Fear Not Law Articles: CONNERLY v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Part I

CONNERLY v

CONNERLY v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER

Filed 1/10/07

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

WARD CONNERLY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, as Governor, etc., et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

C050204

(Super. Ct. No. 03AS05154)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Thomas M. Cecil, Judge. Reversed with directions.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Louis R. Mauro, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Van Aken and Michelle Mitchell Lopez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Appellants.

Pacific Legal Foundation, John H. Findley and Paul J. Beard II for Plaintiff and Respondent.

With the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996, California voters added section 31 to article I of the California Constitution (hereafter article I, section 31), outlawing all state discrimination or preferences based on race, gender or national origin. In 2003, the Legislature responded by enacting Government Code section 8315,^{^[1]} which attempted to graft onto article I, section 31 a definition of â€

Description	Where statute was declared unconstitutional by appellate court in another case while suit challenging it was pending, and there was no evidence that state defendants intended to enforce it in violation of the appellate ruling, pending action no longer presented a justiciable case or controversy, nor was there any basis for injunctive relief.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.