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

1,361 chars

10     Petitioners correctly note that the Sixth Circuit has applied
the Anderson-Burdick test to challenges under the First
Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause in Daunt v. Benson
(6th Cir. 2021) 999 F.3d 299, 303, 310, 314, involving eligibility
criteria for the state redistricting commission, and Obama for
Am. v. Husted (6th Cir. 2012) 697 F.3d 423, 430, which held that
“when a state regulation is found to treat voters differently in a
way that burdens the fundamental right to vote, the Anderson-
Burdick standard applies.” However, in another decision, the
Sixth Circuit recognized “it takes some legal gymnastics” to apply
the Anderson-Burdick test to equal protection claims and that the
court applied the test only because it was bound by Obama for
Am. (Mays v. LaRose (6th Cir. 2020) 951 F.3d 775, 783, fn. 4.)
The court in Mays acknowledged that “[t]he traditional Equal
Protection tiers of scrutiny” are “better suited” than the
Anderson-Burdick test “for analyzing disparate treatment
claims—even in the voting context.” (Ibid.)
      Petitioners also rely on American Motors Sales Corp. v.
New Motor Vehicle Board (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 983 for the
proposition that “administrative board structures with mandated
memberships that are insufficiently counterbalanced with respect
to the interests subject to board control are unconstitutional,

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text