Page 8, footnote 2 [246 Cal.App.4th 629, advance report, fn. 2, line 13], add the following language to the last sentence of the footnote immediately preceding the citations to In re Marriage Cases and White v. Davis: that affect the very fabric of personnel decisions for teachers throughout California.
Footnote 2 now reads in its entirety:
At the time of trial, defendants were: The State of California; Edmund G. Brown, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California; the California Department of Education (CDE); the State Board of Education; and Tom Torlakson, in his official capacity as State Superintendent of Public Instruction (the State defendants); as well as California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers (the intervener defendants), who were granted leave to intervene as defendants prior to trial. The State defendants and the intervener defendants filed separate briefs on appeal. Because the positions taken by the two sets of defendants are, for the most part, essentially identical, we generally refer to defendants collectively in this opinion. We reject the State defendants' contention that the governor is an improper defendant. Because public education is ultimately a state obligation (Butt, supra, 4 Cal.4th 668, 680) and "[t]he supreme executive power of this State is vested in the Governor" (Cal. Const., art. V, § 1), the Governor is a proper defendant in this lawsuit mounting a facial challenge to five statutes of state-wide application that affect the very fabric of personnel decisions for teachers throughout California. (See also In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384] [Governor named as defendant]; White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528 [133 Cal.Rptr.2d 648, 68 P.3d 74] [same].)
