Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs Chris Robles and the California Voting Rights Initiative sued the City of Ontario, alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act and the California Voting Rights Act due to the city's at-large method of electing council members, which they claimed diluted Latino electoral influence. The parties settled, agreeing to transition to district-based elections by 2024 and included a provision for attorney fees incurred up to that point.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County initially sustained the city's demurrer but later entered a stipulated judgment based on the settlement. Plaintiffs later filed a motion to enforce the stipulated judgment, claiming the city violated several statutory requirements during the districting process. The court found the city had not complied with the stipulated judgment but questioned the validity of the settlement terms. Eventually, the city adopted the plaintiffs' proposed district map.Plaintiffs sought additional attorney fees for enforcing the stipulated judgment. The trial court denied this request, interpreting the stipulated judgment as precluding further fees and deeming plaintiffs' enforcement efforts unnecessary. Plaintiffs appealed this decision.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reversed the trial court's order. The appellate court held that the plain language of the stipulated judgment allowed plaintiffs to seek attorney fees for enforcing its terms. The case was remanded for the trial court to determine if plaintiffs were prevailing parties and, if so, the appropriate amount of attorney fees. The appellate court clarified that the determination of the prevailing party should be based on whether the party achieved its litigation objectives, not on the perceived necessity of their actions. View "Robles v. City of Ontario" on Justia Law

A group called Riversiders Against Increased Taxes (RAIT) filed a petition to stop the City of Riverside from placing Measure C on the November 2, 2021, ballot. RAIT argued that Measure C, which involved transferring excess fees from the city-operated electric utility to the general fund, violated Proposition 218 because it was a general tax that should not be voted on in a special election. The City contended that the election was a general election as it was a regularly scheduled event, despite being labeled a "special municipal election" in city documents. The trial court granted RAIT's request for declaratory relief, finding the election was special, but did not cancel the election or enjoin certification of the results. Both parties appealed.The City argued on appeal that the trial court wrongly declared the election as special and that RAIT should not be considered the prevailing party. RAIT cross-appealed, claiming the trial court should have removed Measure C from the ballot and enjoined the certification of the election results. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's declaratory judgment, holding that the November 2021 election was a general election under state law, despite the city's charter labeling it as special. The court found that the election was regularly scheduled and consolidated with a general election, thus complying with Proposition 218. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the rest of RAIT's petition, noting that RAIT had multiple opportunities to object to continuances but failed to do so, making their appeal moot. The City was deemed the prevailing party and entitled to costs on appeal. View "Riversiders Against Increased Taxes v. City of Riverside" on Justia Law

The Attorney General of California drafted language for the ballot title, summary, and label for Proposition 5, a proposed amendment to the California Constitution that would allow certain local bonds to be approved by 55 percent of voters instead of the current two-thirds requirement. Jon Coupal and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association challenged the ballot label, arguing it was misleading because it did not mention the existing two-thirds approval requirement. They claimed this omission failed to inform voters of the measure's true purpose.The Superior Court of Sacramento County agreed with the challengers, finding that the ballot label did not adequately inform voters of the measure's chief purpose. The court ordered the Attorney General to revise the ballot label to include the current two-thirds approval requirement. The Attorney General then filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, challenging the Superior Court's decision.The Court of Appeal concluded that the ballot label drafted by the Attorney General accurately and concisely described Proposition 5 and was not misleading. The court emphasized that the Attorney General is afforded considerable discretion in drafting ballot materials and that the label's language was factually accurate. The court found that the Superior Court failed to accord the proper discretion to the Attorney General and that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the ballot label was misleading. Consequently, the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Superior Court to deny the challengers' petition and allow the Attorney General's original ballot label to be used. View "Bonta v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

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