Correspondence - #21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW City of Santa Ana August 28, 2023 Page 21 Only when a conflict arises between state and local regulation or where the legislature intends to preempt the field to the exclusion of local regulation does the issue of superiority or predominance of state laws over local regulations arise. Bishop v. City of San Jose, 1 Cal. 3d 56, 460 P.2d 137, 81 Cal. Rptr. 465 (1969). The Charter Requires That Ordinances Are Passed with Majority Vote Section Sec. 410 of the charter provides for a democratic solution consistent with the American way: no ordinance, resolution or motion shall be passed, adopted, or become effective unless it receives the affirmative vote of a majority of the full membership of the City Council. Government Code §36936 states that all ordinances require a recorded majority vote of the total membership of the city council. The proposed ordinance would therefore violate State law and to be preempted by the Government Code. Whatever the insidious source of the proposed ordinance in this case, the corrosive, toxic mix would undermine the most fundamental ideas, beliefs, and commitments embedded in our way of life. A democratic society cannot tolerate such shameless, rudderless deviance reaching positions of unrepresentative leadership. An unconstitutional legislative act - at least when it is implemented against an individual - can create civil responsibility to those who are damaged by it. The Liability of Governments for Legislative Acts in the United States of America, 46 Am. J. Comp. L. 531, 540. For local legislation, the vestiges of sovereign immunity for unconstitutional legislative acts are completely gone. In contrast to the state itself, municipalities (as well as independent state agencies) are "persons" subject to the liabilities of section 1983. Like their state counterparts, the municipal legislators would have an immunity from suit. The municipality itself can be held directly liable for a legislative (or policy -making) act of its own that violates federal constitutional rights. Its liability is strict; it must pay damages if its legislation is unconstitutional, even if it reasonably believed that it was proper. Its officials may also be held personally liable, but, like other officials, are not subject to liability unless they acted contrary to clearly established law. This liability may occur if a municipality engages in a course of unconstitutional conduct. and was required by a court to take measures (including legislation) to correct that unconstitutionality. A failure to do so can justify penalties. In U.S. v. City of Yonkers, 856 F.2d -21-