Wall v. Municipal Court

Opinion

WALLIN, Acting P. J.

Thomas Wall appeals the denial of his petition for writ of mandate, which challenged the constitutionality of the residency requirement for municipal court traffic trial commissioners. We find the requirement constitutional and affirm.

In March 1988, Wall applied for the position of traffic trial commissioner with the Orange County Municipal Court. The court notified him that although he had been an attorney in good standing with the State Bar for more than five years, his application was being rejected because he was not a resident of Orange County. The position was subsequently filled.

Wall filed a petition for writ of mandate in the trial court, contending the residency requirement for traffic trial commissioner is unconstitutional. The petition was denied, and Wall appealed. This court dismissed the appeal as moot because the position had been filled before Wall instituted his mandamus action. Wall then petitioned the California Supreme Court, claiming the appeal was not moot under the authority of

Zeilenga

v.

Nelson

(1971) 4 Cal.3d 716 [94 Cal.Rptr. 602, 484 P.2d 578], The Supreme Court agreed and directed this court to set aside its order of dismissal and consider the appeal on its merits. Having done so, we conclude the residency requirement passes constitutional muster.

Government Code section 72450 authorizes a municipal court to appoint a traffic trial commissioner from a list of applicants openly recruited by

[249]

advertisement, each of whom must possess the qualifications of a municipal court judge. Municipal court judges are required to be “residents eligible to vote in the judicial district

1

... in which they are elected or appointed for a period of at least 54 days prior to the date of their election or appointment.” (Gov. Code, § 71140.)

Wall primarily contends the residency requirement violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.