Kinlaw v. State of California (1991) 54 Cal.3d 326 , 285 Cal.Rptr. 66; 814 P.2d 1308 (1991)

Kinlaw?v.?State?of?California?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?326?,?285?Cal.Rptr.?66;?814?P.2d?1308

[No.?S014349.?Aug?30,?1991.]

FRANCES?KINLAW?et?al.,?Plaintiffs?and?Appellants,?v.?THE?STATE?OF?CALIFORNIA?et?al.,?Defendants?and?Respondents.

(Superior?Court?of?Alameda?County,?No.?632120-4,?Henry?Ramsey,?Jr.,?and?Demetrios?P.?Agretelis,?Judges.)

(Opinion?by?Baxter,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?Kennard,?and?Arabian,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?dissenting?opinion?by?Broussard,?J.,?with?Mosk,?J.,?concurring.)
COUNSEL

Stephen?D.?Schear,?Stephen?E.?Ronfeldt,?Armando?M.?Menocal?III,?Lois?Salisbury,?Laura?Schulkind?and?Kirk?McInnis?for?Plaintiffs?and?Appellants.?[54?Cal.3d?328]

Catherine?I.?Hanson,?Astrid?G.?Meghrigian,?Alice?P.?Mead,?Alan?K.?Marks,?County?Counsel?(San?Bernardino),?Paul?F.?Mordy,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?De?Witt?W.?Clinton,?County?Counsel?(Los?Angeles),?Robert?M.?Fesler,?Assistant?County?Counsel,?Frank?J.?DaVanzo,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?Weissburg?&?Aronson,?Mark?S.?Windisch,?Carl?Weissburg?and?Howard?W.?Cohen?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Plaintiffs?and?Appellants.

John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?N.?Eugene?Hill,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Richard?M.?Frank,?Asher?Rubin?and?Carol?Hunter,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Defendants?and?Respondents.
OPINION

BAXTER,?J.

Plaintiffs,?medically?indigent?adults?and?taxpayers,?seek?to?enforce?section?6?of?article?XIII?B?(hereafter,?section?6)?of?the?California?Constitution?through?an?action?for?declaratory?and?injunctive?relief.?They?invoked?the?jurisdiction?of?the?superior?court?as?taxpayers?pursuant?to?Code?of?Civil?Procedure?section?526a?and?as?persons?affected?by?the?alleged?failure?of?the?state?to?comply?with?section?6.?The?superior?court?granted?summary?judgment?for?defendants?State?of?California?and?Director?of?the?Department?of?Health?Services,?after?concluding?that?plaintiffs?lacked?standing?to?prosecute?the?action.?On?appeal,?the?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?plaintiffs?have?standing?and?that?the?action?is?not?barred?by?the?availability?of?administrative?remedies.

We?reverse.?The?administrative?procedures?established?by?the?Legislature,?which?are?available?only?to?local?agencies?and?school?districts?directly?affected?by?a?state?mandate,?are?the?exclusive?means?by?which?the?state’s?obligations?under?section?6?are?to?be?determined?and?enforced.?Plaintiffs?therefore?lack?standing.
I?State?Mandates

Section?6,?adopted?on?November?6,?1979,?as?part?of?an?initiative?measure?imposing?spending?limits?on?state?and?local?government,?also?imposes?on?the?state?an?obligation?to?reimburse?local?agencies?for?the?cost?of?most?programs?and?services?which?they?must?provide?pursuant?to?a?state?mandate?if?the?local?agencies?were?not?under?a?preexisting?duty?to?fund?the?activity.?It?provides:?[54?Cal.3d?329]

“Whenever?the?Legislature?or?any?state?agency?mandates?a?new?program?or?higher?level?of?service?on?any?local?government,?the?state?shall?provide?a?subvention?of?funds?to?reimburse?such?local?government?for?the?costs?of?such?program?or?increased?level?of?service,?except?that?the?Legislature?may,?but?need?not,?provide?such?subvention?of?funds?for?the?following?mandates:

“(a)?Legislative?mandates?requested?by?the?local?agency?affected;

“(b)?Legislation?defining?a?new?crime?or?changing?an?existing?definition?of?a?crime;?or

“(c)?Legislative?mandates?enacted?prior?to?January?1,?1975,?or?executive?orders?or?regulations?initially?implementing?legislation?enacted?prior?to?January?1,?1975.”

A?complementary?provision,?section?3?of?article?XIII?B,?provides?for?a?shift?from?the?state?to?the?local?agency?of?a?portion?of?the?spending?or?”appropriation”?limit?of?the?state?when?responsibility?for?funding?an?activity?is?shifted?to?a?local?agency:

“The?appropriations?limit?for?any?fiscal?year?…?shall?be?adjusted?as?follows:?[?]?(a)?In?the?event?that?the?financial?responsibility?of?providing?services?is?transferred,?in?whole?or?in?part,?…?from?one?entity?of?government?to?another,?then?for?the?year?in?which?such?transfer?becomes?effective?the?appropriations?limit?of?the?transferee?entity?shall?be?increased?by?such?reasonable?amount?as?the?said?entities?shall?mutually?agree?and?the?appropriations?limit?of?the?transferor?entity?shall?be?decreased?by?the?same?amount.”
II?Plaintiffs’?Action

The?underlying?issue?in?this?action?is?whether?the?state?is?obligated?to?reimburse?the?County?of?Alameda,?and?shift?to?Alameda?County?a?concomitant?portion?of?the?state’s?spending?limit,?for?the?cost?of?providing?health?care?services?to?medically?indigent?adults?who?prior?to?1983?had?been?included?in?the?state?Medi-Cal?program.?Assembly?Bill?No.?799?(1981-1982?Reg.?Sess.)?(AB?799)?(Stats.?1982,?ch.?328,?p.?1568)?removed?medically?indigent?adults?from?Medi-Cal?effective?January?1,?1983.?At?the?time?section?6?was?adopted,?the?state?was?funding?Medi-Cal?coverage?for?these?persons?without?requiring?any?county?financial?contribution.

Plaintiffs?initiated?this?action?in?the?Alameda?County?Superior?Court.?They?sought?relief?on?their?own?behalf?and?on?behalf?of?a?class?of?similarly?[54?Cal.3d?330]?situated?medically?indigent?adult?residents?of?Alameda?County.?The?only?named?defendants?were?the?State?of?California,?the?Director?of?the?Department?of?Health?Services,?and?the?County?of?Alameda.

In?the?complaint?for?declaratory?and?injunctive?relief,?plaintiffs?sought?an?injunction?compelling?the?state?to?restore?Medi-Cal?eligibility?to?medically?indigent?adults?or?to?reimburse?the?County?of?Alameda?for?the?cost?of?providing?health?care?to?those?persons.?They?also?prayed?for?a?declaration?that?the?transfer?of?responsibility?from?the?state-financed?Medi-?Cal?program?to?the?counties?without?adequate?reimbursement?violated?the?California?Constitution.fn.?1

At?the?time?plaintiffs?initiated?their?action?neither?Alameda?County,?nor?any?other?county?or?local?agency,?had?filed?a?reimbursement?claim?with?the?Commission?on?State?Mandates?(Commission).fn.?2

Whether?viewed?as?an?action?seeking?restoration?of?Medi-Cal?benefits,?one?to?compel?state?reimbursement?of?county?costs,?or?one?for?declaratory?relief,?therefore,?the?action?required?a?determination?that?the?enactment?of?AB?799?created?a?state?mandate?within?the?contemplation?of?section?6.?Only?upon?resolution?of?that?issue?favorably?to?plaintiffs?would?the?state?have?an?obligation?to?reimburse?the?county?for?its?increased?expense?and?shift?a?portion?of?its?appropriation?limit,?or?to?reinstate?Medi-Cal?benefits?for?plaintiffs?and?the?class?they?seek?to?represent.

The?gravamen?of?the?action?is,?therefore,?enforcement?of?section?6.fn.?3?[54?Cal.3d?331] III?Enforcement?of?Article?XIII?B,?Section?6

In?1984,?almost?five?years?after?the?adoption?of?article?XIII?B,?the?Legislature?enacted?comprehensive?administrative?procedures?for?resolution?of?claims?arising?out?of?section?6.?(??17500.)?The?Legislature?did?so?because?the?absence?of?a?uniform?procedure?had?resulted?in?inconsistent?rulings?on?the?existence?of?state?mandates,?unnecessary?litigation,?reimbursement?delays,?and,?apparently,?resultant?uncertainties?in?accommodating?reimbursement?requirements?in?the?budgetary?process.?The?necessity?for?the?legislation?was?explained?in?section?17500:

“The?Legislature?finds?and?declares?that?the?existing?system?for?reimbursing?local?agencies?and?school?districts?for?the?costs?of?state-?mandated?local?programs?has?not?provided?for?the?effective?determination?of?the?state’s?responsibilities?under?Section?6?of?Article?XIII?B?of?the?California?Constitution.?The?Legislature?finds?and?declares?that?the?failure?of?the?existing?process?to?adequately?and?consistently?resolve?the?complex?legal?questions?involved?in?the?determination?of?state-mandated?costs?has?led?to?an?increasing?reliance?by?local?agencies?and?school?districts?on?the?judiciary?and,?therefore,?in?order?to?relieve?unnecessary?congestion?of?the?judicial?system,?it?is?necessary?to?create?a?mechanism?which?is?capable?of?rendering?sound?quasi-judicial?decisions?and?providing?an?effective?means?of?resolving?disputes?over?the?existence?of?state-mandated?local?programs.”?(Italics?added.)

In?part?7?of?division?4?of?title?2?of?the?Government?Code,?”State-Mandated?Costs,”?which?commences?with?section?17500,?the?Legislature?created?the?Commission?(??17525),?to?adjudicate?disputes?over?the?existence?of?a?state-mandated?program?(???17551,?17557)?and?to?adopt?procedures?for?submission?and?adjudication?of?reimbursement?claims?(??17553).?The?five-member?Commission?includes?the?Controller,?the?Treasurer,?the?Director?of?Finance,?the?Director?of?the?Office?of?Planning?and?Research,?and?a?public?member?experienced?in?public?finance.?(??17525.)

The?legislation?establishes?a?test-claim?procedure?to?expeditiously?resolve?disputes?affecting?multiple?agencies?(??17554),fn.?4?establishes?the?method?of?[54?Cal.3d?332]?payment?of?claims?(???17558,?17561),?and?creates?reporting?procedures?which?enable?the?Legislature?to?budget?adequate?funds?to?meet?the?expense?of?state?mandates?(???17562,?17600,?17612,?subd.?(a).)

Pursuant?to?procedures?which?the?Commission?was?authorized?to?establish?(??17553),?local?agenciesfn.?5?and?school?districtsfn.?6?are?to?file?claims?for?reimbursement?of?state-mandated?costs?with?the?Commission?(???17551,?17560),?and?reimbursement?is?to?be?provided?only?through?this?statutory?procedure.?(???17550,?17552.)

The?first?reimbursement?claim?filed?which?alleges?that?a?state?mandate?has?been?created?under?a?statute?or?executive?order?is?treated?as?a?”test?claim.”?(??17521.)?A?public?hearing?must?be?held?promptly?on?any?test?claim.?At?the?hearing?on?a?test?claim?or?on?any?other?reimbursement?claim,?evidence?may?be?presented?not?only?by?the?claimant,?but?also?by?the?Department?of?Finance?and?any?other?department?or?agency?potentially?affected?by?the?claim.?(??17553.)?Any?interested?organization?or?individual?may?participate?in?the?hearing.?(??17555.)

A?local?agency?filing?a?test?claim?need?not?first?expend?sums?to?comply?with?the?alleged?state?mandate,?but?may?base?its?claim?on?estimated?costs.?(??17555.)?The?Commission?must?determine?both?whether?a?state?mandate?exists?and,?if?so,?the?amount?to?be?reimbursed?to?local?agencies?and?school?districts,?adopting?”parameters?and?guidelines”?for?reimbursement?of?any?claims?relating?to?that?statute?or?executive?order.?(??17557.)?Procedures?for?determining?whether?local?agencies?have?achieved?statutorily?authorized?cost?savings?and?for?offsetting?these?savings?against?reimbursements?are?also?provided.?(??17620?et?seq.)?Finally,?judicial?review?of?the?Commission?decision?is?available?through?petition?for?writ?of?mandate?filed?pursuant?to?Code?of?Civil?Procedure?section?1094.5.?(??17559.)

The?legislative?scheme?is?not?limited?to?establishing?the?claims?procedure,?however.?It?also?contemplates?reporting?to?the?Legislature?and?to?departments?and?agencies?of?the?state?which?have?responsibilities?related?to?funding?state?mandates,?budget?planning,?and?payment.?The?parameters?and?guidelines?adopted?by?the?Commission?must?be?submitted?to?the?Controller,?who?is?to?pay?subsequent?claims?arising?out?of?the?mandate.?(??17558.)?Executive?orders?mandating?costs?are?to?be?accompanied?by?an?appropriations?[54?Cal.3d?333]?bill?to?cover?the?costs?if?the?costs?are?not?included?in?the?budget?bill,?and?in?subsequent?years?the?costs?must?be?included?in?the?budget?bill.?(??17561,?subds.?(a)?&?(b).)?Regular?review?of?the?costs?is?to?be?made?by?the?Legislative?Analyst,?who?must?report?to?the?Legislature?and?recommend?whether?the?mandate?should?be?continued.?(??17562.)?The?Commission?is?also?required?to?make?semiannual?reports?to?the?Legislature?of?the?number?of?mandates?found?and?the?estimated?reimbursement?cost?to?the?state.?(??17600.)?The?Legislature?must?then?adopt?a?”local?government?claims?bill.”?If?that?bill?does?not?include?funding?for?a?state?mandate,?an?affected?local?agency?or?school?district?may?seek?a?declaration?from?the?superior?court?for?the?County?of?Sacramento?that?the?mandate?is?unenforceable,?and?an?injunction?against?enforcement.?(??17612.)

Additional?procedures,?enacted?in?1985,?create?a?system?of?state-mandate?apportionments?to?fund?reimbursement.?(??17615?et?seq.)

[1]?It?is?apparent?from?the?comprehensive?nature?of?this?legislative?scheme,?and?from?the?Legislature’s?expressed?intent,?that?the?exclusive?remedy?for?a?claimed?violation?of?section?6?lies?in?these?procedures.?The?statutes?create?an?administrative?forum?for?resolution?of?state?mandate?claims,?and?establishes?procedures?which?exist?for?the?express?purpose?of?avoiding?multiple?proceedings,?judicial?and?administrative,?addressing?the?same?claim?that?a?reimbursable?state?mandate?has?been?created.?The?statutory?scheme?also?designates?the?Sacramento?County?Superior?Court?as?the?venue?for?judicial?actions?to?declare?unfunded?mandates?invalid?(??17612).

The?legislative?intent?is?clearly?stated?in?section?17500:?”It?is?the?intent?of?the?Legislature?in?enacting?this?part?to?provide?for?the?implementation?of?Section?6?of?Article?XIII?B?of?the?California?Constitution?and?to?consolidate?the?procedures?for?reimbursement?of?statutes?specified?in?the?Revenue?and?Taxation?Code?with?those?identified?in?the?Constitution.?…”?And?section?17550?states:?”Reimbursement?of?local?agencies?and?school?districts?for?costs?mandated?by?the?state?shall?be?provided?pursuant?to?this?chapter.”

Finally,?section?17552?provides:?”This?chapter?shall?provide?the?sole?and?exclusive?procedure?by?which?a?local?agency?or?school?district?may?claim?reimbursement?for?costs?mandated?by?the?state?as?required?by?Section?6?of?Article?XIII?B?of?the?California?Constitution.”?(Italics?added.)

In?short,?the?Legislature?has?created?what?is?clearly?intended?to?be?a?comprehensive?and?exclusive?procedure?by?which?to?implement?and?enforce?section?6.?[54?Cal.3d?334] IV?Exclusivity

[2]?Plaintiffs?argued,?and?the?Court?of?Appeal?agreed,?that?the?existence?of?an?administrative?remedy?by?which?affected?local?agencies?could?enforce?their?right?under?section?6?to?reimbursement?for?the?cost?of?state?mandates?did?not?bar?this?action?because?the?administrative?remedy?is?available?only?to?local?agencies?and?school?districts.

The?Court?of?Appeal?recognized?that?the?decision?of?the?County?of?Alameda,?which?had?not?filed?a?claim?for?reimbursement?at?the?time?the?complaint?was?filed,?was?a?discretionary?decision?which?plaintiffs?could?not?challenge.?(Dunn?v.?Long?Beach?L.?&?W.?Co.?(1896)?114?Cal.?605,?609,?610-611?[46?P.?607];?Silver?v.?Watson?(1972)?26?Cal.App.3d?905,?909?[103?Cal.Rptr.?576];?Whitson?v.?City?of?Long?Beach?(1962)?200?Cal.App.2d?486,?506?[19?Cal.Rptr.?668];?Elliott?v.?Superior?Court?(1960)?180?Cal.App.2d?894,?897?[5?Cal.Rptr.?116].)?The?court?concluded,?however,?that?public?policy?and?practical?necessity?required?that?plaintiffs?have?a?remedy?for?enforcement?of?section?6?independent?of?the?statutory?procedure.

The?right?involved,?however,?is?a?right?given?by?the?Constitution?to?local?agencies,?not?individuals?either?as?taxpayers?or?recipients?of?government?benefits?and?services.?Section?6?provides?that?the?”state?shall?provide?a?subvention?of?funds?to?reimburse?…?local?governments?….”?(Italics?added.)?The?administrative?remedy?created?by?the?Legislature?is?adequate?to?fully?implement?section?6.?That?Alameda?County?did?not?file?a?reimbursement?claim?does?not?establish?that?the?enforcement?remedy?is?inadequate.?Any?of?the?58?counties?was?free?to?file?a?claim,?and?other?counties?did?so.?The?test?claim?is?now?before?the?Court?of?Appeal.?The?administrative?procedure?has?operated?as?intended.

The?Legislature?has?the?authority?to?establish?procedures?for?the?implementation?of?local?agency?rights?under?section?6.?Unless?the?exercise?of?a?constitutional?right?is?unduly?restricted,?the?court?must?limit?enforcement?to?the?procedures?established?by?the?Legislature.?(People?v.?Western?Air?Lines,?Inc.?(1954)?42?Cal.2d?621,?637?[268?P.2d?723];?Chesney?v.?Byram?(1940)?15?Cal.2d?460,?463?[101?P.2d?1106];?County?of?Contra?Costa?v.?State?of?California?(1986)?177?Cal.App.3d?62,?75?[222?Cal.Rptr.?750].)

Plaintiffs’?argument?that?they?must?be?permitted?to?enforce?section?6?as?individuals?because?their?right?to?adequate?health?care?services?has?been?compromised?by?the?failure?of?the?state?to?reimburse?the?county?for?the?cost?[54?Cal.3d?335]?of?services?to?medically?indigent?adults?is?unpersuasive.?Plaintiffs’?interest,?although?pressing,?is?indirect?and?does?not?differ?from?the?interest?of?the?public?at?large?in?the?financial?plight?of?local?government.?Although?the?basis?for?the?claim?that?the?state?must?reimburse?the?county?for?its?costs?of?providing?the?care?that?was?formerly?available?to?plaintiffs?under?Medi-Cal?is?that?AB?799?created?a?state?mandate,?plaintiffs?have?no?right?to?have?any?reimbursement?expended?for?health?care?services?of?any?kind.?Nothing?in?article?XIII?B?or?other?provision?of?law?controls?the?county’s?expenditure?of?the?funds?plaintiffs?claim?must?be?paid?to?the?county.?To?the?contrary,?section?17563?gives?the?local?agency?complete?discretion?in?the?expenditure?of?funds?received?pursuant?to?section?6,?providing:?”Any?funds?received?by?a?local?agency?or?school?district?pursuant?to?the?provisions?of?this?chapter?may?be?used?for?any?public?purpose.”

The?relief?plaintiffs?seek?in?their?prayer?for?state?reimbursement?of?county?expenses?is,?in?the?end,?a?reallocation?of?general?revenues?between?the?state?and?the?county.?Neither?public?policy?nor?practical?necessity?compels?creation?of?a?judicial?remedy?by?which?individuals?may?enforce?the?right?of?the?county?to?such?revenues.?The?Legislature?has?established?a?procedure?by?which?the?county?may?claim?any?revenues?to?which?it?believes?it?is?entitled?under?section?6.?That?test-claim?statute?expressly?provides?that?not?only?the?claimant,?but?also?”any?other?interested?organization?or?individual?may?participate”?in?the?hearing?before?the?Commission?(??17555)?at?which?the?right?to?reimbursement?of?the?costs?of?such?mandate?is?to?be?determined.?Procedures?for?receiving?any?claims?must?”provide?for?presentation?of?evidence?by?the?claimant,?the?Department?of?Finance?and?any?other?affected?department?or?agency,?and?any?other?interested?person.”?(??17553.?Italics?added.)?Neither?the?county?nor?an?interested?individual?is?without?an?opportunity?to?be?heard?on?these?questions.?These?procedures?are?both?adequate?and?exclusive.fn.?7

The?alternative?relief?plaintiffs?seek-reinstatement?to?Medi-Cal?pending?further?action?by?the?state-is?not?a?remedy?available?under?the?statute,?and?thus?is?not?one?which?this?court?may?award.?The?remedy?for?the?failure?to?fund?a?program?is?a?declaration?that?the?mandate?is?unenforceable.?That?relief?is?available?only?after?the?Commission?has?determined?that?a?mandate?exists?[54?Cal.3d?336]?and?the?Legislature?has?failed?to?include?the?cost?in?a?local?government?claims?bill,?and?only?on?petition?by?the?county.?(??17612.)fn.?8

Moreover,?the?judicial?remedy?approved?by?the?Court?of?Appeal?permits?resolution?of?the?issues?raised?in?a?state?mandate?claim?without?the?participation?of?those?officers?and?individuals?the?Legislature?deems?necessary?to?a?full?and?fair?exposition?and?resolution?of?the?issues.?Neither?the?Controller?nor?the?Director?of?Finance?was?named?a?defendant?in?this?action.?The?Treasurer?and?the?Director?of?the?Office?of?Planning?and?Research?did?not?participate.?All?of?these?officers?would?have?been?involved?in?determining?the?question?as?members?of?the?Commission,?as?would?the?public?member?of?the?Commission.?The?judicial?procedures?were?not?equivalent?to?the?public?hearing?required?on?test?claims?before?the?Commission?by?section?17555.?Therefore,?other?affected?departments,?organizations,?and?individuals?had?no?opportunity?to?be?heard.fn.?9

Finally,?since?a?determination?that?a?state?mandate?has?been?created?in?a?judicial?proceeding?rather?than?one?before?the?Commission?does?not?trigger?the?procedures?for?creating?parameters?and?guidelines?for?payment?of?claims,?or?for?inclusion?of?estimated?costs?in?the?state?budget,?there?is?no?source?of?funds?available?for?compliance?with?the?judicial?decision?other?than?the?appropriations?for?the?Department?of?Health?Services.?Payment?from?those?funds?can?only?be?at?the?expense?of?another?program?which?the?department?is?obligated?to?fund.?No?public?policy?supports,?let?alone?requires,?this?result.

The?superior?court?acted?properly?in?dismissing?this?action.

The?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?reversed.

Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?Kennard,?J.,?and?Arabian,?J.,?concurred.

BROUSSARD,?J.

I?dissent.?For?nine?years?the?Legislature?has?defied?the?mandate?of?article?XIII?B?of?the?California?Constitution?(hereafter?article?XIII?B).?Having?transferred?responsibility?for?the?care?of?medically?indigent?adults?(MIA’s)?to?county?governments,?the?Legislature?has?failed?to?provide?the?counties?with?sufficient?money?to?meet?this?responsibility,?yet?the?[54?Cal.3d?337]?Legislature?computes?its?own?appropriations?limit?as?if?it?fully?funded?the?program.?The?majority,?however,?declines?to?remedy?this?violation?because,?it?says,?the?persons?most?directly?harmed?by?the?violation-the?medically?indigent?who?are?denied?adequate?health?care-have?no?standing?to?raise?the?matter.?I?disagree,?and?will?demonstrate?that?(1)?plaintiffs?have?standing?as?citizens?to?seek?a?declaratory?judgment?to?determine?whether?the?state?is?complying?with?its?constitutional?duty?under?article?XIII?B;?(2)?the?creation?of?an?administrative?remedy?whereby?counties?and?local?districts?can?enforce?article?XIII?B?does?not?deprive?the?citizenry?of?its?own?independent?right?to?enforce?that?provision;?and?(3)?even?if?plaintiffs?lacked?standing,?our?recent?decision?in?Dix?v.?Superior?Court?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?442?[279?Cal.Rptr.?834,?807?P.2d?1063]?permits?us?to?reach?and?resolve?any?significant?issue?decided?by?the?Court?of?Appeal?and?fully?briefed?and?argued?here.?I?conclude?that?we?should?reach?the?merits?of?the?appeal.

On?the?merits,?I?conclude?that?the?state?has?not?complied?with?its?constitutional?obligation?under?article?XIII?B.?To?prevent?the?state?from?avoiding?the?spending?limits?imposed?by?article?XIII?B,?section?6?of?that?article?prohibits?the?state?from?transferring?previously?state-financed?programs?to?local?governments?without?providing?sufficient?funds?to?meet?those?burdens.?In?1982,?however,?the?state?excluded?the?medically?indigent?from?its?Medi-Cal?program,?thus?shifting?the?responsibility?for?such?care?to?the?counties.?Subvention?funds?provided?by?the?state?were?inadequate?to?reimburse?the?counties?for?this?responsibility,?and?became?less?adequate?every?year.?At?the?same?time,?the?state?continued?to?compute?its?spending?limit?as?if?it?fully?financed?the?entire?program.?The?result?is?exactly?what?article?XIII?B?was?intended?to?prevent:?the?state?enjoys?a?falsely?inflated?spending?limit;?the?county?is?compelled?to?assume?a?burden?it?cannot?afford;?and?the?medically?indigent?receive?inadequate?health?care.

1. Facts?and?Procedural?History

Plaintiffs-citizens,?taxpayers,?and?persons?in?need?of?medical?care-allege?that?the?state?has?shifted?its?financial?responsibility?for?the?funding?of?health?care?for?MIA’s?to?the?counties?without?providing?the?necessary?funding?and?without?any?agreement?transferring?appropriation?limits,?and?that?as?a?result?the?state?is?violating?article?XIII?B.?Plaintiffs?further?allege?they?and?the?class?they?claim?to?represent?cannot,?consequently,?obtain?adequate?health?care?from?the?County?of?Alameda,?which?lacks?the?state?funding?to?provide?it.?The?county,?although?nominally?a?defendant,?aligned?[54?Cal.3d?338]?itself?with?plaintiffs.?It?admits?the?inadequacy?of?its?program?to?provide?medical?care?for?MIA’s?but?blames?the?absence?of?state?subvention?funds.fn.?1

At?hearings?below,?plaintiffs?presented?uncontradicted?evidence?regarding?the?enormous?impact?of?these?statutory?changes?upon?the?finances?and?population?of?Alameda?County.?That?county?now?spends?about?$40?million?annually?on?health?care?for?MIA’s,?of?which?the?state?reimburses?about?half.?Thus,?since?article?XIII?B?became?effective,?Alameda?County’s?obligation?for?the?health?care?of?MIA’s?has?risen?from?zero?to?more?than?$20?million?per?year.?The?county?has?inadequate?funds?to?discharge?its?new?obligation?for?the?health?care?of?MIA’s;?as?a?result,?according?to?the?Court?of?Appeal,?uncontested?evidence?from?medical?experts?presented?below?shows?that,?”The?delivery?of?health?care?to?the?indigent?in?Alameda?County?is?in?a?state?of?shambles;?the?crisis?cannot?be?overstated?….”?”Because?of?inadequate?state?funding,?some?Alameda?County?residents?are?dying,?and?many?others?are?suffering?serious?diseases?and?disabilities,?because?they?cannot?obtain?adequate?access?to?the?medical?care?they?need?….”?”The?system?is?clogged?to?the?breaking?point.?…?All?community?clinics?…?are?turning?away?patients.”?”The?funding?received?by?the?county?from?the?state?for?MIAs?does?not?approach?the?actual?cost?of?providing?health?care?to?the?MIAs.?As?a?consequence,?inadequate?resources?available?to?county?health?services?jeopardize?the?lives?and?health?of?thousands?of?people?….”

The?trial?court?acknowledged?that?plaintiffs?had?shown?irreparable?injury,?but?denied?their?request?for?a?preliminary?injunction?on?the?ground?that?they?could?not?prevail?in?the?action.?It?then?granted?the?state’s?motion?for?summary?judgment.?Plaintiffs?appealed?from?both?decisions?of?the?trial?court.

The?Court?of?Appeal?consolidated?the?two?appeals?and?reversed?the?rulings?below.?It?concluded?that?plaintiffs?had?standing?to?bring?this?action?to?enforce?the?constitutional?spending?limit?of?article?XIII?B,?and?that?the?action?is?not?barred?by?the?existence?of?administrative?remedies?available?to?counties.?It?then?held?that?the?shift?of?a?portion?of?the?cost?of?medical?indigent?care?by?the?state?to?Alameda?County?constituted?a?state-mandated?new?program?under?the?provisions?of?article?XIII?B,?which?triggered?that?article’s?provisions?requiring?a?subvention?of?funds?by?the?state?to?reimburse?Alameda?[54?Cal.3d?339]?County?for?the?costs?of?such?program?it?was?required?to?assume.?The?judgments?denying?a?preliminary?injunction?and?granting?summary?judgment?for?defendants?were?reversed.?We?granted?review.

1. Standing
2. Plaintiffs?have?standing?to?bring?an?action?for?declaratory?relief?to?determine?whether?the?state?is?complying?with?article?XIII?B.

Plaintiffs?first?claim?standing?as?taxpayers?under?Code?of?Civil?Procedure?section?526a,?which?provides?that:?”An?action?to?obtain?a?judgment,?restraining?and?preventing?any?illegal?expenditure?of,?waste?of,?or?injury?to,?the?estate,?funds,?or?other?property?of?a?county?…,?may?be?maintained?against?any?officer?thereof,?or?any?agent,?or?other?person,?acting?in?its?behalf,?either?by?a?citizen?resident?therein,?or?by?a?corporation,?who?is?assessed?for?and?is?liable?to?pay,?or,?within?one?year?before?the?commencement?of?the?action,?has?paid,?a?tax?therein.?…”?As?in?Common?Cause?v.?Board?of?Supervisors?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?432,?439?[261?Cal.Rptr.?574,?777?P.2d?610],?however,?it?is?”unnecessary?to?reach?the?question?whether?plaintiffs?have?standing?to?seek?an?injunction?under?Code?of?Civil?Procedure?section?526a,?because?there?is?an?independent?basis?for?permitting?them?to?proceed.”?Plaintiffs?here?seek?a?declaratory?judgment?that?the?transfer?of?responsibility?for?MIA’s?from?the?state?to?the?counties?without?adequate?reimbursement?violates?article?XIII?B.?A?declaratory?judgment?that?the?state?has?breached?its?duty?is?essentially?equivalent?to?an?action?in?mandate?to?compel?the?state?to?perform?its?duty.?(See?California?Assn.?of?Psychology?Providers?v.?Rank?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?1,?9?[270?Cal.Rptr.?796,?793?P.2d?2],?which?said?that?a?declaratory?judgment?establishing?that?the?state?has?a?duty?to?act?provides?relief?equivalent?to?mandamus,?and?makes?issuance?of?the?writ?unnecessary.)?Plaintiffs?further?seek?a?mandatory?injunction?requiring?that?the?state?pay?the?health?costs?of?MIA’s?under?the?Medi-Cal?program?until?the?state?meets?its?obligations?under?article?XIII?B.?The?majority?similarly?characterize?plaintiffs’?action?as?one?comparable?to?mandamus?brought?to?enforce?section?6?of?article?XIII?B.

We?should?therefore?look?for?guidance?to?cases?that?discuss?the?standing?of?a?party?seeking?a?writ?of?mandate?to?compel?a?public?official?to?perform?his?or?her?duty.fn.?2?Such?an?action?may?be?brought?by?any?person?”beneficially?interested”?in?the?issuance?of?the?writ.?(Code?Civ.?Proc.,???1086.)?In?Carsten?[54?Cal.3d?340]?v.?Psychology?Examining?Com.?(1980)?27?Cal.3d?793,?796?[166?Cal.Rptr.?844,?614?P.2d?276],?we?explained?that?the?”requirement?that?a?petitioner?be?’beneficially?interested’?has?been?generally?interpreted?to?mean?that?one?may?obtain?the?writ?only?if?the?person?has?some?special?interest?to?be?served?or?some?particular?right?to?be?preserved?or?protected?over?and?above?the?interest?held?in?common?with?the?public?at?large.”?We?quoted?from?Professor?Davis,?who?said,?”One?who?is?in?fact?adversely?affected?by?governmental?action?should?have?standing?to?challenge?that?action?if?it?is?judicially?reviewable.”?(Pp.?796-797,?quoting?3?Davis,?Administrative?Law?Treatise?(1958)?p.?291.)?Cases?applying?this?standard?include?Stocks?v.?City?of?Irvine?(1981)?114?Cal.App.3d?520?[170?Cal.Rptr.?724],?which?held?that?low-?income?residents?of?Los?Angeles?had?standing?to?challenge?exclusionary?zoning?laws?of?suburban?communities?which?prevented?the?plaintiffs?from?moving?there;?Taschner?v.?City?Council,?supra,?31?Cal.App.3d?48,?which?held?that?a?property?owner?has?standing?to?challenge?an?ordinance?which?may?limit?development?of?the?owner’s?property;?and?Felt?v.?Waughop?(1924)?193?Cal.?498?[225?P.?862],?which?held?that?a?city?voter?has?standing?to?compel?the?city?clerk?to?certify?a?correct?list?of?candidates?for?municipal?office.?Other?cases?illustrate?the?limitation?on?standing:?Carsten?v.?Psychology?Examining?Com.,?supra,?27?Cal.3d?793,?held?that?a?member?of?the?committee?who?was?neither?seeking?a?license?nor?in?danger?of?losing?one?had?no?standing?to?challenge?a?change?in?the?method?of?computing?the?passing?score?on?the?licensing?examination;?Parker?v.?Bowron?(1953)?40?Cal.2d?344?[254?P.2d?6]?held?that?a?union?official?who?was?neither?a?city?employee?nor?a?city?resident?had?no?standing?to?compel?a?city?to?follow?a?prevailing?wage?ordinance;?and?Dunbar?v.?Governing?Board?(1969)?275?Cal.App.2d?14?[79?Cal.Rptr.?662]?held?that?a?member?of?a?student?organization?had?standing?to?challenge?a?college?district’s?rule?barring?a?speaker?from?campus,?but?persons?who?merely?planned?to?hear?him?speak?did?not.

No?one?questions?that?plaintiffs?are?affected?by?the?lack?of?funds?to?provide?care?for?MIA’s.?Plaintiffs,?except?for?plaintiff?Rabinowitz,?are?not?merely?citizens?and?taxpayers;?they?are?medically?indigent?persons?living?in?Alameda?County?who?have?been?and?will?be?deprived?of?proper?medical?care?if?funding?of?MIA?programs?is?inadequate.?Like?the?other?plaintiffs?here,?[54?Cal.3d?341]?plaintiff?Kinlaw,?a?60-year-old?woman?with?diabetes?and?hypertension,?has?no?health?insurance.?Plaintiff?Spier?has?a?chronic?back?condition;?inadequate?funding?has?prevented?him?from?obtaining?necessary?diagnostic?procedures?and?physiotherapy.?Plaintiff?Tsosie?requires?medication?for?allergies?and?arthritis,?and?claims?that?because?of?inadequate?funding?she?cannot?obtain?proper?treatment.?Plaintiff?King,?an?epileptic,?says?she?was?unable?to?obtain?medication?from?county?clinics,?suffered?seizures,?and?had?to?go?to?a?hospital.?Plaintiff?”Doe”?asserts?that?when?he?tried?to?obtain?treatment?for?AIDS-related?symptoms,?he?had?to?wait?four?to?five?hours?for?an?appointment?and?each?time?was?seen?by?a?different?doctor.?All?of?these?are?people?personally?dependent?upon?the?quality?of?care?of?Alameda?County’s?MIA?program;?most?have?experienced?inadequate?care?because?the?program?was?underfunded,?and?all?can?anticipate?future?deficiencies?in?care?if?the?state?continues?its?refusal?to?fund?the?program?fully.

The?majority,?however,?argues?that?the?county?has?no?duty?to?use?additional?subvention?funds?for?the?care?of?MIA’s?because?under?Government?Code?section?17563?”[a]ny?funds?received?by?a?local?agency?…?pursuant?to?the?provisions?of?this?chapter?may?be?used?for?any?public?purpose.”?Since?the?county?may?use?the?funds?for?other?purposes,?it?concludes?that?MIA’s?have?no?special?interest?in?the?subvention.fn.?3

This?argument?would?be?sound?if?the?county?were?already?meeting?its?obligations?to?MIA’s?under?Welfare?and?Institutions?Code?section?17000.?If?that?were?the?case,?the?county?could?use?the?subvention?funds?as?it?chose,?and?plaintiffs?would?have?no?more?interest?in?the?matter?than?any?other?county?resident?or?taxpayer.?But?such?is?not?the?case?at?bar.?Plaintiffs?here?allege?that?the?county?is?not?complying?with?its?duty,?mandated?by?Welfare?and?Institutions?Code?section?17000,?to?provide?health?care?for?the?medically?indigent;?the?county?admits?its?failure?but?pleads?lack?of?funds.?Once?the?county?receives?adequate?funds,?it?must?perform?its?statutory?duty?under?section?17000?of?the?Welfare?and?Institutions?Code.?If?it?refused,?an?action?in?mandamus?would?lie?to?compel?performance.?(See?Mooney?v.?Pickett?(1971)?4?Cal.3d?669?[94?Cal.Rptr.?279,?483?P.2d?1231].)?In?fact,?the?county?has?made?clear?throughout?this?litigation?that?it?would?use?the?subvention?funds?to?provide?care?for?MIA’s.?The?majority’s?conclusion?that?plaintiffs?lack?a?special,?beneficial?interest?in?the?state’s?compliance?with?article?XIII?B?ignores?the?practical?realities?of?health?care?funding.

Moreover,?we?have?recognized?an?exception?to?the?rule?that?a?plaintiff?must?be?beneficially?interested.?”Where?the?question?is?one?of?public?right?[54?Cal.3d?342]?and?the?object?of?the?mandamus?is?to?procure?the?enforcement?of?a?public?duty,?the?relator?need?not?show?that?he?has?any?legal?or?special?interest?in?the?result,?since?it?is?sufficient?that?he?is?interested?as?a?citizen?in?having?the?laws?executed?and?the?duty?in?question?enforced.”?(Bd.?of?Soc.?Welfare?v.?County?of?L.?A.?(1945)?27?Cal.2d?98,?100-101?[162?P.2d?627].)?We?explained?in?Green?v.?Obledo?(1981)?29?Cal.3d?126,?144?[172?Cal.Rptr.?206,?624?P.2d?256],?that?this?”exception?promotes?the?policy?of?guaranteeing?citizens?the?opportunity?to?ensure?that?no?governmental?body?impairs?or?defeats?the?purpose?of?legislation?establishing?a?public?right.?…?It?has?often?been?invoked?by?California?courts.?[Citations.]”

Green?v.?Obledo?presents?a?close?analogy?to?the?present?case.?Plaintiffs?there?filed?suit?to?challenge?whether?a?state?welfare?regulation?limiting?deductibility?of?work-related?expenses?in?determining?eligibility?for?aid?to?families?with?dependent?children?(AFDC)?assistance?complied?with?federal?requirements.?Defendants?claimed?that?plaintiffs?were?personally?affected?only?by?a?portion?of?the?regulation,?and?had?no?standing?to?challenge?the?balance?of?the?regulation.?We?replied?that?”[t]here?can?be?no?question?that?the?proper?calculation?of?AFDC?benefits?is?a?matter?of?public?right?[citation],?and?plaintiffs?herein?are?certainly?citizens?seeking?to?procure?the?enforcement?of?a?public?duty.?[Citation.]?It?follows?that?plaintiffs?have?standing?to?seek?a?writ?of?mandate?commanding?defendants?to?cease?enforcing?[the?regulation]?in?its?entirety.”?(29?Cal.3d?at?p.?145.)

We?again?invoked?the?exception?to?the?requirement?for?a?beneficial?interest?in?Common?Cause?v.?Board?of?Supervisors,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?432.?Plaintiffs?in?that?case?sought?to?compel?the?county?to?deputize?employees?to?register?voters.?We?quoted?Green?v.?Obledo,?supra,?29?Cal.3d?126,?144,?and?concluded?that?”[t]he?question?in?this?case?involves?a?public?right?to?voter?outreach?programs,?and?plaintiffs?have?standing?as?citizens?to?seek?its?vindication.”?(49?Cal.3d?at?p.?439.)?We?should?reach?the?same?conclusion?here.

1. Government?Code?sections?17500-17630?do?not?create?an?exclusive?remedy?which?bars?citizen-plaintiffs?from?enforcing?article?XIII?B.

Four?years?after?the?enactment?of?article?XIII?B,?the?Legislature?enacted?Government?Code?sections?17500?through?17630?to?implement?article?XIII?B,?section?6.?These?statutes?create?a?quasi-judicial?body?called?the?Commission?on?State?Mandates,?consisting?of?the?state?Controller,?state?Treasurer,?state?Director?of?Finance,?state?Director?of?the?Office?of?Planning?and?Research,?and?one?public?member.?The?commission?has?authority?to?”hear?and?decide?upon?[any]?claim”?by?a?local?government?that?it?”is?entitled?to?be?reimbursed?by?the?state”?for?costs?under?article?XIII?B.?(Gov.?Code,???17551,?[54?Cal.3d?343]?subd.?(a).)?Its?decisions?are?subject?to?review?by?an?action?for?administrative?mandamus?in?the?superior?court.?(See?Gov.?Code,???17559.)

The?majority?maintains?that?a?proceeding?before?the?Commission?on?State?Mandates?is?the?exclusive?means?for?enforcement?of?article?XIII?B,?and?since?that?remedy?is?expressly?limited?to?claims?by?local?agencies?or?school?districts?(Gov.?Code,???17552),?plaintiffs?lack?standing?to?enforce?the?constitutional?provision.fn.?4?I?disagree,?for?two?reasons.

First,?Government?Code?section?17552?expressly?addressed?the?question?of?exclusivity?of?remedy,?and?provided?that?”[t]his?chapter?shall?provide?the?sole?and?exclusive?procedure?by?which?a?local?agency?or?school?district?may?claim?reimbursement?for?costs?mandated?by?the?state?as?required?by?Section?6?of?Article?XIII?B?of?the?California?Constitution.”?(Italics?added.)?The?Legislature?was?aware?that?local?agencies?and?school?districts?were?not?the?only?parties?concerned?with?state?mandates,?for?in?Government?Code?section?17555?it?provided?that?”any?other?interested?organization?or?individual?may?participate”?in?the?commission?hearing.?Under?these?circumstances?the?Legislature’s?choice?of?words-“the?sole?and?exclusive?procedure?by?which?a?local?agency?or?school?district?may?claim?reimbursement”-limits?the?procedural?rights?of?those?claimants?only,?and?does?not?affect?rights?of?other?persons.?Expressio?unius?est?exclusio?alterius-“the?expression?of?certain?things?in?a?statute?necessarily?involves?exclusion?of?other?things?not?expressed.”?(Henderson?v.?Mann?Theatres?Corp.?(1976)?65?Cal.App.3d?397,?403?[135?Cal.Rptr.?266].)

The?case?is?similar?in?this?respect?to?Common?Cause?v.?Board?of?Supervisors,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?432.?Here?defendants?contend?that?the?counties’?right?of?action?under?Government?Code?sections?17551-17552?impliedly?excludes?[54?Cal.3d?344]?any?citizen’s?remedy;?in?Common?Cause?defendants?claimed?the?Attorney?General’s?right?of?action?under?Elections?Code?section?304?impliedly?excluded?any?citizen’s?remedy.?We?replied?that?”the?plain?language?of?section?304?contains?no?limitation?on?the?right?of?private?citizens?to?sue?to?enforce?the?section.?To?infer?such?a?limitation?would?contradict?our?long-standing?approval?of?citizen?actions?to?require?governmental?officials?to?follow?the?law,?expressed?in?our?expansive?interpretation?of?taxpayer?standing?[citations],?and?our?recognition?of?a?’public?interest’?exception?to?the?requirement?that?a?petitioner?for?writ?of?mandate?have?a?personal?beneficial?interest?in?the?proceedings?[citations].”?(49?Cal.3d?at?p.?440,?fn.?omitted.)?Likewise?in?this?case?the?plain?language?of?Government?Code?sections?17551-17552?contain?no?limitation?on?the?right?of?private?citizens,?and?to?infer?such?a?right?would?contradict?our?long-standing?approval?of?citizen?actions?to?enforce?public?duties.

The?United?States?Supreme?Court?reached?a?similar?conclusion?in?Rosado?v.?Wyman?(1970)?397?U.S.?397?[25?L.Ed.2d?442,?90?S.Ct.?1207].?In?that?case?New?York?welfare?recipients?sought?a?ruling?that?New?York?had?violated?federal?law?by?failing?to?make?cost-of-living?adjustments?to?welfare?grants.?The?state?replied?that?the?statute?giving?the?Department?of?Health,?Education?and?Welfare?authority?to?cut?off?federal?funds?to?noncomplying?states?constituted?an?exclusive?remedy.?The?court?rejected?the?contention,?saying?that?”[w]e?are?most?reluctant?to?assume?Congress?has?closed?the?avenue?of?effective?judicial?review?to?those?individuals?most?directly?affected?by?the?administration?of?its?program.”?(P.?420?[25?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?460].)?The?principle?is?clear:?the?persons?actually?harmed?by?illegal?state?action,?not?only?some?administrator?who?has?no?personal?stake?in?the?matter,?should?have?standing?to?challenge?that?action.

Second,?article?XIII?B?was?enacted?to?protect?taxpayers,?not?governments.?Sections?1?and?2?of?article?XIII?B?establish?strict?limits?on?state?and?local?expenditures,?and?require?the?refund?of?all?taxes?collected?in?excess?of?those?limits.?Section?6?of?article?XIII?B?prevents?the?state?from?evading?those?limits?and?burdening?county?taxpayers?by?transferring?financial?responsibility?for?a?program?to?a?county,?yet?counting?the?cost?of?that?program?toward?the?limit?on?state?expenditures.

These?provisions?demonstrate?a?profound?distrust?of?government?and?a?disdain?for?excessive?government?spending.?An?exclusive?remedy?under?which?only?governments?can?enforce?article?XIII?B,?and?the?taxpayer-citizen?can?appear?only?if?a?government?has?first?instituted?proceedings,?is?inconsistent?with?the?ethos?that?led?to?article?XIII?B.?The?drafters?of?article?XIII?B?and?the?voters?who?enacted?it?would?not?accept?that?the?state?Legislature-the?principal?body?regulated?by?the?article-could?establish?a?procedure?[54?Cal.3d?345]?under?which?the?only?way?the?article?can?be?enforced?is?for?local?governmental?bodies?to?initiate?proceedings?before?a?commission?composed?largely?of?state?financial?officials.

One?obvious?reason?is?that?in?the?never-ending?attempts?of?state?and?local?government?to?obtain?a?larger?proportionate?share?of?available?tax?revenues,?the?state?has?the?power?to?coerce?local?governments?into?foregoing?their?rights?to?enforce?article?XIII?B.?An?example?is?the?Brown-Presley?Trial?Court?Funding?Act?(Gov.?Code,???77000?et?seq.),?which?provides?that?the?county’s?acceptance?of?funds?for?court?financing?may,?in?the?discretion?of?the?Governor,?be?deemed?a?waiver?of?the?counties’?rights?to?proceed?before?the?commission?on?all?claims?for?reimbursement?for?state-?mandated?local?programs?which?existed?and?were?not?filed?prior?to?passage?of?the?trial?funding?legislation.fn.?5?The?ability?of?state?government?by?financial?threat?or?inducement?to?persuade?counties?to?waive?their?right?of?action?before?the?commission?renders?the?counties’?right?of?action?inadequate?to?protect?the?public?interest?in?the?enforcement?of?article?XIII?B.

The?facts?of?the?present?litigation?also?demonstrate?the?inadequacy?of?the?commission?remedy.?The?state?began?transferring?financial?responsibility?for?MIA’s?to?the?counties?in?1982.?Six?years?later?no?county?had?brought?a?proceeding?before?the?commission.?After?the?present?suit?was?filed,?two?counties?filed?claims?for?70?percent?reimbursement.?Now,?nine?years?after?the?1982?legislation,?the?counties’?claims?are?pending?before?the?Court?of?Appeal.?After?that?court?acts,?and?we?decide?whether?to?review?its?decision,?the?matter?may?still?have?to?go?back?to?the?commission?for?hearings?to?[54?Cal.3d?346]?determine?the?amount?of?the?mandate-which?is?itself?an?appealable?order.?When?an?issue?involves?the?life?and?health?of?thousands,?a?procedure?which?permits?this?kind?of?delay?is?not?an?adequate?remedy.

In?sum,?effective,?efficient?enforcement?of?article?XIII?B?requires?that?standing?to?enforce?that?measure?be?given?to?those?harmed?by?its?violation-in?this?case,?the?medically?indigent-and?not?be?vested?exclusively?in?local?officials?who?have?no?personal?interest?at?stake?and?are?subject?to?financial?and?political?pressure?to?overlook?violations.

1. Even?if?plaintiffs?lack?standing?this?court?should?nevertheless?address?and?resolve?the?merits?of?the?appeal.

Although?ordinarily?a?court?will?not?decide?the?merits?of?a?controversy?if?the?plaintiffs?lack?standing?(see?McKinny?v.?Board?of?Trustees?(1982)?31?Cal.3d?79,?90?[181?Cal.Rptr.?549,?642?P.2d?460]),?we?recognized?an?exception?to?this?rule?in?our?recent?decision?in?Dix?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?442?(hereafter?Dix).?In?Dix,?the?victim?of?a?crime?sought?to?challenge?the?trial?court’s?decision?to?recall?a?sentence?under?Penal?Code?section?1170.?We?held?that?only?the?prosecutor,?not?the?victim?of?the?crime,?had?standing?to?raise?that?issue.?We?nevertheless?went?on?to?consider?and?decide?questions?raised?by?the?victim?concerning?the?trial?court’s?authority?to?recall?a?sentence?under?Penal?Code?section?1170,?subdivision?(d).?We?explained?that?the?sentencing?issues?”are?significant.?The?case?is?fully?briefed?and?all?parties?apparently?seek?a?decision?on?the?merits.?Under?such?circumstances,?we?deem?it?appropriate?to?address?[the?victim’s]?sentencing?arguments?for?the?guidance?of?the?lower?courts.?Our?discretion?to?do?so?under?analogous?circumstances?is?well?settled.?[Citing?cases?explaining?when?an?appellate?court?can?decide?an?issue?despite?mootness.]”?(53?Cal.3d?at?p.?454.)?In?footnote?we?added?that?”Under?article?VI,?section?12,?subdivision?(b)?of?the?California?Constitution?…,?we?have?jurisdiction?to?’review?the?decision?of?a?Court?of?Appeal?in?any?cause.’?(Italics?added.)?Here?the?Court?of?Appeal’s?decision?addressed?two?issues-standing?and?merits.?Nothing?in?article?VI,?section?12(b)?suggests?that,?having?rejected?the?Court?of?Appeal’s?conclusion?on?the?preliminary?issue?of?standing,?we?are?foreclosed?from?’review[ing]’?the?second?subject?addressed?and?resolved?in?its?decision.”?(Pp.?454-455,?fn.?8.)

I?see?no?grounds?on?which?to?distinguish?Dix.?The?present?case?is?also?one?in?which?the?Court?of?Appeal?decision?addressed?both?standing?and?merits.?It?is?fully?briefed.?Plaintiffs?and?the?county?seek?a?decision?on?the?merits.?While?the?state?does?not?seek?a?decision?on?the?merits?in?this?proceeding,?its?appeal?of?the?superior?court?decision?in?the?mandamus?proceeding?brought?by?the?County?of?Los?Angeles?(see?maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?330,?fn.?2)?shows?that?it?is?not?opposed?to?an?appellate?decision?on?the?merits.?[54?Cal.3d?347]

The?majority,?however,?notes?that?various?state?officials-the?Controller,?the?Director?of?Finance,?the?Treasurer,?and?the?Director?of?the?Office?of?Planning?and?Research-did?not?participate?in?this?litigation.?Then?in?a?footnote,?the?majority?suggests?that?this?is?the?reason?they?do?not?follow?the?Dix?decision.?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?336,?fn.?9.)?In?my?view,?this?explanation?is?insufficient.?The?present?action?is?one?for?declaratory?relief?against?the?state.?It?is?not?necessary?that?plaintiffs?also?sue?particular?state?officials.?(The?state?has?never?claimed?that?such?officials?were?necessary?parties.)?I?do?not?believe?we?should?refuse?to?reach?the?merits?of?this?appeal?because?of?the?nonparticipation?of?persons?who,?if?they?sought?to?participate,?would?be?here?merely?as?amici?curiae.fn.?6

The?case?before?us?raises?no?issues?of?departmental?policy.?It?presents?solely?an?issue?of?law?which?this?court?is?competent?to?decide?on?the?briefs?and?arguments?presented.?That?issue?is?one?of?great?significance,?far?more?significant?than?any?raised?in?Dix.?Judges?rarely?recall?sentencing?under?Penal?Code?section?1170,?subdivision?(d);?when?they?do,?it?generally?affects?only?the?individual?defendant.?In?contrast,?the?legal?issue?here?involves?immense?sums?of?money?and?affect?budgetary?planning?for?both?the?state?and?counties.?State?and?county?governments?need?to?know,?as?soon?as?possible,?what?their?rights?and?obligations?are;?legislators?considering?proposals?to?deal?with?the?current?state?and?county?budget?crisis?need?to?know?how?to?frame?legislation?so?it?does?not?violate?article?XIII?B.?The?practical?impact?of?a?decision?on?the?people?of?this?state?is?also?of?great?importance.?The?failure?of?the?state?to?provide?full?subvention?funds?and?the?difficulty?of?the?county?in?filling?the?gap?translate?into?inadequate?staffing?and?facilities?for?treatment?of?thousands?of?persons.?Until?the?constitutional?issues?are?resolved?the?legal?uncertainties?may?inhibit?both?levels?of?government?from?taking?the?steps?needed?to?address?this?problem.?A?delay?of?several?years?until?the?Los?Angeles?case?is?resolved?could?result?in?pain,?hardship,?or?even?death?for?many?people.?I?conclude?that,?whether?or?not?plaintiffs?have?standing,?this?court?should?address?and?resolve?the?merits?of?the?appeal.

1. Conclusion?as?to?standing.

As?I?have?just?explained,?it?is?not?necessary?for?plaintiffs?to?have?standing?for?us?to?be?able?to?decide?the?merits?of?the?appeal.?Nevertheless,?I?conclude?[54?Cal.3d?348]?that?plaintiffs?have?standing?both?as?persons?”beneficially?interested”?under?Code?of?Civil?Procedure?section?1086?and?under?the?doctrine?of?Green?v.?Obledo,?supra,?29?Cal.3d?126,?to?bring?an?action?to?determine?whether?the?state?has?violated?its?duties?under?article?XIII?B.?The?remedy?given?local?agencies?and?school?districts?by?Government?Code?sections?17500-?17630?is,?as?Government?Code?section?17552?states,?the?exclusive?remedy?by?which?those?bodies?can?challenge?the?state’s?refusal?to?provide?subvention?funds,?but?the?statute?does?not?limit?the?remedies?available?to?individual?citizens.
III.?Merits?of?the?Appeal

 

1. State?funding?of?care?for?MIA’s.

Welfare?and?Institutions?Code?section?17000?requires?every?county?to?”relieve?and?support”?all?indigent?or?incapacitated?residents,?except?to?the?extent?that?such?persons?are?supported?or?relieved?by?other?sources.fn.?7?From?1971?until?1982,?and?thus?at?the?time?article?XIII?B?became?effective,?counties?were?not?required?to?pay?for?the?provision?of?health?services?to?MIA’s,?whose?health?needs?were?met?through?the?state-funded?Medi-Cal?program.?Since?the?medical?needs?of?MIA’s?were?fully?met?through?other?sources,?the?counties?had?no?duty?under?Welfare?and?Institutions?Code?section?17000?to?meet?those?needs.?While?the?counties?did?make?general?contributions?to?the?Medi-Cal?program?(which?covered?persons?other?than?MIA’s)?from?1971?until?1978,?at?the?time?article?XIII?B?became?effective?in?1980?the?counties?were?not?required?to?make?any?financial?contributions?to?Medi-Cal.?It?is?therefore?undisputed?that?the?counties?were?not?required?to?provide?financially?for?the?health?needs?of?MIA’s?when?article?XIII?B?became?effective.?The?state?funded?all?such?needs?of?MIA’s.

In?1982,?the?Legislature?passed?Assembly?Bill?No.?799?(1981-1982?Reg.?Sess.;?Stats.?1982,?ch.?328,?pp.?1568-1609)?(hereafter?AB?No.?799),?which?removed?MIA’s?from?the?state-funded?Medi-Cal?program?as?of?January?1,?1983,?and?thereby?transferred?to?the?counties,?through?the?County?Medical?Services?Plan?which?AB?No.?799?created,?the?financial?responsibility?to?provide?health?services?to?approximately?270,000?MIA’s.?AB?No.?799?required?that?the?counties?provide?health?care?for?MIA’s,?yet?appropriated?only?70?percent?of?what?the?state?would?have?spent?on?MIA’s?had?those?persons?remained?a?state?responsibility?under?the?Medi-Cal?program.

Since?1983,?the?state?has?only?partially?defrayed?the?costs?to?the?counties?of?providing?health?care?to?MIA’s.?Such?state?funding?to?counties?was?[54?Cal.3d?349]?initially?relatively?constant,?generally?more?than?$400?million?per?year.?By?1990,?however,?state?funding?had?decreased?to?less?than?$250?million.?The?state,?however,?has?always?included?the?full?amount?of?its?former?obligation?to?provide?for?MIA’s?under?the?Medi-Cal?program?in?the?year?preceding?July?1,?1980,?as?part?of?its?article?XIII?B?”appropriations?limit,”?i.e.,?as?part?of?the?base?amount?of?appropriations?on?which?subsequent?annual?adjustments?for?cost-of-living?and?population?changes?would?be?calculated.?About?$1?billion?has?been?added?to?the?state’s?adjusted?spending?limit?for?population?growth?and?inflation?solely?because?of?the?state’s?inclusion?of?all?MIA?expenditures?in?the?appropriation?limit?established?for?its?base?year,?1979-1980.?The?state?has?not?made?proportional?increases?in?the?sums?provided?to?counties?to?pay?for?the?MIA?services?funded?by?the?counties?since?January?1,?1983.

1. The?function?of?article?XIII?B.

Our?recent?decision?in?County?of?Fresno?v.?State?of?California?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?482,?486-487?[280?Cal.Rptr.?92,?808?P.2d?235]?(hereafter?County?of?Fresno),?explained?the?function?of?article?XIII?B?and?its?relationship?to?article?XIII?A,?enacted?one?year?earlier:

“At?the?June?6,?1978,?Primary?Election,?article?XIII?A?was?added?to?the?Constitution?through?the?adoption?of?Proposition?13,?an?initiative?measure?aimed?at?controlling?ad?valorem?property?taxes?and?the?imposition?of?new?’special?taxes.’?(Amador?Valley?Joint?Union?High?Sch.?Dist.?v.?State?Bd.?of?Equalization?(1978)?22?Cal.3d?208,?231-232?[149?Cal.Rptr.?239,?583?P.2d?1281].)?The?constitutional?provision?imposes?a?limit?on?the?power?of?state?and?local?governments?to?adopt?and?levy?taxes.?(City?of?Sacramento?v.?State?of?California?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?51,?59,?fn.?1?[266?Cal.Rptr.?139,?785?P.2d?522]?(City?of?Sacramento).)

“At?the?November?6,?1979,?Special?Statewide?Election,?article?XIII?B?was?added?to?the?Constitution?through?the?adoption?of?Proposition?4,?another?initiative?measure.?That?measure?places?limitations?on?the?ability?of?both?state?and?local?governments?to?appropriate?funds?for?expenditures.

“?’Articles?XIII?A?and?XIII?B?work?in?tandem,?together?restricting?California?governments’?power?both?to?levy?and?to?spend?[taxes]?for?public?purposes.’?(City?of?Sacramento,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?59,?fn.?1.)

“Article?XIII?B?of?the?Constitution?was?intended?…?to?provide?’permanent?protection?for?taxpayers?from?excessive?taxation’?and?’a?reasonable?way?to?provide?discipline?in?tax?spending?at?state?and?local?levels.’?(See?County?of?Placer?v.?Corin?(1980)?113?Cal.App.3d?443,?446?[170?Cal.Rptr.?232],?quoting?and?following?Ballot?Pamp.,?Proposed?Stats.?and?Amends.?to?Cal.?Const.?with?arguments?to?voters,?Special?Statewide?Elec.?(Nov.?6,?1979),?argument?[54?Cal.3d?350]?in?favor?of?Prop.?4,?p.?18.)?To?this?end,?it?establishes?an?’appropriations?limit’?for?both?state?and?local?governments?(Cal.?Const.,?art.?XIII?B,???8,?subd.?(h))?and?allows?no?’appropriations?subject?to?limitation’?in?excess?thereof?(id.,???2).fn.?[8]?(See?County?of?Placer?v.?Corin,?supra,?113?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?446.)?It?defines?the?relevant?’appropriations?subject?to?limitation’?as?’any?authorization?to?expend?during?a?fiscal?year?the?proceeds?of?taxes?….’?(Cal.?Const.,?art.?XIII?B,???8,?subd.?(b).)”?(County?of?Fresno,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?486.)

Under?section?3?of?article?XIII?B?the?state?may?transfer?financial?responsibility?for?a?program?to?a?county?if?the?state?and?county?mutually?agree?that?the?appropriation?limit?of?the?state?will?be?decreased?and?that?of?the?county?increased?by?the?same?amount.fn.?9?Absent?such?an?agreement,?however,?section?6?of?article?XIII?B?generally?precludes?the?state?from?avoiding?the?spending?limits?it?must?observe?by?shifting?to?local?governments?programs?and?their?attendant?financial?burdens?which?were?a?state?responsibility?prior?to?the?effective?date?of?article?XIII?B.?It?does?so?by?requiring?that?”Whenever?the?Legislature?or?any?state?agency?mandates?a?new?program?or?higher?level?of?service?on?any?local?government,?the?state?shall?provide?a?subvention?of?funds?to?reimburse?such?local?government?for?the?cost?of?such?program?or?increased?level?of?service?….”fn.?10

“Section?6?was?included?in?article?XIII?B?in?recognition?that?article?XIII?A?of?the?Constitution?severely?restricted?the?taxing?powers?of?local?governments.?(See?County?of?Los?Angeles?[v.?State?of?California?(1987)]?43?Cal.3d?46,?61?[233?Cal.Rptr.?38,?729?P.2d?202].)?The?provision?was?intended?to?preclude?the?state?from?shifting?financial?responsibility?for?carrying?out?governmental?functions?onto?local?entities?that?were?ill?equipped?to?handle?the?task.?(Ibid.;?see?Lucia?Mar?Unified?School?Dist.?v.?Honig,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?830,?836,?fn.?6.)?Specifically,?it?was?designed?to?protect?the?tax?[54?Cal.3d?351]?revenues?of?local?governments?from?state?mandates?that?would?require?expenditure?of?such?revenues.”?(County?of?Fresno,?supra,?53?Cal.3d?at?p.?487.)

1. Applicability?of?article?XIII?B?to?health?care?for?MIA’s.

The?state?argues?that?care?of?the?indigent,?including?medical?care,?has?long?been?a?county?responsibility.?It?claims?that?although?the?state?undertook?to?fund?this?responsibility?from?1979?through?1982,?it?was?merely?temporarily?(as?it?turned?out)?helping?the?counties?meet?their?responsibilities,?and?that?the?subsequent?reduction?in?state?funding?did?not?impose?any?”new?program”?or?”higher?level?of?service”?on?the?counties?within?the?meaning?of?section?6?of?article?XIII?B.?Plaintiffs?respond?that?the?critical?question?is?not?the?traditional?roles?of?the?county?and?state,?but?who?had?the?fiscal?responsibility?on?November?6,?1979,?when?article?XIII?B?took?effect.?The?purpose?of?article?XIII?B?supports?the?plaintiffs’?position.

As?we?have?noted,?article?XIII?A?of?the?Constitution?(Proposition?13)?and?article?XIII?B?are?complementary?measures.?The?former?radically?reduced?county?revenues,?which?led?the?state?to?assume?responsibility?for?programs?previously?financed?by?the?counties.?Article?XIII?B,?enacted?one?year?later,?froze?both?state?and?county?appropriations?at?the?level?of?the?1978-1979?budgets-a?year?when?the?budgets?included?state?financing?for?the?prior?county?programs,?but?not?county?financing?for?these?programs.?Article?XIII?B?further?limited?the?state’s?authority?to?transfer?obligations?to?the?counties.?Reading?the?two?together,?it?seems?clear?that?article?XIII?B?was?intended?to?limit?the?power?of?the?Legislature?to?retransfer?to?the?counties?those?obligations?which?the?state?had?assumed?in?the?wake?of?Proposition?13.

Under?article?XIII?B,?both?state?and?county?appropriations?limits?are?set?on?the?basis?of?a?calculation?that?begins?with?the?budgets?in?effect?when?article?XIII?B?was?enacted.?If?the?state?could?transfer?to?the?county?a?program?for?which?the?state?at?that?time?had?full?financial?responsibility,?the?county?could?be?forced?to?assume?additional?financial?obligations?without?the?right?to?appropriate?additional?moneys.?The?state,?at?the?same?time,?would?get?credit?toward?its?appropriations?limit?for?expenditures?it?did?not?pay.?County?taxpayers?would?be?forced?to?accept?new?taxes?or?see?the?county?forced?to?cut?existing?programs?further;?state?taxpayers?would?discover?that?the?state,?by?counting?expenditures?it?did?not?pay,?had?acquired?an?actual?revenue?surplus?while?avoiding?its?obligation?to?refund?revenues?in?excess?of?the?appropriations?limit.?Such?consequences?are?inconsistent?with?the?purpose?of?article?XIII?B.

Our?decisions?interpreting?article?XIII?B?demonstrate?that?the?state’s?subvention?requirement?under?section?6?is?not?vitiated?simply?because?the?[54?Cal.3d?352]?”program”?existed?before?the?effective?date?of?article?XIII?B.?The?alternate?phrase?of?section?6?of?article?XIII?B,?”?’higher?level?of?service[,]’?…?must?be?read?in?conjunction?with?the?predecessor?phrase?’new?program’?to?give?it?meaning.?Thus?read,?it?is?apparent?that?the?subvention?requirement?for?increased?or?higher?level?of?service?is?directed?to?state?mandated?increases?in?the?services?provided?by?local?agencies?in?existing?’programs.’?”?(County?of?Los?Angeles?v.?State?of?California?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?46,?56?[233?Cal.Rptr.?38,?729?P.2d?202],?italics?added.)

Lucia?Mar?Unified?School?Dist.?v.?Honig,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?830,?presents?a?close?analogy?to?the?present?case.?The?state?Department?of?Education?operated?schools?for?severely?handicapped?students,?but?prior?to?1979?school?districts?were?required?by?statute?to?contribute?to?education?of?those?students?from?the?district?at?the?state?schools.?In?1979,?in?response?to?the?restrictions?on?school?district?revenues?imposed?by?Proposition?13,?the?statutes?requiring?such?district?contributions?were?repealed?and?the?state?assumed?full?responsibility?for?funding.?The?state?funding?responsibility?continued?until?June?28,?1981,?when?Education?Code?section?59300?(hereafter?section?59300),?requiring?school?districts?to?share?in?these?costs,?became?effective.

The?plaintiff?districts?filed?a?test?claim?before?the?commission,?contending?they?were?entitled?to?state?reimbursement?under?section?6?of?article?XIII?B.?The?commission?found?the?plaintiffs?were?not?entitled?to?state?reimbursement,?on?the?rationale?that?the?increase?in?costs?to?the?districts?compelled?by?section?59300?imposed?no?new?program?or?higher?level?of?services.?The?trial?and?intermediate?appellate?courts?affirmed?on?the?ground?that?section?59300?called?for?only?an?”?’adjustment?of?costs’?”?of?educating?the?severely?handicapped,?and?that?”a?shift?in?the?funding?of?an?existing?program?is?not?a?new?program?or?a?higher?level?of?service”?within?the?meaning?of?article?XIII?B.?(Lucia?Mar?Unified?School?Dist.?v.?Honig,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?p.?834,?italics?added.)

We?reversed,?rejecting?the?state’s?theories?that?the?funding?shift?to?the?county?of?the?subject?program’s?costs?does?not?constitute?a?new?program.?”[There?can?be?no]?doubt?that?although?the?schools?for?the?handicapped?have?been?operated?by?the?state?for?many?years,?the?program?was?new?insofar?as?plaintiffs?are?concerned,?since?at?the?time?section?59300?became?effective?they?were?not?required?to?contribute?to?the?education?of?students?from?their?districts?at?such?schools.?[?]?…?To?hold,?under?the?circumstances?of?this?case,?that?a?shift?in?funding?of?an?existing?program?from?the?state?to?a?local?entity?is?not?a?new?program?as?to?the?local?agency?would,?we?think,?violate?the?intent?underlying?section?6?of?article?XIIIB.?That?article?imposed?spending?limits?on?state?and?local?governments,?and?it?followed?by?one?year?the?adoption?by?initiative?of?article?XIIIA,?which?severely?limited?the?taxing?[54?Cal.3d?353]?power?of?local?governments.?…?[?]?The?intent?of?the?section?would?plainly?be?violated?if?the?state?could,?while?retaining?administrative?controlfn.?[11]?of?programs?it?has?supported?with?state?tax?money,?simply?shift?the?cost?of?the?programs?to?local?government?on?the?theory?that?the?shift?does?not?violate?section?6?of?article?XIIIB?because?the?programs?are?not?’new.’?Whether?the?shifting?of?costs?is?accomplished?by?compelling?local?governments?to?pay?the?cost?of?entirely?new?programs?created?by?the?state,?or?by?compelling?them?to?accept?financial?responsibility?in?whole?or?in?part?for?a?program?which?was?funded?entirely?by?the?state?before?the?advent?of?article?XIIIB,?the?result?seems?equally?violative?of?the?fundamental?purpose?underlying?section?6?of?that?article.”?(Lucia?Mar?Unified?School?Dist.?v.?Honig,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?pp.?835-?836,?fn.?omitted,?italics?added.)

The?state?seeks?to?distinguish?Lucia?Mar?on?the?ground?that?the?education?of?handicapped?children?in?state?schools?had?never?been?the?responsibility?of?the?local?school?district,?but?overlooks?that?the?local?district?had?previously?been?required?to?contribute?to?the?cost.?Indeed?the?similarities?between?Lucia?Mar?and?the?present?case?are?striking.?In?Lucia?Mar,?prior?to?1979?the?state?and?county?shared?the?cost?of?educating?handicapped?children?in?state?schools;?in?the?present?case?from?1971-1979?the?state?and?county?shared?the?cost?of?caring?for?MIA’s?under?the?Medi-Cal?program.?In?1979,?following?enactment?of?Proposition?13,?the?state?took?full?responsibility?for?both?programs.?Then?in?1981?(for?handicapped?children)?and?1982?(for?MIA’s),?the?state?sought?to?shift?some?of?the?burden?back?to?the?counties.?To?distinguish?these?cases?on?the?ground?that?care?for?MIA’s?is?a?county?program?but?education?of?handicapped?children?a?state?program?is?to?rely?on?arbitrary?labels?in?place?of?financial?realities.

The?state?presents?a?similar?argument?when?it?points?to?the?following?emphasized?language?from?Lucia?Mar?Unified?School?Dist.?v.?Honig,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?830:?”[B]ecause?section?59300?shifts?partial?financial?responsibility?for?the?support?of?students?in?the?state-operated?schools?from?the?state?to?school?districts-an?obligation?the?school?districts?did?not?have?at?the?time?article?XIII?B?was?adopted-it?calls?for?plaintiffs?to?support?a?’new?program’?within?the?meaning?of?section?6.”?(P.?836,?fn.?omitted,?italics?added.)?It?urges?Lucia?Mar?reached?its?result?only?because?the?”program”?requiring?school?district?funding?in?that?case?was?not?required?by?statute?at?the?effective?date?of?[54?Cal.3d?354]?article?XIII?B.?The?state?then?argues?that?the?case?at?bench?is?distinguishable?because?it?contends?Alameda?County?had?a?continuing?obligation?required?by?statute?antedating?that?effective?date,?which?had?only?been?”temporarily”fn.?12?suspended?when?article?XIII?B?became?effective.?I?fail?to?see?the?distinction?between?a?case-Lucia?Mar-in?which?no?existing?statute?as?of?1979?imposed?an?obligation?on?the?local?government?and?one-this?case-in?which?the?statute?existing?in?1979?imposed?no?obligation?on?local?government.

The?state’s?argument?misses?the?salient?point.?As?I?have?explained,?the?application?of?section?6?of?article?XIII?B?does?not?depend?upon?when?the?program?was?created,?but?upon?who?had?the?burden?of?funding?it?when?article?XIII?B?went?into?effect.?Our?conclusion?in?Lucia?Mar?that?the?educational?program?there?in?issue?was?a?”new”?program?as?to?the?school?districts?was?not?based?on?the?presence?or?absence?of?any?antecedent?statutory?obligation?therefor.?Lucia?Mar?determined?that?whether?the?program?was?new?as?to?the?districts?depended?on?when?they?were?compelled?to?assume?the?obligation?to?partially?fund?an?existing?program?which?they?had?not?funded?at?the?time?article?XIII?B?became?effective.

The?state?further?relies?on?two?decisions,?Madera?Community?Hospital?v.?County?of?Madera?(1984)?155?Cal.App.3d?136?[201?Cal.Rptr.?768]?and?Cooke?v.?Superior?Court?(1989)?213?Cal.App.3d?401?[261?Cal.Rptr.?706],?which?hold?that?the?county?has?a?statutory?obligation?to?provide?medical?care?for?indigents,?but?that?it?need?not?provide?precisely?the?same?level?of?services?as?the?state?provided?under?Medi-Cal.fn.?13?Both?are?correct,?but?irrelevant?to?this?case.fn.?14?The?county’s?obligation?to?MIA’s?is?defined?by?Welfare?and?Institutions?Code?section?17000,?not?by?the?former?Medi-Cal?program.fn.?15?If?the?[54?Cal.3d?355]?state,?in?transferring?an?obligation?to?the?counties,?permits?them?to?provide?less?services?than?the?state?provided,?the?state?need?only?pay?for?the?lower?level?of?services.?But?it?cannot?escape?its?responsibility?entirely,?leaving?the?counties?with?a?state-mandated?obligation?and?no?money?to?pay?for?it.

The?state’s?arguments?are?also?undercut?by?the?fact?that?it?continues?to?use?the?approximately?$1?billion?in?spending?authority,?generated?by?its?previous?total?funding?of?the?health?care?program?in?question,?as?a?portion?of?its?initial?base?spending?limit?calculated?pursuant?to?sections?1?and?3?of?article?XIII?B.?In?short,?the?state?may?maintain?here?that?care?for?MIA’s?is?a?county?obligation,?but?when?it?computes?its?appropriation?limit?it?treats?the?entire?cost?of?such?care?as?a?state?program.

1. Conclusion

This?is?a?time?when?both?state?and?county?governments?face?great?financial?difficulties.?The?counties,?however,?labor?under?a?disability?not?imposed?on?the?state,?for?article?XIII?A?of?the?Constitution?severely?restricts?their?ability?to?raise?additional?revenue.?It?is,?therefore,?particularly?important?to?enforce?the?provisions?of?article?XIII?B?which?prevent?the?state?from?imposing?additional?obligations?upon?the?counties?without?providing?the?means?to?comply?with?these?obligations.

The?present?majority?opinion?disserves?the?public?interest.?It?denies?standing?to?enforce?article?XIII?B?both?to?those?persons?whom?it?was?designed?to?protect-the?citizens?and?taxpayers-and?to?those?harmed?by?its?violation-the?medically?indigent?adults.?And?by?its?reliance?on?technical?grounds?to?avoid?coming?to?grips?with?the?merits?of?plaintiffs’?appeal,?it?permits?the?state?to?continue?to?violate?article?XIII?B?and?postpones?the?day?when?the?medically?indigent?will?receive?adequate?health?care.

Mosk,?J.,?concurred.

FN?1.?The?complaint?also?sought?a?declaration?that?the?county?was?obliged?to?provide?health?care?services?to?indigents?that?were?equivalent?to?those?available?to?nonindigents.?This?issue?is?not?before?us.?The?County?of?Alameda?aligned?itself?with?plaintiffs?in?the?superior?court?and?did?not?oppose?plaintiffs’?effort?to?enforce?section?6.

FN?2.?On?November?23,?1987,?the?County?of?Los?Angeles?filed?a?test?claim?with?the?Commission.?San?Bernardino?County?joined?as?a?test?claimant.?The?Commission?ruled?against?the?counties,?concluding?that?no?state?mandate?had?been?created.?The?Los?Angeles?County?Superior?Court?subsequently?granted?the?counties’?petition?for?writ?of?mandate?(Code?Civ.?Proc.,???1094.5),?reversing?the?Commission,?on?April?27,?1989.?(No.?C-731033.)?An?appeal?from?that?judgment?is?presently?pending?in?the?Court?of?Appeal.?(County?of?Los?Angeles?v.?State?of?California,?No.?B049625.)

FN?3.?Plaintiffs?argue?that?they?seek?only?a?declaration?that?AB?799?created?a?state?mandate?and?an?injunction?against?the?shift?of?costs?until?the?state?decides?what?action?to?take.?This?is?inconsistent?with?the?prayer?of?their?complaint?which?sought?an?injunction?requiring?defendants?to?restore?Medi-Cal?eligibility?to?all?medically?indigent?adults?until?the?state?paid?the?cost?of?full?health?services?for?them.?It?is?also?unavailing.

An?injunction?against?enforcement?of?a?state?mandate?is?available?only?after?the?Legislature?fails?to?include?funding?in?a?local?government?claims?bill?following?a?determination?by?the?Commission?that?a?state?mandate?exists.?(Gov.?Code,???17612.)?Whether?plaintiffs?seek?declaratory?relief?and/or?an?injunction,?therefore,?they?are?seeking?to?enforce?section?6.

All?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Government?Code?unless?otherwise?indicated.

FN?4.?The?test?claim?by?the?County?of?Los?Angeles?was?filed?prior?to?that?proposed?by?Alameda?County.?The?Alameda?County?claim?was?rejected?for?that?reason.?(See???17521.)?Los?Angeles?County?permitted?San?Bernardino?County?to?join?in?its?claim?which?the?Commission?accepted?as?a?test?claim?intended?to?resolve?the?issues?the?majority?elects?to?address?instead?in?this?proceeding.?Los?Angeles?County?declined?a?request?from?Alameda?County?that?it?be?included?in?the?test?claim?because?the?two?counties’?systems?of?documentation?were?so?similar?that?joining?Alameda?County?would?not?be?of?any?benefit.?Alameda?County?and?these?plaintiffs?were,?of?course,?free?to?participate?in?the?Commission?hearing?on?the?test?claim.?(??17555.)

FN?5.?”?’Local?agency’?means?any?city,?county,?special?district,?authority,?or?other?political?subdivision?of?the?state.”?(??17518.)

FN?6.?”?’School?district’?means?any?school?district,?community?college?district,?or?county?superintendant?of?schools.”?(??17519.)

FN?7.?Plaintiffs’?argument?that?the?Legislature’s?failure?to?make?provision?for?individual?enforcement?of?section?6?before?the?Commission?demonstrates?an?intent?to?permit?legal?actions,?is?not?persuasive.?The?legislative?statement?of?intent?to?relegate?all?mandate?disputes?to?the?Commission?is?clear.?A?more?likely?explanation?of?the?failure?to?provide?for?test?cases?to?be?initiated?by?individuals?lies?in?recognition?that?(1)?because?section?6?creates?rights?only?in?governmental?entities,?individuals?lack?sufficient?beneficial?interest?in?either?the?receipt?or?expenditure?of?reimbursement?funds?to?accord?them?standing;?and?(2)?the?number?of?local?agencies?having?a?direct?interest?in?obtaining?reimbursement?is?large?enough?to?ensure?that?citizen?interests?will?be?adequately?represented.

FN?8.?Plaintiffs?are?not?without?a?remedy?if?the?county?fails?to?provide?adequate?health?care,?however.?They?may?enforce?the?obligation?imposed?on?the?county?by?Welfare?and?Institutions?Code?sections?17000?and?17001,?and?by?judicial?action.?(See,?e.g.,?Mooney?v.?Pickett?(1971)?4?Cal.3d?669?[94?Cal.Rptr.?279,?483?P.2d?1231].)

FN?9.?For?this?reason,?it?would?be?inappropriate?to?address?the?merits?of?plaintiff’s?claim?in?this?proceeding.?(Cf.?Dix?v.?Superior?Court?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?442?[279?Cal.Rptr.?834,?807?P.2d?1063].)?Unlike?the?dissent,?we?do?not?assume?that?in?representing?the?state?in?this?proceeding,?the?Attorney?General?necessarily?represented?the?interests?and?views?of?these?officials.

FN?1.?The?majority?states?that?”Plaintiffs?are?not?without?a?remedy?if?the?county?fails?to?provide?adequate?health?care?….?They?may?enforce?the?obligation?imposed?on?the?county?by?Welfare?and?Institutions?Code?sections?17000?and?17001,?and?by?judicial?action.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?336,?fn.?8)

The?majority?fails?to?note?that?plaintiffs?have?already?tried?this?remedy,?and?met?with?the?response?that,?owing?to?the?state’s?inadequate?subvention?funds,?the?county?cannot?afford?to?provide?adequate?health?care.

FN?2.?It?is?of?no?importance?that?plaintiffs?did?not?request?issuance?of?a?writ?of?mandate.?In?Taschner?v.?City?Council?(1973)?31?Cal.App.3d?48,?56?[107?Cal.Rptr.?214]?(overruled?on?other?grounds?in?Associated?Home?Builders?etc.,?Inc.?v.?City?of?Livermore?(1976)?18?Cal.3d?582,?596?[135?Cal.Rptr.?41,?557?P.2d?473,?92?A.L.R.3d?1038]),?the?court?said?that?”[a]s?against?a?general?demurrer,?a?complaint?for?declaratory?relief?may?be?treated?as?a?petition?for?mandate?[citations],?and?where?a?complaint?for?declaratory?relief?alleges?facts?sufficient?to?entitle?plaintiff?to?mandate,?it?is?error?to?sustain?a?general?demurrer?without?leave?to?amend.”

In?the?present?case,?the?trial?court?ruled?on?a?motion?for?summary?judgment,?but?based?that?ruling?not?on?the?evidentiary?record?(which?supported?plaintiffs’?showing?of?irreparable?injury)?but?on?the?issues?as?framed?by?the?pleadings.?This?is?essentially?equivalent?to?a?ruling?on?demurrer,?and?a?judgment?denying?standing?could?not?be?sustained?on?the?narrow?ground?that?plaintiffs?asked?for?the?wrong?form?of?relief?without?giving?them?an?opportunity?to?correct?the?defect.?(See?Residents?of?Beverly?Glen,?Inc.?v.?City?of?Los?Angeles?(1973)?34?Cal.App.3d?117,?127-128?[109?Cal.Rptr.?724].)

FN?3.?The?majority’s?argument?assumes?that?the?state?will?comply?with?a?judgment?for?plaintiffs?by?providing?increased?subvention?funds.?If?the?state?were?instead?to?comply?by?restoring?Medi-Cal?coverage?for?MIA’s,?or?some?other?method?of?taking?responsibility?for?their?health?needs,?plaintiffs?would?benefit?directly.

FN?4.?The?majority?emphasizes?the?statement?of?purpose?of?Government?Code?section?17500:?”The?Legislature?finds?and?declares?that?the?existing?system?for?reimbursing?local?agencies?and?school?districts?for?the?costs?of?state-mandated?local?programs?has?not?provided?for?the?effective?determination?of?the?state’s?responsibilities?under?section?6?of?article?XIII?B?of?the?California?Constitution.?The?Legislature?finds?and?declares?that?the?failure?of?the?existing?process?to?adequately?and?consistently?resolve?the?complex?legal?questions?involved?in?the?determination?of?state-mandated?costs?has?led?to?an?increasing?reliance?by?local?agencies?and?school?districts?on?the?judiciary,?and,?therefore,?in?order?to?relieve?unnecessary?congestion?of?the?judicial?system,?it?is?necessary?to?create?a?mechanism?which?is?capable?of?rendering?sound?quasi-judicial?decisions?and?providing?an?effective?means?of?resolving?disputes?over?the?existence?of?state-mandated?local?programs.”

The?”existing?system”?to?which?Government?Code?section?17500?referred?was?the?Property?Tax?Relief?Act?of?1972?(Rev.?&?Tax.?Code,????2201-2327),?which?authorized?local?agencies?and?school?boards?to?request?reimbursement?from?the?state?Controller.?Apparently?dissatisfied?with?this?remedy,?the?agencies?and?boards?were?bypassing?the?Controller?and?bringing?actions?directly?in?the?courts.?(See,?e.g.,?County?of?Contra?Costa?v.?State?of?California?(1986)?177?Cal.App.3d?62?[222?Cal.Rptr.?750].)?The?legislative?declaration?refers?to?this?phenomena.?It?does?not?discuss?suits?by?individuals.

FN?5.?”(a)?The?initial?decision?by?a?county?to?opt?into?the?system?pursuant?to?Section?77300?shall?constitute?a?waiver?of?all?claims?for?reimbursement?for?state-mandated?local?programs?not?theretofore?approved?by?the?State?Board?of?Control,?the?Commission?on?State?Mandates,?or?the?courts?to?the?extent?the?Governor,?in?his?discretion,?determines?that?waiver?to?be?appropriate;?provided,?that?a?decision?by?a?county?to?opt?into?the?system?pursuant?to?Section?77300?beginning?with?the?second?half?of?the?1988-89?fiscal?year?shall?not?constitute?a?waiver?of?a?claim?for?reimbursement?based?on?a?statute?chaptered?on?or?before?the?date?the?act?which?added?this?chapter?is?chaptered,?which?is?filed?in?acceptable?form?on?or?before?the?date?the?act?which?added?this?chapter?is?chaptered.?A?county?may?petition?the?Governor?to?exempt?any?such?claim?from?this?waiver?requirement;?and?the?Governor,?in?his?discretion,?may?grant?the?exemption?in?whole?or?in?part.?The?waiver?shall?not?apply?to?or?otherwise?affect?any?claims?accruing?after?initial?notification.?Renewal,?renegotiation,?or?subsequent?notification?to?continue?in?the?program?shall?not?constitute?a?waiver.?[?]?(b)?The?initial?decision?by?a?county?to?opt?into?the?system?pursuant?to?Section?77300?shall?constitute?a?waiver?of?any?claim,?cause?of?action,?or?action?whenever?filed,?with?respect?to?the?Trial?Court?Funding?Act?of?1985,?Chapter?1607?of?the?Statutes?of?1985,?or?Chapter?1211?of?the?Statutes?of?1987.”?(Gov.?Code,???77203.5,?italics?added.)

“As?used?in?this?chapter,?’state-mandated?local?program’?means?any?and?all?reimbursements?owed?or?owing?by?operation?of?either?Section?6?of?Article?XIII?B?of?the?California?Constitution,?or?Section?17561?of?the?Government?Code,?or?both.”?(Gov.?Code,???77005,?italics?added.)

FN?6.?It?is?true?that?these?officials?would?participate?in?a?proceeding?before?the?Commission?on?State?Mandates,?but?they?would?do?so?as?members?of?an?administrative?tribunal.?On?appellate?review?of?a?commission?decision,?its?members,?like?the?members?of?the?Public?Utilities?Commission?or?the?Workers’?Compensation?Appeals?Board,?are?not?respondents?and?do?not?appear?to?present?their?individual?views?and?positions.?For?example,?in?Lucia?Mar?Unified?School?Dist.?v.?Honig?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?830?[244?Cal.Rptr.?677,?750?P.2d?318],?in?which?we?reviewed?a?commission?ruling?relating?to?subvention?payments?for?education?of?handicapped?children,?the?named?respondents?were?the?state?Superintendent?of?Public?Instruction,?the?Department?of?Education,?and?the?Commission?on?State?Mandates.?The?individual?members?of?the?commission?were?not?respondents?and?did?not?participate.

FN?7.?Welfare?and?Institutions?Code?section?17000?provides?that?”[e]very?county?…?shall?relieve?and?support?all?incompetent,?poor,?indigent?persons,?and?those?incapacitated?by?age,?disease,?or?accident,?lawfully?resident?therein,?when?such?persons?are?not?supported?and?relieved?by?their?relatives?or?friends,?by?their?own?means,?or?by?state?hospitals?or?other?state?or?private?institutions.”

FN?[8].?Article?XIII?B,?section?1?provides:?”The?total?annual?appropriations?subject?to?limitation?of?the?state?and?of?each?local?government?shall?not?exceed?the?appropriations?limit?of?such?entity?of?government?for?the?prior?year?adjusted?for?changes?in?the?cost?of?living?and?population?except?as?otherwise?provided?in?this?Article.”

FN?9.?Section?3?of?article?XIII?B?reads?in?relevant?part:?”The?appropriations?limit?for?any?fiscal?year?…?shall?be?adjusted?as?follows:

“(a)?In?the?event?that?the?financial?responsibility?of?providing?services?is?transferred,?in?whole?or?in?part?…?from?one?entity?of?government?to?another,?then?for?the?year?in?which?such?transfer?becomes?effective?the?appropriation?limit?of?the?transferee?entity?shall?be?increased?by?such?reasonable?amount?as?the?said?entities?shall?mutually?agree?and?the?appropriations?limit?of?the?transferor?entity?shall?be?decreased?by?the?same?amount.?…”

FN?10.?Section?6?of?article?XIII?B?further?provides?that?the?”Legislature?may,?but?need?not,?provide?such?subvention?of?funds?for?the?following?mandates:?(a)?Legislative?mandates?requested?by?the?local?agency?affected;?(b)?Legislation?defining?a?new?crime?or?changing?an?existing?definition?of?a?crime;?or?(c)?Legislative?mandates?enacted?prior?to?January?1,?1975,?or?executive?orders?or?regulations?initially?implementing?legislation?enacted?prior?to?January?1,?1975.”?None?of?these?exceptions?apply?in?the?present?case.

FN?[11].?The?state?notes?that,?in?contrast?to?the?program?at?issue?in?Lucia?Mar,?it?has?not?retained?administrative?control?over?aid?to?MIA’s.?But?the?quoted?language?from?Lucia?Mar,?while?appropriate?to?the?facts?of?that?case,?was?not?intended?to?establish?a?rule?limiting?article?XIII?B,?section?6,?to?instances?in?which?the?state?retains?administrative?control?over?the?program?that?it?requires?the?counties?to?fund.?The?constitutional?language?admits?of?no?such?limitation,?and?its?recognition?would?permit?the?Legislature?to?evade?the?constitutional?requirement.

FN?12.?The?state’s?repeated?emphasis?on?the?”temporary”?nature?of?its?funding?is?a?form?of?post?hoc?reasoning.?At?the?time?article?XIII?B?was?enacted,?the?voters?did?not?know?which?programs?would?be?temporary?and?which?permanent.

FN?13.?It?must,?however,?provide?a?comparable?level?of?services.?(See?Board?of?Supervisors?v.?Superior?Court?(1989)?207?Cal.App.3d?552,?564?[254?Cal.Rptr.?905].)

FN?14.?Certain?language?in?Madera?Community?Hospital?v.?County?of?Madera,?supra,?155?Cal.App.3d?136,?however,?is?questionable.?That?opinion?states?that?the?”Legislature?intended?that?County?bear?an?obligation?to?its?poor?and?indigent?residents,?to?be?satisfied?from?county?funds,?notwithstanding?federal?or?state?programs?which?exist?concurrently?with?County’s?obligation?and?alleviate,?to?a?greater?or?lesser?extent,?County’s?burden.”?(P.?151.)?Welfare?and?Institutions?Code?section?17000?by?its?terms,?however,?requires?the?county?to?provide?support?to?residents?only?”when?such?persons?are?not?supported?and?relieved?by?their?relatives?or?friends,?by?their?own?means,?or?by?state?hospitals?or?other?state?or?private?institutions.”?Consequently,?to?the?extent?that?the?state?or?federal?governments?provide?care?for?MIA’s,?the?county’s?obligation?to?do?so?is?reduced?pro?tanto.

FN?15.?The?county’s?right?to?subvention?funds?under?article?XIII?B?arises?because?its?duty?to?care?for?MIA’s?is?a?state-?mandated?responsibility;?if?the?county?had?no?duty,?it?would?have?no?right?to?funds.?No?claim?is?made?here?that?the?funding?of?medical?services?for?the?indigent?shifted?to?Alameda?County?is?not?a?program?”?’mandated’?”?by?the?state;?i.e.,?that?Alameda?County?has?any?option?other?than?to?pay?these?costs.?(Lucia?Mar?Unified?School?Dist.?v.?Honig,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?at?pp.?836-837.)