Election Integrity Project California v. Lunn CA2/6

Filed 1/3/25 Election Integrity Project California v. Lunn CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

ELECTION INTEGRITY 2d Civ. No. B333507 PROJECT CALIFORNIA, INC. (Super. Ct. No. 56-2020- et al., 00540781-CU-MC-VTA) (Ventura County) Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

MARK A. LUNN, as Ventura County Clerk-Recorder, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.

The Election Integrity Project California, Inc. (EIPC) brought an action for declaratory relief against Mark A. Lunn, the Ventura County Clerk-Recorder, Registrar of Voters. EIPC observers of vote-by-mail ballot processing and counting contend they were denied their rights under Election Code1 section 15105. They claim that Lunn restricted the observers to places where

1 All statutory references are to the Election Code.

they could not adequately observe the vote by mail processing and counting. The trial court found for Lunn. We affirm. FACTS Lunn is responsible for administering all elections held in Ventura County. Among Lunn’s responsibilities is to ensure that election observers can observe the processing of vote-by-mail return envelopes and ballots, while preventing the possibility of an observer tampering with the ballots. Lunn required the observers to remain in designated areas while observing the election process. Photographs show the areas marked off in tape. Lunn personally stood in every designated observation area and determined for himself that the areas were sufficiently close to allow observers to see the process and whether the election workers were following established procedures. Martin Cobos is the election division’s operation’s manager. Cobos went into each observation area while the election process was taking place and confirmed that the designated areas were sufficiently close to allow observers to observe the process. DISCUSSION I. Mootness Lunn points out that EIPC’s declaratory relief action concerns the 2020 and 2021 elections. He argues declaratory relief is a prospective remedy, and not a vehicle to address past alleged wrongs. (Citing Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 982, 1014.) But the issues involved here — the rights of the election observers and the integrity of elections — are of continuing public interest. Where the issues involved in an appeal are of continuing public interest, we may decide the appeal even where the appeal might technically be moot.