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

1,800 chars

35
rights of Californians who did not own land by making it
unlawful to require real property ownership as a qualification for
voting or holding office.
      Public policy considerations also support the interpretation
that the property qualification provision is limited to real
property ownership. Under petitioners’ interpretation, numerous
other boards and commissions existing under state law would
seemingly be unconstitutional based on their reservation of
certain positions for particular licensees, whose licenses
constitute property interests. (See Zuckerman v. State Board of
Chiropractic Examiners (2002) 29 Cal.4th 32, 43 [“the holder of a
professional license ‘has a property interest in the right to
practice his profession’ ”].) For instance, Business and
Professions Code section 2007 states that a majority of appointed
members to the Medical Board of California must be licensed as a
physician or surgeon, and at least some of those members must
also hold a faculty appointment at a California medical school.
(See also, e.g., Bus. & Prof. Code, § 5000, subd. (a) [seven of 15
members of the California Board of Accountancy must be licensed
as certified public accountants]; id., § 5514 [half of appointed
members of the California Architects Board must be licensed
architects]; id., §§ 6013.1, subd. (a), 6013.3, subd. (a) [majority of
the board of trustees of the State Bar must be licensed
attorneys].) The existence and presumed validity of numerous
apparatuses across our state government is a compelling reason
to not adopt petitioners’ novel and unsupported constitutional
interpretation. (See Reuter v. Board of Supervisors of San Mateo
County (1934) 220 Cal. 314, 321 [a cardinal rule of constitutional
interpretation is to avoid, if possible, constructions “which would

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text