In East Bay Asian Local Development Corp. v. State of California (2000) 24 Cal.4th 693, the California Supreme Court explained that "the protection against the establishment of religion embedded in the California Constitution" does not "create broader protections than those of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." (Id. at p. 718.) The East Bay court further stated that, "the California concept of a 'law respecting an establishment of religion' (Cal. Const., art. I, 4) coincides with the intent and purpose of the First Amendment establishment clause." (Ibid.) The East Bay Court reasoned: "We reach this conclusion because the establishment clause was not added to article I, section 4 until 1974. "When article I, section 4 was readopted with minor editorial changes by the electorate as part of the constitutional revisions made in 1974, the present establishment clause was included. The Legislative Analyst and the Chairman of the Constitution Revision Commission each explained that the intent was to add to the California Constitution a right that was then contained in the federal Constitution. . Presumably, the electorate intended that the right being added to article I, section 4 through the new establishment clause would afford the same protection as the establishment clause of the First Amendment on which it was patterned. There is nothing in the history of the clause to suggest that the drafters or the electorate intended that the clause be any more protective of the doctrine of separation of church and state than the First Amendment establishment clause." (East Bay, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 718-719.)