KTLA News: "Tom Bradley and Edmund D. Edelman file petition regarding use of gas tax funds" (1973)

[ambient noise] [Tom Bradley] We believe that there is substantial precedent laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court  dating all the way back to 1935 that clearly indicate that we can do more than build freeways or rebuild our streets with those gas tax funds. We think that "highway purposes" could mean the building of a rapid transit system and that's the basic purpose of this petition before the court. [Reporter] Will this break it open nationwide, do you think? [Edmund Edelman] Well we're only going to the state gasoline tax in the state of California, but I'm sure if we're successful in this lawsuit other gasoline taxes that are locked and stranglehold by the gasoline interests will be challenged too as well as possibly the federal. But this is strictly a state constitutional  interpretation that we're seeking now. [Reporter] One two, one two, one two, one two, one two. One two, three four, five, six, one two three four. [ambient noise] [Bradley] The urgency of our transportation needs in the Los Angeles area require that we do everything within our means to find the funds to help build that system. We've been trying to break the Highway Trust Fund in Washington. We've achieved some success in the Congress. We've received considerable support from Sacramento. But I think we cannot wait for a measure to come out of the state legislature and to come on to the ballot. And it is for that reason that Councilman Edmund, the city of Riverside and I have joined in a petition to the Supreme Court asking for their ruling on the interpretation of Article 26 of the Constitution. That's the article that says the gas tax funds that are collected in this state shall be used for highway purposes. Mr. Edelman who has been very active and first proposed this idea joins me in this petition. [Reporter] How soon... [Edelman] I'm very - let me just say a word or two if I may. I'm very happy that the mayor has joined the lawsuit. He - his name will add immeasurably to the chances of winning before the State Supreme Court. As you see we're going up to the Supreme Court right now to file this petition which was prepared by the Center for Law and the Public Interest. And we feel that this is an issue of such grave importance that we can go right to the Supreme Court and not go to any intermediate court or lower court. Now the lawsuit itself, if we're successful, will free approximately one billion dollars this next fiscal year from going into freeways and highways. This money could be used as the mayor indicated for other transportation purposes, such as the beginning of a rapid transit system in Los Angeles and better bus system in Los Angeles as well as every other major city in the state of California. So the lawsuit is not limited in its significance to... [Reporter] What's - what's the alternative? [Bradley] Well it is our hope that they will at least accept the petition sometime within the next two to three months. And after that we have no way of determining how soon it will be heard. We would hope that as quickly as possible and certainly by the end of their, their term next year. [Reporter] What effect will this have on efforts now underway both in the state legislature and the U.S. Congress to bring funds to Los Angeles to help do something with rail rapid transit? [Bradley] Oh well, it'll serve to encourage us I think. You know, this is going to be only a part of the money that will be necessary. And we're going to go after money wherever we can find it whether it's in Washington or Sacramento or through this means. [Reporter] Councilman, if you win this will that add impetus to its expediency? [Bradley] I'm delivering it in person because that's  the only way to get you fellows here! [laughter] [Reporter] Would this be... [Reporter] Would you say this is a matter for the people of Los Angeles to decide though, whether or not they want their money to go that way? [Bradley] This is a matter for the Supreme Court to decide. The court interprets the law and we're simply differing with other people about what the law says and the only way you resolve that is to have the court do it. The people cannot make that kind of decision. [Reporter] What happens if the Supreme Court... [Reporter] How much money is in there? [ambient noise]