Board of Supervisors v. Local Agency Formation Commission
838 P.2d 1198, 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 245, 3 Cal. 4th 903 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that limits the right to vote in a municipal incorporation election to only the residents of the territory to be incorporated does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as such a law is subject to the rational basis test, not strict scrutiny, due to the state's plenary power over the creation of its political subdivisions.
Facts:
- In 1986, residents of Citrus Heights, an unincorporated community in Sacramento County, collected enough signatures to petition the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission (commission) to incorporate as a city.
- The commission reviewed the proposal and, to mitigate the financial impact on Sacramento County, approved a resolution that relocated the proposed city limits to exclude a sales-tax-rich shopping center.
- After further requests for reconsideration based on the tax impact, the commission adopted a new resolution moving another shopping center outside the proposed city's boundaries.
- To further lessen the county's financial loss, the commission amended the resolution again to require that the new city's receipt of property taxes be phased in more slowly.
- The commission calculated the final net financial loss to the county would be less than 1% of its total revenue.
- Pursuant to Government Code section 57103, the commission ordered that the election to confirm the incorporation be held only within the territory of the proposed city of Citrus Heights.
Procedural Posture:
- The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and other groups (plaintiffs) filed a petition for a writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief in the trial court challenging the constitutionality of the voting limitation.
- The trial court entered judgment for the defendant commission on the constitutional issue, refusing to find the voting law unconstitutional.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that Government Code section 57103 was unconstitutional as applied to the proposed incorporation.
- The Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission (defendant) appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California Government Code section 57103, which limits the right to vote on a municipal incorporation proposal to only the residents of the territory to be incorporated, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and California Constitutions?
Opinions:
Majority - Mosk, J.
No. California Government Code section 57103 is constitutional, both on its face and as applied, because it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. The essence of the case is not the fundamental right to vote, which would trigger strict scrutiny, but the state's plenary power to set the conditions under which its political subdivisions are created. The U.S. Supreme Court, in cases like Hunter v. Pittsburgh and Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action, has consistently recognized the states' 'extraordinarily wide latitude' in creating and organizing local governments. Therefore, the rational basis test applies. The state's declared purposes of encouraging orderly growth and allowing for local self-determination are legitimate. Limiting the franchise to residents of the territory to be incorporated is rationally related to these goals, as allowing a larger, less-interested electorate to veto the measure could frustrate local self-governance. The court explicitly disapproves its prior holding in Citizens Against Forced Annexation v. Local Agency Formation Com., which had improperly applied strict scrutiny to a similar issue.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant retreat from the court's prior application of strict scrutiny in cases concerning voting rights in municipal boundary changes, effectively lowering the constitutional barrier for such legislation. By overruling its reasoning in Citizens, the court solidifies the state legislature's broad authority to define the electorate in local reorganizations. This holding gives the legislature much greater leeway to limit voting to those most directly affected, under the deferential rational basis standard, so long as no invidious discrimination is present. The case reaffirms that the state's power to manage its political subdivisions is a core sovereign function that receives significant judicial deference.
Unlock the full brief for Board of Supervisors v. Local Agency Formation Commission