FRAN SDAO v. SHIRLEY N. WEBER, PH.D., et al.

26WM000206: SDAO vs SHIRLEY N. WEBER, PH.D. IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

Tentative Ruling

DATE/TIME: August 20, 2026, 3:30 p.m. DEP. NO.: 3A JUDGE: HON. JENNIFER K. CLERK: S. PAUL ROCKWELL

FRAN SDAO, Case No.: 26WM000206 Petitioner, v. SHIRLEY N. WEBER, Ph.D, in her official capacity as the California Secretary of State, et al. Respondents,

DENIS BILODEAU, Real Party in Interest.

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Writ of Mandate – Priority Election Writ

The following shall constitute the Court’s tentative ruling on the above matter, set for hearing in Department 3A, on Thursday, August 20, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. The tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court, unless a party desiring to be heard so advises the Clerk of Department 3A no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the Clerk that such party has notified the other side of its intention to appear.

The Court strongly encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. However, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing.

The parties may join the Zoom session for the hearing by audio and/or video through the

26WM000206: SDAO vs SHIRLEY N. WEBER, PH.D. IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

following link:

DEPT JUDGE ZOOM LINK MEETING ID

3A Hon. Jennifer K. https://saccourt-ca- 161 5277 4854 Rockwell gov.zoomgov.com/j/16152774854

Parties requesting services of a Court Reporter will need to arrange for private Court Reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code § 68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a Court Reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by using the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore, available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

If a Court Reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list is not used, aStipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing. Once the form is signed, it must be filed with the Clerk of Department 3A.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 69959, Court Reporters are not permitted through the use of remote technology, and any Court Reporter designated for the hearing shall be physically present in the Courtroom.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a Court Reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the Clerk of Department 3A at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the Clerk of Department 3A will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official Court Reporter will be provided.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000206: SDAO vs SHIRLEY N. WEBER, PH.D. IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

TENTATIVE RULING

Introduction

Petitioner Fran Sdao seeks a writ of mandate directing Respondent Secretary of State to prohibit Real Party in Interest Denis Bilodeau’s ballot designation “Taxpayer Association President” from appearing on ballot materials in connection with Mr. Bilodeau’s candidacy for Member of the California State Board of Equalization, District 4, in the November 3, 2026, Statewide General Election. Petitioner contends that the ballot designation “Taxpayer Association President,” and the alternative designation, “Taxpayer Advocate” proposed by Mr.

Bilodeau do not reflect his primary profession, vocation, or occupation, as required by Elections Code section 13107. Jurisdiction As an initial matter, Mr. Bilodeau challenges the Court’s jurisdiction on the grounds that Petitioner lacks standing. Mr. Bilodeau argues that Petition is untimely because Petitioner failed to challenge his ballot designation within ten days after a March 6, 2026, deadline for primary election ballot designations. Mr. Bilodeau notes that Elections Code section 13107, subdivision (h), provides that ballot designations “shall remain the same for all purposes of both primary and general elections,” unless the candidate requests a different designation within the time permitted by that subdivision.

Mr. Bilodeau also cites Elections Code section 13313, which provides a 10- day review period for “the material referred to in Section 13307,” and authorizes “any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held” to seek a writ of mandate challenging “any or all of the material in the candidates statements” “no later than the end of the 10-calendar-day public review period.” (Elec. Code, § 13313, subds. (a), (b).) Mr. Bilodeau thus argues that the only opportunity to challenge his ballot designation occurred in connection with the printing of the primary election materials, and that any challenge to his general election ballot designation is now time-barred.

Mr. Bilodeau is incorrect. The ten-day review period and deadline for seeking a writ of mandate in Elections Code, section 13313, applies only to “the material referred to in Section 13307,” which is limited to candidate statements for local offices, and does not apply to ballot designations or ballot materials for statewide offices. (See Elec. Code sec. 13307, subd. (a)(1) [“Each candidate for nonpartisan elective office in any local agency, including any city, county, city and county, or district, may prepare a candidate’s statement on an appropriate form provided by the elections official”].)

Elections Code, section 13313, subdivision (b)(1), permits “any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held” or the elections official, within the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000206: SDAO vs SHIRLEY N. WEBER, PH.D. IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

ten-day public examination period, to seek a “writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidates statements to be amended or deleted.” (Elec. Code, § 13313, subd. (b)(1), italics added.) By contrast, Elections Code, section 13314, separately authorizes “[a]n elector” to seek a writ of mandate to correct “an error or omission” or “any neglect of duty” “in the placing of a name on, or in the printing of, a ballot, county voter information guide, state voter information guide, or other official matter.” (Elec.

Code, sec. 13314, subd. (a)(1).) Unlike a petition filed pursuant to Section 13313, there is no limitations period for a petition filed pursuant Section 13314, save for the required showing that “issuance of the writ will not substantially interfere with the conduct of the election.” (Elec. Code, § 13314, subd. (a)(2)(B).) Here, Petitioner is challenging Mr. Bilodeau’s ballot designation, not his candidate statement. Further, Mr. Bilodeau is a candidate for Member of the State Board of Equalization, which, as Mr.

Bilodeau acknowledges, is a statewide office whose candidates “file with the Secretary of State.” (Ex Parte App. para. 3.) The limitations period in Section 13313 therefore does not apply, as Petitioner here is not challenging the candidate statement of any candidate for a local office. Further, although Elections Code section 13107, subdivision (h), limits the process by which candidates can change their ballot designations after a primary election, nothing in that statute overrides the provisions for challenges to such ballot designations set forth in Elections Code section 13314.

The Court therefore has jurisdiction to determine the merits of the Petition. Relevant Law Ballot designations are authorized by Elections Code section 13107, which allows a candidate to include on the ballot “no more than three words designating either the current principal professions, vocations, or occupations of the candidate, or the principal professions, vocations, or occupations of the candidate during the calendar year immediately preceding the filing of nomination documents.” (Elec. Code, §13107, subd. (a)(3).)

The Secretary of State has adopted regulations further defining these statutory terms: The terms “profession,” “vocation,” or “occupation,” as those terms are used in Elections Code § 13107, subdivision (a)(3), are defined as follows: (1) “Profession” means a field of employment requiring special education or skill and requiring knowledge of a particular discipline. The labor and skill involved in a profession is predominantly mental or intellectual, rather than physical or manual.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000206: SDAO vs SHIRLEY N. WEBER, PH.D. IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

Recognized professions generally include, but are not limited to, law, medicine, education, engineering, accountancy, and journalism. Examples of an acceptable designation of a “profession,” as defined in Elections Code § 13107, subdivision (a)(3), include, but are not limited to, “attorney,” “physician,” “accountant,” “architect,” and “teacher.” (2) “Vocation” means a trade, a religious calling, or the work upon which a person, in most but not all cases, relies for his or her livelihood and spends a major portion of his or her time.

As defined, vocations may include, but are not limited to, religious ministry, child rearing, homemaking, elderly and dependent care, and engaging in trades such as carpentry, cabinetmaking, plumbing, and the like. Examples of an acceptable designation of a “vocation,” as defined in Elections Code § 13107, subdivision (a)(3), include, but are not limited to, “minister,” “priest,” “mother,” “father,” “homemaker,” “dependent care provider,” “carpenter,” “plumber,” “electrician,” and “cabinetmaker.” (3) “Occupation” means the employment in which one regularly engages or follows as the means of making a livelihood.

Examples of an acceptable designation of an “occupation,” as defined in Elections Code § 13107, subdivision (a)(3), include, but are not limited to, “rancher,” “restaurateur,” “retail salesperson,” “manual laborer,” “construction worker,” “computer manufacturing executive,” “military pilot,” “secretary,” and “police officer.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 20714, subd. (a).) “In order for a ballot designation ... to be deemed acceptable to the Secretary of State, it must accurately state the candidate’s principal professions, vocations or occupations[.]” (Cal.

Code Regs. tit., § 20714, subd. (c).) Further, “[e]ach proposed principal profession, vocation or occupation submitted by the candidate must be factually accurate ....” (Ibid.) The Secretary of State “shall not accept a designation” that would mislead the voters. (§ 13107, subd. (e)(1)), and “shall reject as unacceptable any proposed ballot designation” that fails to comply with either the Elections Code or the regulations promulgated thereunder. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 2 § 20716, subd. (a).) The Secretary of State thus “shall not accept” and “shall reject” a ballot designation that is not accurate and/or would mislead the voter.

Factual Background

As noted, Mr. Bilodeau is a candidate for Member of the Board of Equalization. Mr. Bilodeau was one of two candidates to advance from the June 2, 2026, Statewide Primary Election to the November 3, 2026, Statewide General Election. (Pet. ¶ 13.) During the primary election, Mr.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000206: SDAO vs SHIRLEY N. WEBER, PH.D. IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

Bilodeau’s ballot designation was “Taxpayer Association President.” (Ibid.) In support of this designation, Mr. Bilodeau stated on his Ballot Designation Worksheet: “I serve as the President and CEO of the Orange Taxpayers Association. I spend a significant amount of time advocating and am compensated in this position. I have advocated against tax measures and assisted in qualifying two ballot measures for this General election.” (Declaration of George Yin [Yin Decl.], Exh. 1.) Mr. Bildeau also provided two alternate ballot designations: “Taxpayer Advocate/Councilmember” and “City Councilmember/Engineer.” (Yin Decl. Exh. 1.) In support of these designations, Mr. Bildeau provided the following additional justifications: “I currently serve on the Orange City Council & was elected on 11/02/2022” and “I am a licensed Civil & Traffic Engineer in the State of California.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

Petitioner contends that although Mr. Bilodeau holds a leadership position within the non-profit corporation Orange Tax Payers Association[1], this is not any of his “current principal professions, vocations, or occupations” as required by Elections Code section 13107, subdivision (a)(3). Petitioner presents evidence that Mr. Bilodeau is employed by the County of Orange as a traffic engineer and earns an annual salary of approximately $185,000. (Yin Decl. Exhs. 3, 4.) Petitioner presents further evidence that Mr.

Bilodeau currently serves on the Orange City Council, an elected office. (Id. at Exh. 6.) Petitioner’s evidence indicates that Mr. Bilodeau also holds a position on the Board of Directors for the Orange County Water District. (Id. at Exh. 8.) Petitioner presents additional evidence that contrary to the statement on Mr. Bilodeau’s Ballot Designation Worksheet, Mr. Bilodeau does not receive compensation from the Orange Tax Payers Association. Petitioner submits Mr. Bilodeau’s Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) forms for his Board of Equalization candidacy, as well as other positions for which the forms are required, dating from January of 2022 through 2026. (Yin Decl.

Exh. 11-14.) None of these forms indicate income or other compensation from the Orange Tax Payer Association. (Ibid.) Further, Petitioner presents evidence that according to annual Treasurer’s Reports filed by the Orange Tax Payers Association with the California Attorney General’s Registry of Charities and Fundraisers, the Association reported $0 in expenses, compensation, or salary payable, as well as $0 received in revenue for years 2022, 2023, and 2024. In opposition, Mr. Bilodeau states in his declaration: My work as president of the Orange Tax Payers Association is more than a nominal or pro forma or titular position.

I have devoted hundreds of hours to that work. In that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000206: SDAO vs SHIRLEY N. WEBER, PH.D. IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

capacity, I have researched and written about virtually every tax and bond measure in Orange County for years. This research and advocacy has included other cities in Orange County and district bond measures throughout the county. (Declaration of Denis R. Bilodeau in support of Opposition [Bilodeau Decl.] ¶ 5.) Mr. Bilodeau also attaches twenty-four letters he “wrote in [his] capacity as president of the Orange Taxpayers Association in opposition to various measures,” and states, “Each letter required individualized research.” (Bilodeau Decl. ¶ 7.)

Mr. Bilodeau presents no evidence that he receives income from his work with the Orange Tax Payers Association. Mr. Bilodeau states: “Although I devotes [sic] hours to this every week there is as of yet little money in it. More recently, in 2026, the association has been able to pay small amount of money.” (Bilodeau Decl. ¶ 11.) Mr. Bilodeau does not state that he himself receives any money in return for his work with the association, and thus the evidence is insufficient to establish that he is compensated by the association.

Nor does Mr. Bilodeau appear to dispute that he is currently employed by the County of Orange as a traffic engineer. The evidence establishes that Mr. Bilodeau’s “current principal professions, vocations, or occupations” do not include “Taxpayer Association President” or “Taxpayer Advocate.” (Evid. Code, § 13107.) For purposes of ballot designations under Section 13107, “the profession, vocation, or occupation in question must in the usual case be one which provides a means of livelihood or produces income for its practitioner.” (Andal v.

Miller (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 358, 365.) By contrast, “Avocations” are identified in the Secretary of State’s regulations as unacceptable ballot designations: An avocation is a casual or occasional activity, diversion or hobby pursued principally for enjoyment and in addition to the candidate’s principal profession, vocation or occupation. Avocations may include, but are not limited to, hobbies, social activities, volunteer work (except as set forth in Section 20714.5 of this Chapter), and matters pursued as an amateur.

Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Bilodeau’s participation in the Orange Tax Payers Association constitutes his means of livelihood or produces income. Rather, the evidence indicates Mr. Bilodeau derives income from public employment and business investments. (Yin Decl. 3, 4, 11-14.) Mr. Bilodeau’s role with the Orange Tax Payers Association is thus more properly characterized as an avocation, as it appears to be volunteer work that is pursued in addition to the candidate’s principal profession, vocation, or occupation.

The fact that Mr. Bilodeau devotes significant time and effort to his volunteer advocacy work is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000206: SDAO vs SHIRLEY N. WEBER, PH.D. IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

not in dispute. [2] Nothing constrains Mr. Bilodeau from highlighting this work in his campaign communications or in other portions of the ballot materials provided to voters. Furthermore, it is true that a candidate’s “vocation” usually, but need not necessarily, provides the means of making a livelihood. (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 2, § 20714, subd. (a)(2) [“vocation” means “the work upon which a person, in most but not all cases, relies upon for his or her livelihood”].) Here, however, there is no basis to deviate from the usual understanding of “vocation,” as Mr.

Bilodeau has other, readily identifiable work from which he derives his livelihood. Elections Code section 13107, subdivision (a)(3), requires candidates invoking this subdivision to identify their current “professions, vocations, or occupations,” terms which have specific meanings and would not be understood by voters to include volunteer advocacy work. Permitting Mr. Bilodeau to characterize his “current principal profession, vocation, or occupation” as “Taxpayer Association President” or “Taxpayer Advocate” would be misleading to voters because it is not factually accurate.

Mr. Bilodeau’s role with the Orange Tax Payers Association is not “a field of employment requiring special education or skill and requiring knowledge of a particular discipline.” (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 2, § 20714, subd. (a)(1) [“Profession”]. Nor is it “a trade, religious calling, or the work upon which a person, in most but not all cases, relies upon for his or her livelihood and spends a major portion of his or her time” (id. at § 20714, subd. (a)(2) [“Vocation”], or “the employment in which one regularly engages or follows as the means of making a livelihood.” (Id. at 20714, subd. (a)(3).)

Rather, Mr. Bilodeau engages in other work in making his livelihood, such as employment as a county engineer and service as a city councilmember, and it is these “professions, vocations, or occupations” which Mr. Bilodeau must identify to the degree he elects a ballot designation under Elections Code section 13107, subd. (a)(3). The Petition will be granted as to Mr. Bilodeau’s proposed ballot designations “Taxpayer Association President” or “Taxpayer Advocate.” As Petitioner acknowledges, Mr. Bilodeau holds elected office as a city councilmember, and therefore may select a ballot designation under Elections Code, section 13107, subd. (a)(1): “Words designating the elective city, county, district, state, or federal office which the candidate holds at the time of filing the nomination documents to which the candidate was elected by vote of the people.” Petitioner also states that they do not challenge Petitioner’s second alternate ballot designation, “City Councilmember/Engineer.” Therefore, at the hearing, the parties shall be prepared to discuss whether the second alternate ballot designation is acceptable and/or provide additional acceptable ballot designations for the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000206: SDAO vs SHIRLEY N. WEBER, PH.D. IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

Court’s consideration.

Disposition

The Petition is granted. At the hearing, the Court will consider alternative ballot designations.

[1]The organization is inconsistently referred in the papers to as the “Orange Tax Payers Association” and the “Orange Taxpayers Association.” Both references are deemed to refer to the same entity. [2] Willard v. Kelly (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1049, cited by Mr. Bilodeau, is inapposite. First, that

decision reviewed a denial of an attorney fee award following the trial court’s denial of a petition challenging a ballot designation. (Id. at p. 1053.) The underlying judgment denying the petition was not appealed, and thus the appellate court did not consider whether the trial court properly upheld the challenged ballot designation. (Ibid.) Regardless, in that case, the candidate served in an appointed position as city Treasurer, while also holding other employment. The trial court held that the ballot designation “Orange Treasurer/CPA” was permissible, and it did not matter that the candidate “may have another job that also is a primary occupation[.]” (Id. at p. 1052.) Here, as discussed herein, the ballot designation “Taxpayer Association President” and “Taxpayer Advocate” do not describe any of Mr. Bilodeau’s primary occupations.