discussed Cited "see" People v. Edwards (Heller v. Doe (1993) 509 U.S. 312, 320 ; see Turnage, at p. 75.) If a plausible basis exists for the disparity, “[e]qual protection analysis does not entitle the judiciary to second-guess the wisdom, fairness, or logic of the law.” (Turnage, at p. 74.) Because rational basis review is a highly deferential standard, one published opinion that has considered the equal protection argument appellants make here has already rejected the challenge (People v. Bell (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 865 , 876–880 (Bell), review granted on another ground on Jan. 11, 2017), but that decision has since been orde…

discussed Cited "see" People v. Edwards (2×) It is immaterial for rational basis review 'whether or not' any such speculation has 'a foundation in the record.' " ( Id. at pp. 74-75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must " 'negative every conceivable basis' " that might support the disputed statutory disparity. ( Heller v. Doe (1993) 509 U.S. 312 , 320, 113 S.Ct. 2637 , 125 L.Ed.2d 257 ; see Turnage, at p. 75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) If a plausible *196 basis exists for the disparity, "[e]qual protection analysis does not entitle the judiciary to second-guess the w…