Mendoza

Mendoza v. State

Good Law
149 Cal. App. 4th 1034·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 584·2007 Daily Journal DAR 5137·57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 505·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4039
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 17, 2007B195835California12,417 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

Mayors in certain large cities around the country have been granted control of the school districts in those cities. Antonio Villaraigosa, the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles (the Mayor), sought similar control over the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) through state legislation. The California Constitution grants to the voters within the LAUSD the right to determine whether their board of education is to be elected or appointed. Therefore, the Legislature could not simply enact a statute granting the Mayor authority to appoint the members of the LAUSD Board of Education (the Board). Moreover, the California Constitution also prohibits the transfer of authority over any part of the school system to entities outside of the public school system. Therefore, the Legislature could not simply enact a statute transferring control over the LAUSD to the Mayor. The Legislature attempted to avoid these prohibitions with the enactment of Assembly Bill No. 1381 (2005-2006 Reg. Sess.), known as the “Romero Act.”

At issue in this appeal is the constitutionality of the Romero Act. At the heart of that statute are two main provisions: (1) the transfer of substantial power from…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.