Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization

California Supreme Court

Decided September 22, 1978No. S.F. No. 23849; S.F. No. 23850; S.F. No. 23855Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

BIRD, C. J., Concurring and Dissenting.

Initiatives by their very nature are direct votes of the people and should be given great deference by our courts. Judges should liberally construe this power so that the will of the people is given full weight and authority. However, if an initiative conflicts with the federal Constitution, judges are duty bound to hold the offending sections unconstitutional.

When these principles are applied to the cases before this court, it is clear that article XIIIA is constitutional in all respects save one. I endorse *249the majority opinion’s view that there has not…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
  2. F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  3. Lochner v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  4. United States Department of Agriculture v. MorenoSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. BowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1959

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API