The opinion
MOSK, J.
I concur in the conclusion that the two-thirds majority requirement violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but I dissent from the denial of relief to these petitioners, for the reasons discussed in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Westbrook v. Mihaly, ante, p. 765 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 471 P.2d 487 ].
The prevailing rationale in Westbrook that the elections are now forgotten is particularly inapposite in these cases. Here, after the majority—but not two-thirds—vote in the elections, the governing board of each district adopted a resolution calling upon the county board of supervisors to sell the bonds for which the propositions had sought approval, and the board acquiesced. Again, as in Westbrook , the majority of the court tell the several boards that their interpretation of the law was correct and we adopt *812 their conclusion. And again, inexplicably, the court denies affirmative relief. This result is impossible to rationalize.
I would issue the peremptory writ of mandate. Mr. Justice Peters has authorized me to say he would also issue the writ.