In Miller v. Miller (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 111, blood tests conducted after a child's second birthday proved the married mother's boyfriend, and not her husband, was the child's father. Relying on the test results, the boyfriend claimed he had rebutted the conclusive presumption of the husband's paternity. The court rejected the claim because, among other reasons, the tests were not performed before the child's second birthday. Accordingly, the results had "no legal significance" and the boyfriend's biological fatherhood was "immaterial." ( Id. at p. 119) The Court held that the Commission on the Status of Women (Commission) violated Stanson principles by financing an appeal to voters to lobby for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. (Id. at pp. 767-772.) The Commission had asserted that ratification by the Legislature was not an electoral process and thus was outside the ambit of Stanson v. Mott, supra, 17 Cal. 3d 206. (Miller, supra, at p. 767.) The Court concluded "the real issue under Stanson is not the objective of the promotional activity but the audience to which it is directed." (Id. at p. 768.) Appropriate lobbying efforts must be limited to presentations directed to legislative bodies, not the electorate itself. (87 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 768-769.) Because the Commission's activities were directed to voters and did not constitute legislative lobbying, the expenditures were improper absent clear legislative authorization for these advocacy efforts. (Id. at p. 771.) The Court concluded such authorization did not exist. (87 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 771-772.)