Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)

Citation
Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Parent Document
Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2025-12-18

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text

1,695 chars
2
judgment entered after the superior court rejected most of their
claims, raising a number of state and federal constitutional
issues.
       Relying on article XI, section 3 of the California
Constitution, which specifies that the voter initiative power may
be used to propose amendments but not revisions to county or
city charters, petitioners contend Measure H constituted an
impermissible revision to the Charter. However, we conclude
Measure H was not an impermissible revision of the Charter, but
rather was a permissible Charter amendment.
       Petitioners next challenge on two different grounds the
Measure H provisions that require the City Council to appoint
tenants to seven of the 11 seats on the rental housing board.
First, they argue restricting eligibility to persons holding a
leasehold violates the California Constitution’s prohibition in
article I, section 22 on conditioning the right to hold office on a
property qualification. However, we construe the bar on property
qualifications to mean the right to hold office may not be
conditioned on the ownership of a real property interest. The
constitutional provision thus does not bar restrictions based on a
leasehold property interest. Second, petitioners contend that
reserving seven of the board seats for tenants—guaranteeing a
supermajority of tenants—violates landlords’ and other property
owners’ rights to equal protection of the law under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Applying a rational basis standard of review because neither
landlords nor property owners are protected classes and no
fundamental rights are at issue, we reject petitioners’ facial equal
protection challenge.