Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This court has jurisdiction under section 1343 of Title 28 and section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, and a three-judge court has been convened pursuant to section 2284 of Title 28 of the United States Code.

The case was submitted on factual statements of the parties and briefs, without testimony or oral argument. Plaintiffs were represented by C. Ray Robinson, Esq., and Thomas Keister Greer, Esq.; defendant was represented by Robert M. Newell, Esq., and Ernest M. Clark, Jr., Esq.

Plaintiffs are landowners or resident registered voters within the area covered by defendant, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, which was organized pursuant to California law.

In this action, plaintiffs contend that California Water Code §§ 41000 and 41001 1 are unconstitutional in that they deny plaintiffs the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States in that they permit only landowners to vote and give them one vote for each $100 of assessed valuation. Thus non-landowners cannot vote, and the small landowners get fewer votes than the large landowners.

Plaintiffs seek an order of this court…

(concurring in part, dissenting in part):

Defendant asks this court to abstain from rendering a decision with respect to California Water Code §§ 41000 1 and 41001 2 “But the abstention rule only applies where ‘the issue of state law is uncertain’ ” Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 438 , 91 S.Ct. 507, 511 , 27 L.Ed.2d 515 (1971), and here the meaning of the challenged state statutes is clear.

Turning to the merits, it is clear at the outset that the Equal Protection Clause applies not only to the challenged statutes but- also to their implementation by the defendant district. “The Equal Protection Clause reaches the exercise of state power however manifested, whether exercised directly or through subdivisions of the State.” Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 479 , 88 S.Ct. 1114, 1117 , 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968). Defendant and similar entities “are but the agents or representatives of the state in the particular locality in which they exist. They are organized for the purpose of carrying out the purposes of the legislature in its desire to provide for the general welfare of the state.” In re Madera Irrigation District, 92 Cal. 296, 317 , 28 P. 272, 276 (1891). See Girth…

Before BROWNING, Circuit Judge, and CROCKER and SCHNACKE, District Judges.

Probable Jurisdiction Noted June 26, 1972. See 92 S.Ct. 2496 .

PER CURIAM.

This court has jurisdiction under section 1343 of Title 28 and section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, and a three-judge court has been convened pursuant to section 2284 of Title 28 of the United States Code.

The case was submitted on factual statements of the parties and briefs, without testimony or oral argument. Plaintiffs were represented by C. Ray Robinson, Esq., and Thomas Keister Greer, Esq.; defendant was represented by Robert M. Newell, Esq., and Ernest M. Clark, Jr., Esq.

Plaintiffs are landowners or resident registered voters within the area covered by defendant, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, which was organized pursuant to California law.

In this action, plaintiffs contend that California Water Code §§ 41000 and 41001 [1] are unconstitutional in that they deny plaintiffs the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States in that they permit only landowners to vote and give them one vote for each $100 of assessed valuation. Thus…