Plaintiff had taxpayer standing to challenge the DMV’s DUI hearing procedure as a violation of due process insofar as the hearing officer acts as judge and as an advocate for the DMV.  While taxpayers do not have the standing to challenge discretionary decisions made by administrative agencies in fulfilling their legislative mandates if the DMV’s hearing procedure violates the driver’s due process rights, it is illegal and a waste of money which the taxpayer has the standing to challenge.  Agencies have no discretion to violate the constitution. The DMV’s defense that its hearing procedure is prescribed by statute and approved by court decisions addresses the merits of the controversy, not the issue of taxpayer standing.

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four (Collins, J.); March 2, 2018; 2018 WL 1128090.