Supreme Court Opinion Filed
22.05.12
The California Redevelopment Association, the League of California Cities, and other affected parties (collectively the Association) promptly sought extraordinary writ relief from this court, arguing that each measure was unconstitutional. They contended the measures violate, inter alia, Proposition 22, which amended the state Constitution to place limits on the state‘s ability to require payments from redevelopment agencies for the state‘s benefit. (See Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 25.5, subd. (a)(7), added by Prop. 22, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2010).) The state‘s Director of Finance, respondent Ana Matosantos, opposed on the merits but agreed we should put to rest the significant constitutionalquestionsconcerningthevalidityofbothmeasures.1 Weissuedan order to show cause, partially stayed the two measures, and established an expedited briefing schedule. We also granted leave to the County of Santa Clara and its auditor-controller, Vinod K. Sharma (collectively Santa
Source: Pine Tree