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

1,555 chars

37
determining whether municipal inspection fees were an
unconstitutional levy “upon a person as an incident of property
ownership”].)
       In sum, the Rental Board’s composition under Measure H
does not violate the prohibition on property qualifications under
article I, section 22 of the California Constitution.
       3.     Equal protection challenge under federal Constitution
       Petitioners also contend that reserving seven of the Rental
Board positions for Tenants without a Material Interest in Rental
Property violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. 9 They note that
while Pasadena residents who are not Tenants or who have a
Material Interest in Rental Property can apply for the four
remaining seats, they are not guaranteed any of them. They
assert Measure H “depriv[es] landlords . . . of the right to be
considered on equal terms for each of the seats on the Board,
instead conferring a guaranteed supermajority with preferential
voting rights on tenants and placing severe restrictions on the
rights of property-owners to serve.” They suggest the restrictions
discriminate against them based on their “economic status” and
“the policy views they are expected to espouse on the Board.”
              a.    Applicable law
       The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state may
“deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws.” (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.) “This provision is
‘essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text