Opinion ID: 1164414
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Our court bears an independent obligation to resolve plaintiffs' claims under the California Constitution on the basis of the governing state constitutional principles.

Text: In these actions, plaintiffs contend that the statutes violate a number of provisions of both the California and United States Constitutions. As already noted, in defending the challenged budget restrictions the Attorney General relies most heavily on the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in McRae, in which a five-justice majority concluded that similar funding restrictions in the federal Medicaid program did not violate the provisions of the federal Constitution. McRae, of course, did not resolve or even address the question of the validity of such a statutory scheme under the California Constitution. (1) Under these circumstances, we think it important to reiterate the basic principles of federalism which illuminate our responsibilities in construing our state Constitution. In emphasizing, in People v. Brisendine (1975) 13 Cal.3d 528, 549-550 [119 Cal. Rptr. 315, 531 P.2d 1099], the incontrovertible conclusion that the California Constitution is, and always has been, a document of independent force, our court explained that [i]t is a fiction too long accepted that provisions in state constitutions textually identical to the Bill of Rights were intended to mirror their federal counterpart. The lesson of history is otherwise: the Bill of Rights was based upon the corresponding provisions of the first state constitutions, rather than the reverse.... The federal Constitution was designed to guard the states as sovereignties against potential abuses of centralized government; state charters, however, were conceived as the first and at one time the only line of protection of the individual against the excesses of local officials. Accordingly, we affirmed in Brisendine that state courts, in interpreting constitutional guarantees contained in state constitutions, are independently responsible for safeguarding the rights of their citizens. (Italics added.) ( Id. at p. 551.) [4] Contrary to the Attorney General's rhetoric, such independent construction does not represent an unprincipled exercise of power, but a means of fulfilling our solemn and independent constitutional obligation to interpret the safeguards guaranteed by the California Constitution in a manner consistent with the governing principles of California law. As we explained very recently in People v. Chavez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 334, 352 [161 Cal. Rptr. 762, 605 P.2d 401]: [J]ust as the United States Supreme Court bears the ultimate judicial responsibility for determining matters of federal law, this court bears the ultimate judicial responsibility for resolving questions of state law, including the proper interpretation of provisions of the state Constitution. [Citations.] In fulfilling this difficult and grave responsibility, we cannot properly relegate our task to the judicial guardians of the federal Constitution, but instead must recognize our personal obligation to exercise independent legal judgment in ascertaining the meaning and application of state constitutional provisions. [5] It is from this perspective that we must analyze plaintiffs' claims that the statutes in question are invalid under the California Constitution.