on school other integration. will have an adverse impact tional proposal however, which the ma- arrangement the consolidated voting settings, factual effect; favored will have opposite constitutionally precisely holds is jority of a Board of Education approved expansion the State if, example, an area with a minority district to include predominantly white school largely *33 greater majority’s in order to promote desegregation, ap- population school the residents of the “white” provide consistently applied—would proach—if This demonstrates reorganization. to veto the example with the power district on school plan desegregation entirely of a reorganization the effect on seces- of an annexation validity of the general distinct issue from the question view, the majority’s clause. In my under the sion equal protection procedure is not constitutional controlling to the latter question supported approach the state’s ability experiment substantially impair and will authorities and accommodate the of checks and balances protect systems different in local contravenes. inevitably reorganization that are present interests diverse J., Richardson, concurred.