—state purpose;[12] "[on] the other hand, in cases involving `suspect classifications' or touching on `fundamental interests,'... the court has adopted an attitude of active and critical analysis, subjecting the classification to strict scrutiny.[Citations omitted.] Under the strict standard applied in such cases, the state bears the burden of establishing not only that it has a …

Importantly, the California Supreme Court struck down such supermajority rules on (federal) equal protection grounds, only to be overruled by the United States Supreme Court.

—requirement of two-thirds majority for approval of local general obligations bond held violative of Equal Protection Clause

However, guarantees of equal protection are not violated by the fact alone that a regulatory scheme treats one class of persons differently from another.(3) It is well established, for example, that where, as here, no "suspect" classification is involved and purely economic interests are at stake, the Legislature may impose any distinction between classes which bears some …

Rational review requires merely that "distinctions drawn by a challenged statute bear some rational relationship to a conceivable legitimate state purpose

In invalidating the statute, the court observed that "the constitutionality of a statute predicated upon the existence of a particular state of facts may be challenged by showing to the court that those facts have ceased to exist

—court has sometimes anticipated the extension of the equal protection doctrine of the Supreme Courts9 and has even pressed the doctrine beyond where the Supreme Court was prepared to go

—requiring, for approval of local general obligation bond proposals, the assent of two-thirds voting at a special election was justified at the time of its adoption in the nineteenth century to protect society from financially irresponsible bonded indebtedness by local governments, the two-thirds requirement, by virtue of other provisions designed to restrain overindebtedness …

[PDF] California Supreme Court Survey-A Review of Decisions: September 1995 …

[PDF] California Supreme Court Survey-A Review of Decisions: January 1984-July 1984