Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)

Citation: Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Parent Document: Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-12-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10761039/cal-apartment-assn-v-city-of-pasadena/ ↗

Full Text

1,806 chars

32
ambiguous, however, we consider extrinsic evidence of the
enacting body’s intent.’ ” (Professional Engineers in California
Government v. Kempton (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1016, 1037.) “When a
provision of the Constitution is ambiguous, a court ordinarily
must adopt the interpretation which carries out the intent and
objective of the drafters of the provision and of the people by
whose vote it was enacted.” (Wiseman Park, LLC v. Southern
Glazer’s Wine & Spirits, LLC (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 110, 117;
accord, Recorder v. Comm’n on Judicial Performance (1999)
72 Cal.App.4th 258, 269.) The court may also consider “ ‘the
impact of an interpretation on public policy, for “[w]here
uncertainty exists consideration should be given to the
consequences that will flow from a particular interpretation.” ’ ”
(Wiseman Park, LLC, at p. 118, quoting Mejia v. Reed (2003)
31 Cal.4th 657, 663.)
      By not defining the word “property” or modifying it with
adjectives such as “real” or “personal,” the Constitution leaves
room for multiple interpretations in light of the word’s various
ordinary and legal meanings. Notwithstanding this inherent
ambiguity, drafting history of the constitutional language
demonstrates the property qualification provision was intended
to prohibit barring persons from voting or holding office because
they did not own real property. (See Arcadia Unified School Dist.
v. State Dept. of Education (1992) 2 Cal.4th 251, 260 [“The first
step in interpreting an ambiguous constitutional provision is to
look at the intent of the framers.”].)
      The property qualification provision was debated during
the 1878-1879 Constitutional Convention before it was adopted.
(See Mosk v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 474, 495 [“To
ascertain the intent and objective of an ambiguous constitutional

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text