Steinkamp v. Teglia

Opinion

CHANNELL, J.

In 1987, defendant and cross-appellant Roberta Cerri Teglia won reelection to a third term on the South San Francisco City Council. A city ordinance limits councilmembers to two consecutive terms. Plaintiff and appellant Warren Steinkamp contested the election, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate her election. (See Elec. Code, §§ 20080-20116.) The trial court ruled that the ordinance was invalid as preempted by state law, but declined to award Teglia attorney fees. Steinkamp appeals on the merits and Teglia cross-appeals on the denial of fees. We affirm the judgment.

[404]

I. Preemption

In his appeal, Steinkamp contends that the ordinance is not preempted by state law. A local ordinance is preempted by state law if “the subject matter has been so fully . . . covered by general law as to clearly indicate that it has become exclusively a matter of state concern,” or if “the subject matter has been partially covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate ... a paramount state concern will not tolerate further . . . local action . . . .”

(In re Hubbard

(1964) 62 Cal.2d 119, 127-128 [41 Cal.Rptr. 393, 396 P.2d 809], overruled on other grounds in

Bishop

v.

City of San Jose

(1969) 1 Cal. 3d 56, 63 [81 Cal.Rptr. 465, 460 P.2d 137];

Sports Committee Dist. 37 A.M.A., Inc.

v.

County of San Bernardino

(1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 155, 159 [169 Cal.Rptr. 652].)

South San Francisco’s ordinance limits a person’s eligibility for city council to two successive terms. Numerous Government Code provisions also affect eligibility for local offices in a general law city such as South San Francisco. (See Gov. Code, §§ 36501-36524.) State law provides that a person is not eligible to hold office as councilmember unless he or she is an elector at the time of assuming office and was a registered voter of the city at the time nomination papers are issued to the candidate.