governing constitutional rule in California

2013We cannot say that these judgments so lack rationality that they constitute a constitutionally impermissible denial of equal protection.” (Dukes, supra, 427 U.S. at p. 305 .) Similarly, in Martinet v. Department of Fish & Game (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 791, 794 (Martinet), the Court of Appeal rejected an equal protection challenge to a state law that limited the number of shark and swordfish permits issued to new applicants but did not limit the number issued to prior permittees, so long as the prior permittees also 18 fulfilled other conditions not pertinent here.

2012We cannot say that these judgments so lack rationality that they constitute a constitutionally impermissible denial of equal protection.” (Dukes, supra, 427 U.S. at p. 305.) Similarly, in Martinet v. Department of Fish & Game (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 791, 794 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 7 ] (Martinet), the Court of Appeal rejected an equal protection challenge to a state law that limited the number of shark and swordfish permits issued to new applicants but did not limit the number issued to prior permittees, so long as the prior permittees also fulfilled other conditions not pertinent here.

2013The governing constitutional principle was stated in Katzenbach v. Morgan [(1966) 384 U.S. 641, 657 ]: „[W]e are guided by the familiar principles that a “statute is not invalid under the Constitution because it might have gone further than it did,” [citation], that a legislature need not “strike at all evils at the same time,” [citation], and that “reform may take one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind,” [citation].‟ “The city could reasonably decide that newer businesses were less likely to have built up substantial re

2012The governing constitutional principle was stated in Katzenbach v. Morgan [(1966) 384 U.S. 641, 657 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 828 , 86 S.Ct. 1717 ]]: ‘[W]e are guided by the familiar principles that a “statute is not invalid under the Constitution because it might have gone farther than it did,” [citation], that a legislature need not “strike at all evils at the same time,” [citation], and that “reform may take one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind,” [citation].’ “The city could reasonably decide that newer businesses were less like

2013We cannot say that these judgments so lack rationality that they constitute a constitutionally impermissible denial of equal protection.” (Dukes, supra, 427 U.S. at p. 305 .) Similarly, in Martinet v. Department of Fish & Game (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 791, 794 (Martinet), the Court of Appeal rejected an equal protection challenge to a state law that limited the number of shark and swordfish permits issued to new applicants but did not limit the number issued to prior permittees, so long as the prior permittees also 18 fulfilled other conditions not pertinent here.

2012We cannot say that these judgments so lack rationality that they constitute a constitutionally impermissible denial of equal protection.” (Dukes, supra, 427 U.S. at p. 305.) Similarly, in Martinet v. Department of Fish & Game (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 791, 794 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 7 ] (Martinet), the Court of Appeal rejected an equal protection challenge to a state law that limited the number of shark and swordfish permits issued to new applicants but did not limit the number issued to prior permittees, so long as the prior permittees also fulfilled other conditions not pertinent here.

2002The decisive result to be drawn from the conclusion that the strictures of Reynolds v. Sims, supra, 377 U.S. 533 , do not apply in these circumstances is that the governing constitutional test becomes whether the allocation of voting power in a manner that is proportional to the financial impact of the assessment is not “ ‘wholly irrelevant to achievement of the [provision’s] objectives.’ ” (Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District (1973) 410 U.S. 719, 730 [ 93 S.Ct. 1224, 1231 , 35 L.Ed.2d 659 ] (Salyer), quoting *1000 Kotch v. Pilot Comm’rs (1947) 330 U.S. 552, 556 [ 67 S.Ct. 910, 912 , 91 L

2002The decisive result to be drawn from the conclusion that the strictures of Reynolds v. Sims, supra, 377 U.S. 533 , do not apply in these circumstances is that the governing constitutional test becomes whether the allocation of voting power in a manner that is proportional to the financial impact of the assessment is not “ ‘wholly irrelevant to achievement of the [provision’s] objectives.’ ” (Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District (1973) 410 U.S. 719, 730 [ 93 S.Ct. 1224, 1231 , 35 L.Ed.2d 659 ] (Salyer), quoting *1000 Kotch v. Pilot Comm’rs (1947) 330 U.S. 552, 556 [ 67 S.Ct. 910, 912 , 91 L

2002The decisive result to be drawn from the conclusion that the strictures of Reynolds v. Sims, supra, 377 U.S. 533 , do not apply in these circumstances is that the governing constitutional test becomes whether the allocation of voting power in a manner that is proportional to the financial impact of the assessment is not “ ‘wholly irrelevant to achievement of the [provision’s] objectives.’ ” (Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District (1973) 410 U.S. 719, 730 [ 93 S.Ct. 1224, 1231 , 35 L.Ed.2d 659 ] (Salyer), quoting *1000 Kotch v. Pilot Comm’rs (1947) 330 U.S. 552, 556 [ 67 S.Ct. 910, 912 , 91 L

2002The decisive result to be drawn from the conclusion that the strictures of Reynolds v. Sims, supra, 377 U.S. 533 , do not apply in these circumstances is that the governing constitutional test becomes whether the allocation of voting power in a manner that is proportional to the financial impact of the assessment is not “ ‘wholly irrelevant to achievement of the [provision’s] objectives.’ ” (Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District (1973) 410 U.S. 719, 730 [ 93 S.Ct. 1224, 1231 , 35 L.Ed.2d 659 ] (Salyer), quoting *1000 Kotch v. Pilot Comm’rs (1947) 330 U.S. 552, 556 [ 67 S.Ct. 910, 912 , 91 L

2002(Salyer, supra, at p. 732 [98 S.Ct. at p. 1231] [“in the type of special district we now have before us, the question ... is not whether ... we would have lumped [all potential voters] together had we been enacting the statute in question, but instead whether ‘if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify’ California’s decision to deny the franchise to lessees while granting it to landowners”].) That lenient standard is met here for reasons that are obvious.

1971In Fort v. Civil Service Commission (1964) 61 Cal.2d 331, 334 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 625 , 392 P.2d 385 ], we declared that "[I]t is settled that a person cannot properly be barred or removed from public employment arbitrarily or in disregard of his constitutional rights" and that statement of the governing constitutional rule has been continually reiterated in a host of subsequent decisions. ( Bagley v. Washington Township Hospital Dist. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 499, 507 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 401 , 421 P.2d 409 ]; Hofberg v. County of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (1968) 258 Cal. App.2d 433, 437 [ 65 Cal.

1971In Fort v. Civil Service Commission (1964) 61 Cal.2d 331, 334 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 625 , 392 P.2d 385 ], we declared that "[I]t is settled that a person cannot properly be barred or removed from public employment arbitrarily or in disregard of his constitutional rights" and that statement of the governing constitutional rule has been continually reiterated in a host of subsequent decisions. ( Bagley v. Washington Township Hospital Dist. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 499, 507 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 401 , 421 P.2d 409 ]; Hofberg v. County of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (1968) 258 Cal. App.2d 433, 437 [ 65 Cal.

1971In Fort v. Civil Service Commission (1964) 61 Cal.2d 331, 334 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 625 , 392 P.2d 385 ], we declared that "[I]t is settled that a person cannot properly be barred or removed from public employment arbitrarily or in disregard of his constitutional rights" and that statement of the governing constitutional rule has been continually reiterated in a host of subsequent decisions. ( Bagley v. Washington Township Hospital Dist. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 499, 507 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 401 , 421 P.2d 409 ]; Hofberg v. County of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (1968) 258 Cal. App.2d 433, 437 [ 65 Cal.

1971In Fort v. Civil Service Commission (1964) 61 Cal.2d 331, 334 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 625 , 392 P.2d 385 ], we declared that "[I]t is settled that a person cannot properly be barred or removed from public employment arbitrarily or in disregard of his constitutional rights" and that statement of the governing constitutional rule has been continually reiterated in a host of subsequent decisions. ( Bagley v. Washington Township Hospital Dist. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 499, 507 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 401 , 421 P.2d 409 ]; Hofberg v. County of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (1968) 258 Cal. App.2d 433, 437 [ 65 Cal.

1971In Fort v. Civil Service Commission (1964) 61 Cal.2d 331, 334 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 625 , 392 P. 2d 385 ], we declared that “[I]t is settled that a person cannot properly be barred or removed from public employment arbitrarily or in disregard of his constitutional rights” and- that statement of the governing constitutional rule has been continually reiterated in a host of subsequent decisions.

1971In Fort v. Civil Service Commission (1964) 61 Cal.2d 331, 334 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 625 , 392 P. 2d 385 ], we declared that “[I]t is settled that a person cannot properly be barred or removed from public employment arbitrarily or in disregard of his constitutional rights” and- that statement of the governing constitutional rule has been continually reiterated in a host of subsequent decisions.

1971In Fort v. Civil Service Commission (1964) 61 Cal.2d 331, 334 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 625 , 392 P.2d 385 ], we declared that "[I]t is settled that a person cannot properly be barred or removed from public employment arbitrarily or in disregard of his constitutional rights" and that statement of the governing constitutional rule has been continually reiterated in a host of subsequent decisions. ( Bagley v. Washington Township Hospital Dist. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 499, 507 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 401 , 421 P.2d 409 ]; Hofberg v. County of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (1968) 258 Cal. App.2d 433, 437 [ 65 Cal.

1971In Fort v. Civil Service Commission (1964) 61 Cal.2d 331, 334 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 625 , 392 P.2d 385 ], we declared that "[I]t is settled that a person cannot properly be barred or removed from public employment arbitrarily or in disregard of his constitutional rights" and that statement of the governing constitutional rule has been continually reiterated in a host of subsequent decisions. ( Bagley v. Washington Township Hospital Dist. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 499, 507 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 401 , 421 P.2d 409 ]; Hofberg v. County of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (1968) 258 Cal. App.2d 433, 437 [ 65 Cal.

1971In Fort v. Civil Service Commission (1964) 61 Cal.2d 331, 334 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 625 , 392 P.2d 385 ], we declared that "[I]t is settled that a person cannot properly be barred or removed from public employment arbitrarily or in disregard of his constitutional rights" and that statement of the governing constitutional rule has been continually reiterated in a host of subsequent decisions. ( Bagley v. Washington Township Hospital Dist. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 499, 507 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 401 , 421 P.2d 409 ]; Hofberg v. County of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (1968) 258 Cal. App.2d 433, 437 [ 65 Cal.

1971In Fort v. Civil Service Commission (1964) 61 Cal.2d 331, 334 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 625 , 392 P.2d 385 ], we declared that "[I]t is settled that a person cannot properly be barred or removed from public employment arbitrarily or in disregard of his constitutional rights" and that statement of the governing constitutional rule has been continually reiterated in a host of subsequent decisions. ( Bagley v. Washington Township Hospital Dist. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 499, 507 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 401 , 421 P.2d 409 ]; Hofberg v. County of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (1968) 258 Cal. App.2d 433, 437 [ 65 Cal.

1971In Fort v. Civil Service Commission (1964) 61 Cal.2d 331, 334 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 625 , 392 P.2d 385 ], we declared that "[I]t is settled that a person cannot properly be barred or removed from public employment arbitrarily or in disregard of his constitutional rights" and that statement of the governing constitutional rule has been continually reiterated in a host of subsequent decisions. ( Bagley v. Washington Township Hospital Dist. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 499, 507 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 401 , 421 P.2d 409 ]; Hofberg v. County of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (1968) 258 Cal. App.2d 433, 437 [ 65 Cal.

1971In Fort v. Civil Service Commission (1964) 61 Cal.2d 331, 334 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 625 , 392 P.2d 385 ], we declared that "[I]t is settled that a person cannot properly be barred or removed from public employment arbitrarily or in disregard of his constitutional rights" and that statement of the governing constitutional rule has been continually reiterated in a host of subsequent decisions. ( Bagley v. Washington Township Hospital Dist. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 499, 507 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 401 , 421 P.2d 409 ]; Hofberg v. County of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (1968) 258 Cal. App.2d 433, 437 [ 65 Cal.