created them agree to make payments into funds benefiting the state’s schools andspecial districts.The California Redevelopment Association, the League of CaliforniaCities, and other affected parties (collectively the Association) promptly soughtextraordinary writ relief from this court, arguing that each measure wasunconstitutional. They contended the measures violate, inter alia, Proposition 22,which amended the state Constitution to place limits on the state’s ability torequire payments from redevelopment agencies for the state’s benefit. (See Cal.Const., art. XIII, § 25.5, subd. (a)(7), added by Prop. 22, as approved by voters,Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2010).) The state’s Director of Finance, respondent AnaMatosantos, opposed on the merits but agreed we should put to rest the significantconstitutional questions concerning the validity of both measures.
We issued anorder to show cause, partially stayed the two measures, and established anexpedited briefing schedule. We also granted leave to the County of Santa Claraand its auditor-controller, Vinod K. Sharma (collectively Santa Clara), to interveneas respondents.We consider whether under the state Constitution (1) redevelopmentagencies, once created and engaged in redevelopment plans, have a protected rightto exist that immunizes them from statutory dissolution by the Legislature; and(2) redevelopment agencies and their sponsoring communities have a protectedright not to make payments to various funds benefiting schools and specialdistricts as a condition of continued operation. Answering the first question “no”and the second “yes,” we largely uphold Assembly Bill 1X 26 and invalidateAssembly Bill 1X 27.
Two other respondents, state Controller John Chiang and Alameda CountyAuditor-Controller Patrick O’Connell, who was sued on behalf of a putative classof county auditor-controllers, took no position on the merits. All respondents have been sued in their official capacities.2