Court Opinion

ID: 9621426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:57:41.09816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:03.459963
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J.
I concur in the conclusion that the two-thirds majority requirement violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but I dissent from the denial of relief to these petitioners, for the reasons discussed in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Westbrook v. Mihaly, ante, p. 765 [87 Cal.Rptr. 839, 471 P.2d 487].
The prevailing rationale in Westbrook that the elections are now forgotten is particularly inapposite in these cases. Here, after the majority—but not two-thirds—vote in the elections, the governing board of each district adopted a resolution calling upon the county board of supervisors to sell the bonds for which the propositions had sought approval, and the board acquiesced. Again, as in Westbrook, the majority of the court tell the several boards that their interpretation of the law was correct and we adopt *812their conclusion. And again, inexplicably, the court denies affirmative relief. This result is impossible to rationalize.
I would issue the peremptory writ of mandate. Mr. Justice Peters has authorized me to say he would also issue the writ.