Court Lifts Prior Residency Rule for Veterans Benefits

The state Supreme Court, expanding state government aid to veterans, Monday struck down a 50-year-old law limiting home loan and other benefits to war veterans who were native Californians or residents when they entered the service.

The justices held unanimously that the benefits available to 600,000 veterans must be offered to an estimated 300,000 additional veterans who came to California after their service.

The court rejected contentions by state officials that the benefits could justifiably be limited to California’s “own,” whose lives were disrupted by armed conflicts from World War I to Operation Desert Storm.

“The state may choose to honor and reward veterans, and thus may discriminate between veterans and non-veterans,” Justice Stanley Mosk wrote for the court. “But a statute that divides veterans into two classes, with greater benefits for prior residents, cannot be justified. All current residents are California’s ‘own.’ ”

The court overturned a key restriction that for decades had guided Cal-Vet home loans, dependents’ education and the disaster relief program for veterans. The Cal-Vet program--by far the largest affected by the ruling--has been financed with $9 billion in voter-approved bond issues since 1943. Since its inception, voters have never turned down a Cal-Vet bond measure.

Porter Meroney, chief deputy director of the state Department of Veterans Affairs, said it is difficult to predict how many more veterans will seek help from the Cal-Vet program, which offers low-interest home and farm loans of up to $125,000. There are about 70,000 loans in effect, he said.

For now, Meroney said, surplus funds can meet increased demand. But in the long run, the voters will be asked to approve more bonds sooner because of the high court ruling, he said. The voters last approved a $400-million bond measure in November, 1990.

The state may appeal the ruling to the U. S. Supreme Court, Meroney said. “Clearly, this is a states-rights issue,” he said. “Years ago, the Legislature viewed these as benefits they wanted to craft for California veterans. We’ve been operating on that principle for years.”

Dan Stormer of Los Angeles, an attorney for a group of veterans who challenged the restriction, welcomed the ruling as “a vindication for the rights of veterans.”

Stormer called the restriction “ridiculous” and voiced confidence that the state could meet the demand for additional loans and other benefits. “There is presently no indication there are insufficient funds,” he said. “In any event, that’s an issue for the voters to decide.”

The provision at issue limited the home loan programs and other benefits to veterans of armed conflicts who were at the time of entry to active duty “a native of or a bona fide resident of the state.”

The law was challenged in a suit brought by Stormer and attorneys for the Western Law Center for the Handicapped on behalf of a group of veterans led by Charles Del Monte of Los Angeles. Del Monte, a disabled Korean War veteran, claimed that his two sons were unfairly denied educational stipends that were granted to other veterans. Del Monte, who was living in New York when he joined the Army in 1950, moved with his family to California in 1963.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge upheld the restriction in December, 1988. But in May, 1991, the ruling was reversed by a state Court of Appeal, which found that the limitation violated the constitutional right to equal protection of the law.

The high court, in a 31-page opinion by Mosk, agreed that the law unfairly singled out a particular group of veterans for assistance based on residency. Mosk cited several recent U. S. Supreme Court rulings striking down an array of laws seeking to apportion benefits based on residency.

In one such case, the federal high court invalidated a New Mexico law granting property tax exemptions only for Vietnam War veterans who had been state residents since May, 1976.

In California, Mosk said, the restriction on eligibility improperly required veterans to be residents at “a fixed point in the past.” Thus, he noted, “a disabled World War II veteran who moved to California shortly after the war would be ineligible for benefits, no matter how long he resided in the state, paid taxes here, and made other contributions to our society.”

“The state owes a debt of gratitude to every veteran, regardless of state of origin,” Mosk wrote.