No. $170071 (Court of Appeal No. C060795) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Petitioners, LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.., Respondents. ANSWER TO PETITION FOR REVIEW DIANE F. BOYER-VINE (No. 124182) Legislative Counsel Email: diane boyer@legislativecounsel.ca.gov DANIEL A. WEITZMAN (No. 73112) Chief Deputy Email: dan.weitzman@legislativecounsel.ca.gov OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL State Capital Building, Suite 3021 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: 916/341-8000 Facsimile: 916/341-8020 L. MAYER (No. 62030) imail: smayer@howardrice.com HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK & RABKIN A Professional Corporation ‘Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4024 Telephone: 415/434-1600 Facsimile: 415/217-5910 Attorneys for Respondents Legislature of the State of California, E. Dotson Wilson and Gregory SchmidtTABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED INTRODUCTION STATEMENT OF FACTS: ARGUMENT I, THE COURT OF APPEAL CORRECTLY HELD THAT PETITIONERS’ CLAIMS WERE NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW. A. The Court Of Appeal Correctly Refused Petitioners’ Attempt To Intervene In The Middle Of The Legislative Process. B. Even If Petitioners’ Claims Were Not Barred By The Separation Of Powers, Judicial Relief Would Still Be Unavailable. 1. Petitioners’ Challenge To AB 2X And SB 11X Is Moot. 2. Petitioners’ Challenge To Unidenti- fied And Hypothetical Future Legisla- tion That Has Not Even Been Introduced, Much Less Passed, Is Not Ripe. Il. IN ALL EVENTS, PETITIONERS’ CLAIMS ARE MERITLESS. A. Petitioners Have Not Suffered “Vote Dilution.” B. Petitioners’ “Guarantee Clause” Claim Is Meritless. CONCLUSION Page aa 16TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians y. Superior Court, 40 Cal. 4th 239 (2006) Amodei v. Nevada State Senate, 99 F. App’x 90 (9th Cir. 2004) Angle v. Legislature of Nevada, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Nev. 2003), aff'd, 99 F. App’x 90 (9th Cir. 2004) Bender y, Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 415 U.S. 534 (1986) Ba. of Curators v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978) Ba, of Educ. of City Sch. Dists. v. City of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 535 (1977) California Radioactive Materials Mgmt. Forum y. Dep’t of Health Servs., 15 Cal. App. 4th 841 (1993), disapproved in part on other grounds, Carmel Valley Fire Prot. Dist. v. State, 25 Cal. 4th 287 (2001) Coal. for Fair Rent v. Abdelnour, 107 Cal. App. 34 97 (1980) Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) Common Cause v. Bd. of Supervisors, 49 Cal. 3 432, 445 (1989) Deer Park Indep. Sch, Dist. v. Harris County Appraisal Dist., 132 F.3d 1095 (5th Cir. 1998) French v. Senate, 146 Cal. 604, 606 (1905) Haase v, San Diego Cmty. Coll, Dist., 113 Cal. App. 3d 913 (1980) In re Application of Battelle, 207 Cal. 227 (1929) In re Lemanuel C., 41 Cal. 4th 33 (2007) eth Page(s) 15,16 13, 14