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

1,840 chars

45
to compare this case to Turner v. Fouche (1970) 396 U.S. 346
(Turner) and Quinn v. Millsap (1989) 491 U.S. 95 (Quinn).
       In each case, the United States Supreme Court determined
a property ownership requirement for membership on a local
board violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment because it was not rationally related to any
legitimate state interest. Turner concerned a Georgia law
limiting membership on county school boards to “freeholders,”
which meant any person owning real property. (396 U.S. at
p. 348 & fn. 1.) In defense of the freeholder requirement, the
state advanced only one argument: that nothing specified “any
minimum quantity or value for the real property the freeholder
must own,” so “anyone who seriously aspire[d] to county school-
board membership ‘would be able to obtain a conveyance of the
single square inch of land he would require to become a
“freeholder.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 363.) The Court explained that, if the
state was taken at its word, it was “difficult to conceive of any
rational state interest underlying [the freeholder] requirement.”
(Ibid.) The Court then noted that, even without the state’s
admission as to the insubstantiality of its interest, it was
“impossible to discern any interest the [property] qualification
can serve.” (Ibid.)
       In Quinn, the Court considered a provision of the Missouri
Constitution stating that “the governments of the city of St. Louis
and St. Louis County may be reorganized by a vote of the
electorate of the city and county upon a plan of reorganization
drafted by a ‘board of freeholders.’ ” (491 U.S. at p. 96 & fn. 1.)
Ownership of real property was considered a prerequisite to serve
on this board of freeholders. (Id. at pp. 97-98.) The Court held “it
is a form of invidious discrimination to require land ownership of

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text