Opinion ID: 2629355
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Substantive invalidity

Text: Contrary to the foregoing, the majority denies the case is moot. Whether the majority believes the violation in this case does or could affect the substantive validity of Propositions 60 and 60A is unclear. But while I agree postelection invalidation of a measure is appropriate when the challenge goes to its substantive validity ( Costa v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.4th at pp. XXXX-XXXX, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 470, 128 P.3d 675), in this case even a substantive challenge would not be justiciable postelection because petitioners did not plead for invalidation. The majority correctly observes petitioners have requested, in their postelection brief, that this court declare Propositions 60 and 60A invalid on the ground that invalidation is the appropriate remedy for the Legislature's violation of article XIII, section 1 of the California Constitution. (Maj. opn., ante, 43 Cal. Rptr.3d at p. 320, 134 P.3d at p. 303.) But the majority cites no authority suggesting a party's request can substitute for a formal pleading seeking declaratory relief, and I doubt it can. I question whether a plaintiff would, for example, be permitted to convert an action for injunctive relief, rendered moot by events occurring during the appeal, into a damages action merely by requesting an award of damages in his or her appellate brief. While denying the case is moot, the majority concludes invalidation of the two approved measures would be inappropriate. (Maj. opn., ante, 43 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 354, 134 P.3d at p. 331.) What legal rule, if any, the majority articulates on this pointthe only part of its opinion actually necessary to the judgmentis unclear, but I agree it would be inappropriateindeed, erroneousto grant petitioners on review relief beyond and different from that for which they pleaded. Our legal inability to provide the relief actually pleaded for, a writ of prohibition against placing the disputed measures on the ballot, renders the action moot under Lenahan and its progeny. Under our previously announced principles of justiciability, the case is moot because the controversy which the plaintiffs attempted to raise by the filing of their [writ petition] has, by reason of the subsequent election, faded into insubstantiality. ( Lenahan, supra, 14 Cal.2d at p. 134, 92 P.2d 1014.)