Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, Vince Fong, a candidate for the California State Assembly District 32 and Congressional District 20, filed nomination papers for both offices for the March 5, 2024, primary election. The Secretary of State refused to accept his nomination papers for the 20th Congressional District, citing section 8003, subdivision (b) of the Elections Code, which states that no person may file nomination papers for more than one office at the same election. Fong sought a writ of mandate ordering the Secretary to accept his papers and include his name on the certified list of candidates for the 20th Congressional District.The Superior Court of Sacramento County granted Fong’s request, holding that section 8003, subdivision (b) only applied to the independent nomination of candidates, and because Fong was not seeking to utilize the independent nomination process, the statute did not apply to him. The Secretary of State appealed this decision, arguing that section 8003, subdivision (b) should be interpreted as a general prohibition against running for more than one office at the same election.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District agreed with the superior court and concluded that section 8003, subdivision (b) only applies to the independent nomination process and therefore has no application to the facts before them. The court held that the Secretary of State's interpretation of the statute, which would have broadly applied the prohibition to all candidates, ignored the context of the statute as a whole. The court denied the Secretary's petition for a writ of mandate. View "Weber v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In the state of California, a group known as the Real Parties circulated an initiative petition to repeal a special tax within Service Zone Five of the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District. The District attempted to prevent this initiative from appearing on the June 2022 ballot by filing a writ petition and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief, asserting that the initiative contained false and misleading information in violation of Elections Code section 18600. The trial court found the initiative to be invalid due to these false and misleading statements, but it was too late to prevent it from appearing on the ballot. The electorate voted on the initiative, and it passed.The Real Parties appealed the trial court's order, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that the initiative contained false and misleading statements and that intent was not required to prove a violation of section 18600. The District cross-appealed, arguing that the initiative was invalid due to additional grounds.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the initiative was invalid because it contained false and misleading information. The court also agreed with the trial court that it was not necessary for the District to establish intent under section 18600. The court dismissed the District's cross-appeal as moot because it raised additional grounds for disqualifying the initiative, which were unnecessary to address given the court's conclusion that the initiative was already invalid. View "San Bernardino County Fire Protection Dist. v. Page" on Justia Law

In the case before the Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three, the court heard an appeal from a quo warranto judgment which ordered the removal of Ed Sachs, Wendy Bucknum, and Greg Raths from their positions as members of the City of Mission Viejo City Council. The quo warranto judgment was based on the finding that their respective two-year terms of office, which they had been elected to in November 2018, had expired in December 2020. Despite this, Sachs, Bucknum, Raths, and Mission Viejo continued to hold office.The defendants argued that Elections Code section 14029, which authorizes broad remedies for violations of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, did not permit the implementation of two-year terms of office for city councilmembers because Government Code section 57377 imposes an ironclad requirement of four-year terms. They contended that they must be deemed to have been elected in November 2018 as councilmembers to four-year terms of office and were entitled to stay in office past their two-year terms.However, the Court of Appeal rejected this argument, stating that even if their interpretation of Elections Code section 14029 and section 57377 was correct, the result they propose – that they receive four-year terms of office – was not. In November 2018, Sachs, Bucknum, and Raths were elected for two-year terms, not four-year terms. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment for quo warranto, stating that they were unlawfully holding office. View "P. ex rel. Schlesinger v. Sachs" on Justia Law

In the case before the Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three, the court evaluated the legality of three members of the City of Mission Viejo City Council holding office after their elected terms had expired. The three council members, Ed Sachs, Wendy Bucknum, and Greg Raths, were elected in November 2018 for two-year terms that expired in December 2020. These two-year terms, rather than the traditional four-year terms, were part of a stipulated judgment to remedy violations of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA). The judgment intended to implement a system of cumulative voting for the city council, with all five seats up for election in November 2020. However, cumulative voting could not be implemented in time for the 2020 election, and the three councilmembers did not stand for reelection but continued to hold office after their terms expired.Michael Schlesinger, the plaintiff, brought a quo warranto lawsuit, with the permission of the California Attorney General, to have the three councilmembers removed from office. The councilmembers argued that they were entitled to hold office until the next cumulative voting election in 2022. However, the court ruled that the councilmembers were elected for two-year terms, and the stipulated judgment did not extend their terms contingent on the implementation of cumulative voting. As a result, the court affirmed the quo warranto judgment that Sachs, Bucknum, and Raths were holding office unlawfully after their terms expired in December 2020. View "P. ex rel. Schlesinger v. Sachs" on Justia Law

The City of San Diego (the City) placed a citizen’s initiative, Measure C, on the ballot for the March 2020 general and special election. Ballot materials for the measure stated that it required a two-thirds majority to pass, but by March 2020, at least two trial courts in San Francisco concluded that citizens’ initiatives required only a simple majority. Measure C ultimately received 65.24% of the votes cast. The City thereafter adopted a resolution that stated the number of votes for and against measure C and identified that there was a split of authority about the voter threshold requirement for a citizens’ inintiative, but did not state whether Measure C passed. By April 2021, several appellate courts concluded citizens’ initiatives required a simple majority, and the City adopted a resolution that Measure C had passed. Various groups sued to challenge the adoption of Measure C, calling into question the voter threshold required for its passage. The Court of Appeal determined the application of a simple majority voting requirement did not violate due process or constitute “fraud on the voters,” even though ballot materials and the ordinance placing the measure on the ballot stated a two-thirds majority applied. View "Alliance San Diego, et al. v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

The Committee to Support the Recall of George Gascón (the Committee) filed a lawsuit against defendants Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean C. Logan and the Office of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (collectively “the Registrar”) to enforce the Committee’s rights under the Public Records Act (PRA) to examine a recall petition the Registrar certified as invalid for placement on the ballot. The trial court granted the ex parte application, ordered disclosure of various voter records, and ordered the parties to meet and confer on increased access. The court directed the disclosure of additional records. On appeal from the original injunction order and the subsequent order, the Registrar contends the trial court misinterpreted sections 7924.000 and 7924.110. The Committee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction under the PRA.   The Second Appellate District dismissed the portion of the appeal purporting the challenge the injunction order and partially granted the petition for extraordinary writ. The court concluded that the exclusive means of challenging an order granting or denying disclosure of records in connection with the examination of an unsuccessful recall petition under the PRA is through section 7923.500. Here, the Registrar did not meet the requirements for the injunction order. However, the court exercised its discretion to consider the Registrar’s challenges to new directives appearing in that order as a petition for extraordinary writ. The court concluded that the order improperly commanded the Registrar to (1) authorize the use of electronic voter lists outside its examination room and (2) disclose redacted affidavits of voter registration. View "Committee to Support the Recall, etc. v. Logan" on Justia Law

In 2016, San Francisco voters amended their city charter to authorize voting in local school board elections by noncitizen parents and guardians of school-age children. In 2018, the Board of Supervisors enacted an ordinance implementing Proposition N, including provisions requiring the City’s Department of Elections to develop a noncitizen voter registration form for school board elections. In 2022, after multiple school board elections in which noncitizens voted, this lawsuit was brought alleging the charter amendment violated the California Constitution. The trial court granted found the effective ordinance void and unenforceableThe court of appeal reversed and awarded the city costs. Neither the plain language of the Constitution nor its history prohibits legislation expanding the electorate to noncitizens. The relevant constitutional provisions authorizing home rule permit charter cities to implement such an expansion in local school board elections. This authority is consistent with the principles underlying home rule and permits the voters of each charter city to determine whether it is good policy for their city or not. View "Lacy v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Greenville Rancheria (Greenville) was a sovereign Indian tribe that owned administrative and medical offices (property) in the City of Red Bluff. Following a contested election, defendant Angela Martin was elected as Greenville’s chairperson, which included the authority to act as Greenville’s chief executive officer. After her election, Martin, along with approximately 20 people, including defendants Andrea Cazares-Diego, Andrew Gonzales, Hallie Hugo, Elijah Martin, and Adrian Hugo, entered the property and refused to leave despite the remaining members of the tribal council ordering them to leave and removing Martin’s authority as chairperson under Greenville’s constitution. Because of defendants’ failure to vacate the property, Greenville filed a verified emergency complaint for trespass and injunctive relief. The trial court granted Greenville a temporary restraining order, but later granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Greenville appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed: defendants did not point to any authority demonstrating the federal government’s intent to preempt state law or deprive state courts of subject matter jurisdiction in property disputes between tribal members occurring on lands outside tribal trust lands. "To conclude we lack jurisdiction over property disputes between tribal members on nontribal lands would limit tribal members’ access to state court, especially considering California courts have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Public Law 280 over property disputes between tribal members on tribal trust lands. (Section 1360.) Consequently, the state court has jurisdiction to hear Greenville’s dispute against defendants regarding land it owns in fee simple that is not held in trust by the federal government." View "Rancheria v. Martin" on Justia Law

Petitioner Raji Rab contended that by allowing Los Angeles County workers to scan vote by mail ballots into the Voting Solutions for All People (VSAP) system (the computer hardware and software system used to capture and count votes in Los Angeles County) beginning 10 days before the March 2020 primary election, Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk violated California Elections Code section 15101 (b)’s, prohibition on accessing and releasing a vote count prior to 8 p.m. on the day of an election. Rab alleged respondents the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors and its members (with Logan, the County) and the California Secretary of State, failed in their oversight of Logan, and, therefore, failed to protect the election process and aided and abetted in Logan’s alleged misconduct. Rab brought a petition for writ of mandate, seeking a manual recount of ballots from the March 2020 primary election, and claiming this matter was one “of [the] greatest public interest.” The trial court denied his petition. Specifically, in denying the petition, the trial court wrote, “[t]he Court interprets ‘machine reading’ to include, and thus to permit, scanning ballots. To leave no room for confusion in the future, the Court reiterates: Elections Code section 15101(b) allows the County to start scanning ballots on the 10th business day before the election.” Rab appealed, arguing the trial court misinterpreted Elections Code section 15101(b). Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court. View "Rab v. Weber" on Justia Law

On November 3, 2020, the voters of San Bernardino County passed Measure K, amending the county charter so as to: (1) limit a supervisor to a single four-year term; and (2) limit a supervisor’s compensation to $5,000 a month. At the same time, the voters also elected three new supervisors. The trial court ruled that the one-term limit was unconstitutional, but that the compensation limit was constitutional. The court ruled that because Measure K was not severable, it, too, had to be struck down. Finally, it ruled that Measure K did not apply to the new supervisors (although it acknowledged that the issue was moot, in light of its other rulings). Nadia Renner, proponent of Measure K, appealed.The San Bernardino County Board of Suprervisors (Board) cross-appealed, contending: (1) Supervisors’ compensation could not be set by initiative; (2) the compensation limit violated minimum wage laws; alternatively, if it effectively forced supervisors to work part-time, it impaired governmental functions; and (3) the compensation limit improperly acted as a referendum on San Bernardino County Code section 13.0614. After determining the trial court’s ruling was appealable, the Court of Appeal concluded the one-term limit was constitutional. Further, the Court held that the supervisors’ compensation could be set by initiative, and the Board did not show the limit violated minimum wage laws. The Board also did not show the limit conflicted with section 13.0614. “Even assuming that it does, the voters can amend or abrogate an ordinance not only by referendum, but also by initiative.” Because the Court held the one-term and compensation limits were valid, the Court did not reach the issue of whether Measure K was severable. The Court was split as to whether Measure K applied to new supervisors: the term limit applied, but the compensation limit did not. View "San Bernardino County Bd. of Supervisors v. Monell" on Justia Law