Professional Documents
Culture Documents
___________
2.
3.
i
TABLES OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................ iv
ii
UNITED STATES AND BY SEVERAL FEDERAL CIRCUIT
COURTS ................................................................................................ 18
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 23
APPENDIX ................................................................................................. 25
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
iv
Conway v. Searles,
954 F. Supp. 756 (D. Vt. 1997) ............................................................... 14
Creel v. Freeman,
531 F.2d 286 (5th Cir. 1976) ................................................................... 18
Daughtrey v. Carter,
584 F.2d 1050 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ............................................................... 18
De Asis v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 112 Cal. App. 4th 593, 596 n.1
(2003) ....................................................................................................... 10
Deer Park Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Harris County Appraisal Dist., 132 F.3d 1095
(5th Cir. 1998).......................................................................................... 22
Franklin v. Massachusetts,
505 U.S. 788 (1992)................................................................................. 18
Gray v. Sanders,
372 U.S. 368 (1963)................................................................................. 20
Gutierrez v. Pangelinan,
276 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................... 12
Harper v. Virginia Bd. Of Elections,
383 U.S. 663 (1966)................................................................................. 20
In re Battelle, 207 Cal. 227, 255-257 (1929) ................................................ 9
In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757, 849 (2008) ....................................... 9
Kelley v. United States, 69 F.3d 1503 (10th Cir. 1995) .............................. 22
Kennedy v. Sampson, 511 F.2d 430, 436 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ......................... 12
Locklear v. North Carolina State Board of Elections,
514 F.2d 1152 (4th Cir. 1975) ................................................................. 18
Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849).............................................. 21
Michel v. Anderson,
14 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ................................................................... 19
Miller v. Johnson¸
515 U.S. 900 (1995)................................................................................. 17
v
Myers v. English, 9 Cal. 341, 349 (1858) ...................................................... 8
New Jersey v. United States, 91 F.3d 463 (3rd Cir. 1996) .................... 22, 23
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) .................................. 21, 22
Padavan v. United States, 82 F.3d 23 (2nd Cir. 1996) ............................... 22
People v. Burton, 48 Cal.3d 843, 854, 258 (1989) ...................................... 12
People v. Crittenden, 9 Cal.4th 83, 120, fn. 3 (1994) ................................. 12
Rea v. Matteucci,
121 F.3d 483 (9th Cir. 1997) ................................................................... 14
Reynolds v. Sims,
377 U.S. 533 (1964)................................................................................. 18
Richardson v. Town of Eastover,
922 F.2d 1152 (4th Cir. 1991) ................................................................. 14
Roe v. State of Ala. By and Through Evans,
43 F.3d 574 (11th Cir. 1995) ................................................................... 18
Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal.3d 728 (1976),....................................................... 7
Silver v. Pataki,
755 N.E.2d 842 (N.Y. 2001).............................................................. 12, 16
Skaggs v. Carle,
110 F.3d 831 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ............................................... 12, 17, 18, 19
Sklar v. Franchise Tax Board, 185 Cal.App.3d 616, 624 (1986) ................. 8
State ex. rel. Huddleston v. Sawyer, 932 P.2d 1145 (Or. 1997) .................. 22
Texas v. United States, 106 F.3d 661 (5th Cir. 1997) ........................... 22, 23
United States v. Mosley,
238 U.S. 383 (1915)................................................................................. 20
Vote Choice, Inc. v. DiStefano,
4 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1993) .......................................................................... 18
Westberry v. Sanders,
376 U.S. 1 (1964)..................................................................................... 18
vi
Yellin v. United States,
374 U.S. 109 (1963)................................................................................. 14
Yolo County v. Colgan, 132 Cal. 265 (1901) .......................................... 9, 10
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Bonfield, Arthur E., The Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4: A
Study in Constitutional Desuetude, 46 Minn. L. Rev. 513, 560-65
(1962) ....................................................................................................... 22
Ely, John Hart, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review
(1980) ....................................................................................................... 21
Merritt, Deborah Jones, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy:
Federalism for a Third Century, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 70-78 (1988)..... 21
Tribe, Lawrence H., American Constitutional Law 398 (2d ed. 1988) ....... 21
Wiecek, William M., The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution
(1972) ....................................................................................................... 21
vii
PETITION FOR REVIEW
(“Order”).)
1. Whether the judicial power in this state includes the power to rule on
Constitution?
federal vote dilution claim was not ripe at the time the illegal vote dilution
occurred but would only become ripe if the illegally-approved bill was
1
SUMMARY OF BASIS FOR REVIEW
the Legislature to adopt bills creating new or increased taxes, and thereby
weight to their vote than exists under a simple majority rule, significantly
“passed” by simple majority vote and forwarded to the Governor two bills,
Assemble Bill 2, First Extraordinary Session (AB 2) and Senate Bill 11,
dynamic in such a way that the Legislator petitioners have largely been
excluded from budget negotiations. Those harms, which violate not only
cognizable at the moment the bills were illegally deemed “passed.” The
2
fact that an additional harm— collection of the illegal taxes—did not also
materialize with respect to these particular bills does not eliminate the
The Petition for Writ of Mandate did not seek to have the Court order the
Legislature to adopt any particular bill, the request at issue and properly
with the constitutional mandate that bills increasing taxes require a two-
thirds vote. That is the kind of request that not only has been heard
repeatedly by the courts of this state, but may well be one of the most
legislative voting rights alleged by Petitioners was fully ripe at the time the
illegal vote was taken and the bills deemed “passed.” The precedent set by
dynamic even now, and will continue to do so unless and until the judiciary
3
Even if various prudential doctrines might allow for the Courts to
an illegal tax is not only voted upon by the Legislature but signed by the
midst of the dire financial circumstances currently facing the State could be
permitted after the tax is paid and a request for refund is made and denied.
the size of the refund due would be of historic proportion, and would
beyond. Prudence therefore dictates that the legality of the novel legislative
judicial intervention now, rather than after any illegal tax increase is on the
books and being collected. The enrolled bill doctrine suggests that the
Courts may well be barred even from considering the “process” by which a
piece of legislation was enacted, once it had been placed in the statute
4
For all of these reasons, the Court of Appeal must be directed to
over the past five years have increased at rates significantly higher than
both population and inflation, spending over that same period has increased
almost twice as fast, creating a perennial gap in the state’s budget that has
never been closed. Now, in the midst of the worst recession since the great
depression, the size of the budget shortfall is larger than it has ever been.
by all parties, that goal has proven elusive. Instead, believing that it can
tax increase to close the budget gap, at least on paper.1 Because there does
as “fees,” then raising those “fees,” as well as the state’s sales tax and
1
A tax increase in the middle of a recession may well result in lower
revenues to the state, as the increased taxes drive business from the state
and otherwise burden economic activity.
5
by the Legislature on December 18, 2008, despite having garnered less than
have defeated the tax increase, together with individual taxpayers, taxpayer
and business organizations, filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Court
block the Legislature and other state officials from giving effect to the tax
leaders forwarded the illegally passed tax increase bills to the Governor for
consideration. Although the Governor vetoed the bills that very evening,
he explicitly did so because the bills did not contain an economic stimulus
package he wanted, not because the bills had failed to garner the
holding in its brief, one-page order that the relief requested would violate
California Constitution and that the claims were not ripe absent the
billions of dollars in new tax revenue without the two-thirds vote required
6
This Petition for Review does not ask the courts to enter this
I
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE REQUIRES,
RATHER THAN FORBIDS, JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON LEGISLATIVE POWER
that “the courts may not order the Legislature or its members to enact or not
But as this Court has frequently noted, the separation of powers doctrine
prohibits the Court from interfering with the discretionary powers of the
432, 445 (1989) (“it is well settled that although a court may issue a writ of
7
may not substitute its discretion for that of legislative or executive bodies in
Cal.App.3d 616, 624 (1986) (emphasis added), “[i]t is within the legitimate
unconstitutional, where that action exceeds the limits of the supreme law,”
id. at 625 (quoting Myers v. English, 9 Cal. 341, 349 (1858)) (emphasis in
original).
e.g., Board of Ed. of City School Dist. of City of New York v. City of New
York, 41 N.Y.2d 535, 362 N.E.2d 948 (1977) (“While in general the courts
will not interfere with the internal procedural aspects of the legislative
procedures”).
Petitioners did not ask the Court of Appeal for an order directing the
deficit in any particular way. Rather, they sought an order preventing the
Article XIIIA, Section 3. Not only are the courts authorized to consider
8
Cal.4th 757, 849 (2008) (“A court has an obligation to enforce the
action of the Legislature or Governor will not aid the Court in the
resolution of that issue. There is some concern, however, that the issues
review. An argument could be raised that the “enrolled bill rule” precludes
legislation. In Yolo County v. Colgan, 132 Cal. 265 (1901), this Court
a statute that had been “duly certified, approved, enrolled, and deposited in
the office of the secretary of state,” on the ground that the journal of the
Senate indicated that it had received only twenty votes in the Senate when
twenty-one votes were required for passage. Id. at 267. The Court held
9
that the enrolled act, once “duly signed, approved, and filed with the
secretary of state, is conclusive evidence that the bill did receive” the
whether the information recorded in the legislative journal was correct. Id.
at 269; See De Asis v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 112 Cal. App. 4th
593, 596 n.1 (2003). While Petitioners would argue strongly that the
two-thirds vote, for example, only a legal dispute about whether those bills
prevent the courts of this state from ever considering the constitutionality of
a tax increase adopted by simple majority vote rather than the two-thirds
letter.
taxpayers are forced to pay the tax and then file for individual refunds,
its finances.
10
II
THE COURT OF APPEAL’S HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS’ DID
NOT HAVE A COGNIZABLE INJURY FROM VOTE DILUTION IS
INCONSISTENT WITH PRECEDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT AND IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH
DECISIONS OF SEVERAL FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS
their federal vote dilution claims, were not ripe. The entirety of the
constitutionality and the other matters raised by the petition are not yet ripe
for judicial review.” The Court of Appeals did not cite any authority for
that holding, nor are we aware of any California holding that the judiciary
several cases from the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals that do reach the
contention that the vote dilution claims were ripe, direct the Court of
11
vote has been unlawfully diluted (or whether a legislator’s constituent
if, for other reasons, the bill on which the unlawful vote dilution occurred
never takes effect. This Court has not addressed that issue, and the
authority.
307 U.S. 433 (1939), that have been rendered by the federal circuit courts
of appeal. Compare Skaggs v. Carle, 110 F.3d 831, 833 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
430, 436 (D.C. Cir. 1974); with Amodei v. Nevada State Senate, 99
2
Although the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction includes California, its rulings
on questions of federal law are not binding on this Court. People v.
Crittenden, 9 Cal.4th 83, 120, fn. 3 (1994). Rather, the federal circuit
courts all stand in the same relationship to this court, not binding but
entitled to great weight. People v. Burton, 48 Cal.3d 843, 854, 258 (1989).
In this case, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Amadoi is unpublished and
12
N.E.2d 842, 848 (N.Y. 2001) (citing Coleman in holding that a single
member of the assembly had “suffered an injury in fact with respect to the
ripeness is not only better reasoned, but that the contrary view is so far-
by the state legislature that dilute or render nugatory the legislator’s vote.
307 U.S. at 438 (holding that state legislators “have a plain, direct, and
vote in the event of a tie. As this Court noted, “the twenty senators [who
were petitioners in the case] were not only qualified to vote on the question
not being part of the legislature for that purpose, would have been decisive
(continued) therefore not even citable in the federal courts. 9th Cir. Rule
36-3(c). It is citable in the state courts, though only as persuasive, not
precedential authority. City of Hawthorne ex rel. Wohlner v. H & C
Disposal Co., 109 Cal.App.4th 1668, 1678, fn. 5 (2003).
13
Although Coleman involved a federal constitutional amendment,
with its own procedures may violate federal Due Process. See, e.g., Rea v.
Matteucci, 121 F.3d 483, 485 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Atkins v. Parker, 472
U.S. 115, 130 (1985)); Conway v. Searles, 954 F. Supp. 756, 767 (D. Vt.
Town of Eastover, 922 F.2d 1152, 1158 (4th Cir. 1991), not by legislation
United States, 374 U.S. 109, 114 (1963); Christoffel v. United States, 338
U.S. 84 (1949)).
standing to bring a vote dilution claim that arises from violations of state
law. Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 544 n.7 (1986)
14
circumstances “would have to allege that his vote was diluted or rendered
nugatory under state law,” and “he would have a mandamus or like remedy
here, who together provided enough votes to defeat the tax increase bill
vote was diluted below the weight required by state law. This is thus a
who alleged that the federal line item veto diluted their legislative power.
action at issue in Coleman had taken effect—it had not—but because the
unlike the number challenging the line-item veto in Raines, was sufficient
to have affected the outcome. Raines, 521 U.S., at 812. It was for this
reason that the Raines Court ruled that “the institutional injury [plaintiffs]
15
829; see also Silver v. Pataki, 755 N.E.2d 842, 849 (N.Y. 2001) (allowing,
was just one part in the amendment process, just as each house of the
California Legislature in this case is just one part of the legislative process.
than did the decision by the Speaker of the California Assembly and the
“passed” give effect to that tax increase. In both cases further action by
other bodies was required before the Act would become effective. Yet in
Coleman the Supreme Court considered the merits of the legislators’ claims
despite the fact that the allegedly unlawful vote dilution had not resulted in
the proposed amendment actually taking effect. The claim of vote dilution,
16
by a group of legislators sufficient in number to have affected the outcome,
In Skaggs v. Carle, 110 F.3d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1997), the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit followed the
logic of Coleman to reach the merits of a vote dilution claim, holding “that
This Court should grant the Petition for Review to consider what
was only dicta in Bender, and to determine whether the D.C. Circuit’s
Coleman.
That has never been a consideration in the vote dilution jurisprudence of the
United States Supreme Court, see, e.g., Miller v. Johnson¸ 515 U.S. 900
17
The Court of Appeal’s outcome-determinative test is in conflict with
decisions from several federal circuit courts as well. The First, Fifth, Eighth
and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals, for example, have all considered vote
dilution claims, and none have applied the outcome determinative test
adopted by the Court of Appeal below. See, e.g., Coalition for Sensible and
Humane Solutions v. Wamser, 771 F.2d 395 (8th Cir. 1985); Vote Choice,
Inc. v. DiStefano, 4 F.3d 26, 36-37 (1st Cir. 1993) (citing AVX Corp. v.
United States, 962 F.2d 108, 113-14 (1st Cir. 1992)); Daughtrey v. Carter,
584 F.2d 1050, 1057 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Creel v. Freeman, 531 F.2d 286,
Elections, 514 F.2d 1152, 1152-56 (4th Cir. 1975); Skaggs, 110 F.3d, at
833.
v. State of Ala. By and Through Evans, 43 F.3d 574, 580 (11th Cir. 1995)
18
That the dilution occurs after the voters’ representative is elected,
immaterial. Michel v. Anderson, 14 F.3d 623, 626 (D.C. Cir. 1994); see
also Skaggs, 110 F.3d, at 834. As the D.C. Circuit noted in Michel: “It
could not be argued seriously that voters would not have an injury if their
congressman was not permitted to vote at all on the House floor.” 14 F.3d,
The decision below dismissing the vote dilution claims of the non-
Supreme Court and in conflict with holdings of the D.C. Circuit in Michel
and Skaggs. This Court should grant the petition of review to consider the
The appellate court’s decision has also effectively nullified the votes
than just the right to show up at a voting booth. It encompasses the right to
have that vote counted and, if successful, to have the results of the vote
19
given effect. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 380 (1963); United States v.
See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104-05 (2000) (“Having once granted the
right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and
disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another”) (citing
20
fundamental federal constitutional rights into line with the interpretation
that has repeatedly been given by the Supreme Court of the United States.
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican
46-47 (1849), Justice O’Connor noted for the Supreme Court in New York
v. United States “that perhaps not all claims under the Guarantee Clause
Constitutional Law 398 (2d ed. 1988); John Hart Ely, Democracy and
(1972); Deborah Jones Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy:
21
Constitutional Desuetude, 46 Minn. L. Rev. 513, 560-65 (1962)). Several
present justiciable questions in the wake of New York v. United States, but
thus far all have found that the Clause had not been violated in the
106 F.3d 661, 667 (5th Cir. 1997); Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35
(D.D.C. 2000); New Jersey v. United States, 91 F.3d 463, 468-69 (3rd Cir.
1996); Padavan v. United States, 82 F.3d 23, 27-28 (2nd Cir. 1996); Deer
Park Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Harris County Appraisal Dist., 132 F.3d 1095, 1099-
1100 (5th Cir. 1998); City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29 (2nd
Cir. 1999); Kelley v. United States, 69 F.3d 1503, 1511 (10th Cir. 1995);
but see State ex. rel. Huddleston v. Sawyer, 932 P.2d 1145 (Or. 1997)
Guarantee claim is viable, and should have been addressed by the Court of
Appeal on its merits. The essence of the claim, drawn from New York v.
as they see fit.” Kelley, 69 F.3d at 1511. In New York v. United States
itself, the Supreme Court dismissed the guarantee clause claim because the
statute in that case did not “pose any realistic risk of altering the form or the
22
requirement for new and increased taxes, the citizens of California adopted
risk of altering the state’s form of government” from what the citizens of
referee.” Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ., 169 F.3d
820, 895 (4th Cir. 1999), aff’d sub nom. United States v. Morrison, 529
CONCLUSION
enactment of new taxes. If they decide that the policy behind that
23
Constitution. In the meantime, however, the rights granted and obligations
the Court of Appeal not only had the authority, but the obligation, to
consider Petitioners’ claims on their merits. This Court should so hold, and
either direct the Court of Appeal to consider the merits of the claims, or
order full briefing on the merits here, for determination by this Court.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN C. EASTMAN
ANTHONY T. CASO, Of Counsel
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
JONATHON M. COUPAL
TREVOR A. GRIMM
TIMOTHY A. BITTLE
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
By _____________________________
ANTHONY T. CASO
24
APPENDIX
25
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
_______________________________
ANTHONY T. CASO
26
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
STEVEN L. MAYER
Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin
Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
which envelopes, with postage thereon fully prepaid, were then sealed and
27
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct and that this declaration was executed this 20th day of January,
_______________________________
Anthony T. Caso
28