In Gould v. Grubb (1975) 14 Cal.3d 661, the State Supreme Court struck down state and local election procedures which provided priority ballot listing for incumbents. The court found that the fundamental right to vote was involved because the classification scheme imposed a "very 'real and appreciable impact' on the equality, fairness and integrity of the electoral process." The evidence revealed that the election practices gave a substantial advantage to the candidates in top ballot positions, thereby diluting the weight of the vote of all electors who cast their ballots for a candidate not included within the favored class. The court reviewed the reapportionment cases commencing with Gray v. Sanders (1963) 372 U.S. 368, 379 9 L.Ed. 2d 821, 829-830 wherein the United States Supreme Court held that "All who participate in an election are to have an equal vote. . . " and concluded that the incumbent first classification scheme which substantially dilutes the weight of votes of some of the qualified voters must be subjected to the "strict scrutiny" standard. Finding no compelling state purpose, the procedure was held to be violative of the equal protection clause of both our state and federal Constitutions. In Gould v. Grubb , there was no issue with respect to who the qualified voters were. The California Supreme Court held the "incumbent first" and "alphabetical order" procedures for listing candidates constitutionally impermissible. The court stated, "In light of the trial court's finding that candidates in the top ballot position receive a substantial number of votes simply by virtue of their ballot position, a statute, ordinance or election practice which reserves such an advantage for a particular class of candidates inevitably dilutes the weight of the vote of all those electors who case their ballots for a candidate who is not included within the favored class." ( Gould v. Grubb, supra, 14 Cal.3d 661, 670.)