*1 30,1970.] No. 7854. In Bank. June [Sac. al., et
ASCENCION LAREZ Plаintiffs and Respondents, al., SAMUEL SHANNON et Defendants and Appellants.
Counsel Buckner, Counsel, for Defendants and
Edward F. Appellants. County Wilson, Jones, Wilson, Madison & Pillsbury, Ernest A. Morton & Lynch, Sutro, Kirkham, N. Marshall and Noble K. Francis R. Francis Gregory Amici behalf of Defendants and Curiae on Appellants.
Blackmon, Plaintiffs and Moulds and John F. Moulds III for & Isenberg Respondents.
Paul N. Marson as on behalf of Halvonik Charles C. Amici Curiae Plaintiffs and Respondents. article
SULLIVAN, J. whether former of case question presents Constitution section section 40 of California article (see Westbrookv. fn. 1 pp. for an of the of the explanation renumbering pro here involved thereto undеr its
vision and of reasons for our reference former of which authorizes issuance numbering), bonds school the assent of two-thirds qualified districts only upon electors, violates the equal protection the United Constitution. Section provides, States town, education, “No or bоard pertinent part, county, city, township, district, shall manner or school incur indebtedness or in any liability the income and revenue any purрose exceeding any year provided electors for such without assent of two-thirds of year, qualified thereof, at an held for ...” election to be purpose, Larez, Ascención Castillo Castillo are resi-
Plaintiffs and Nacho Angie District and dents voters in Yuba Unified School rеgistered voted, children district schools. at an election Each attending parents held in in favor of a bond authoriza- May propоsition sought $4,750,000 bonded finance new school tion to incur a indebtedness received the votes of a of those construction. proрosition (57 but less than section 18. two-thirds required by percent) participating (members education) board of the district refused certify Defendаnts bonds had been on the constitutional extraor- approved, dinary provision.
Plaintiffs then instituted this in the court below proceeding cоntending that the two-thirds violated their right protection, a writ of that the bonds sought mandate to defendants compel at issue herein were facts as duly approved. parties stipulated set forth above and will also that some of children stipulated plaintiff’s continue to be to “double schools will sessions” at district subjected *3 receive an education which will not them effectively inadequate prepare voters, bonds, for their future lives unless the by majority are so certified. trial court concluded that the two-thirds of article requirement
seсtion 18 dilutes and debases votes those who bond propo- approve that, therefore, and sitions violated clause equal protection provision of the Fourteenth On court Amendment. trial September entered that a writ of issue com- judgment ordering mandate dеfendants to that at manding the school bonds voted upon May election voters sale. duly and were for The board members from the to the Court of appealed Appeal, Third District. We ordered the to this court. transferred
The issue in this
as in the others with
it has been consolidаted
argument,1
of California’s
compatibility
extraordinary
vote
for local
bond
requirement
issues with the
government
clause. The
taken
hеrein is
identical to that
virtually
position
plaintiffs
ante,
in
Mihaly,
the lead case of Westbrook v.
765
petitioners
p.
[87
839,
brief,
471 P.2d
In
contend that the two-thirds
Cal.Rptr.
they
487].
vote rule
and
gives
votes
“di-
weight
thereby
disproportionate
negative
lutes”
in favor of
those
power
They rely
propositions.
man,
(1) the “one
Gray
one vote”
v. Sanders
established
principle
in
(1963)
821,
Reynolds
Defendants’ arguments cases are factually distinguishable They argue reapportionment absolute that since there is no their facts. assert be confined to They should Cipriano Kramer and is inap- test of the franchise the denial applied as we would that we should the two-thirds judge posite Although economic on regulation challenged grounds. an no longer that the reasons for which the was conceding provision adopted racial, exist, economic no discrimination on since there is they argue the state to the we should leave change or religious ground people the amendment through process. supra, filed this we hold day, Westbrook v.
In at- engaging those of the constitutional provision portions *4 as art. renumbered (i.e., former art. tention § Code section 40), and Education Government Code section § counties, require proposals two-thirds majority be a cities school districts violate the the voters a referendum poрular We clause of the to the United States Constitution. Fourteenth Amendment that, only further hold effect that our decision be given prospеctive herein are The issues involved affirmative relief be denied. accordingly, is, there there- and our decision identical those resolved in Westbrook fore, of the instant case. fully dispositive is and the cause is reversed judgment writ issuing peremptory fact
remanded to the trial court with directions to amend findings the alternative and conclusions of law and discharging to enter writ, in con- mandate and for a write of denying peremptory petition with the views herein formity expressed. shall recover costs on
The plaintiffs appeal. McComb, J., J., Sсhauer, J.,* J., Tobriner, concurred. C. Wright, MOSK, in the conclusion that the two-thirds majority require- J.—I concur violates the ment Constitution, the denial of relief the United States but I dissent from and dissenting for the reasons discussed in concurring
these my plaintiffs, in Westbrook opinion
P.2d 487]. assignment by the sitting Supreme Court under Justice of the * fRetired Associate of the Judicial Council.
Chairman as indicated same legal opinion, presents attributes of differs, Westbrook and the other cases in series. It how- ever, in one this not an significant for an ex- respect: original petition writ; a traordinary it is direct from a trial court Here judgment. court, Constitution, the trial the Fourteenth Amendment to the ordered writ of mandate issue and commanded defend- ants to that the school bonds for sale.
aWith singular approach, adopt precise of the learned trial interpretation agree with him reverse judge, fully—and his solaсe to judgment! only me is mine is not the responsibility attempting this explain result to the members incomprehensible lay of the Yuba School District community.
I would affirm the Mr. Justice has judgment. Peters authorized me he would say also affirm the judgment.