Objectors brought action for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that statute clarifying when corridor or usable segment thereof was “suitable and ready for high-speed train operation,” for purposes of funding plan required by Safe, Reliable High-Speed Train Bond Act, violated state constitution’s debt limit provision.
The Superior Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on pleadings and entered stipulated judgment. Objectors appealed.
The Court of Appeal held that statute was consistent with single object of Bond Act approved by voters, and thus did not violate state constitution’s debt limit provision.
Statute clarifying that corridor or usable segment thereof was “suitable and ready for high-speed train operation,” for purposes of funding plan required by Safe, Reliable High-Speed Train Bond Act, when bond proceeds were to be used for capital cost for project that would enable high-speed trains to operate immediately or after additional planned investments were made on corridor or useable segment thereof and passenger train service providers would benefit from project in near-term, was consistent with single object of Bond Act approved by voters, and thus did not violate state constitution’s debt limit provision; statute furthered construction of high-speed rail system by funding investments in improvement of existing train systems that would be shared with high-speed train system.