Citizens Against a New Jail v. Board of Supervisors

[561]

Opinion

DRAPER, P. J.

Respondent board has refused to submit an initiative petition to vote of the people on the ground that the subject-matter is beyond the scope of the initiative process. The proposed initiative would require renovation of the present Santa Cruz County jail, rather than construction of a new jail. Petitions were filed with the county clerk who certified the signatures of the required number of electors. This certification was filed with the board of supervisors July 13, 1976. Thereafter, apparently on August 10, the board, on advice of the county counsel, refused to place the issue on the ballot for the next general election and has refused to adopt the proposed ordinance.

Statute (Elec. Code, § 3711) requires that upon the filing of such an initiative petition so signed, the board may adopt the proposed ordinance without change or, if it does not, “the ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted by the board to the voters at the next general election.” This duty to submit the issue is mandatoiy and ministerial (see

Blotter

v.

Farrell,

42 Cal.2d 804, 812-813 [270 P.2d 481] [statute governing city councils]; 19 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 94). Like the county clerk’s duty of ascertaining procedural compliance, it must be performed unless “directed to do otherwise by. a court on a compelling showing that a proper case has been established for interfering with the initiative power.”

(Farley

v.

Healey,

67 Cal.2d 325, 327 [62 Cal.Rptr. 26, 431 P.2d 650];

McFadden

v.

Jordan,

32 Cal.2d 330, 332 [196 P.2d 787];

Gayle

v.