Magoon v. Heath

California Court of Appeal Nov 5, 1926 No. Docket No. 5255.Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a recall petition for city trustees was valid and sufficient, affirming the trial court's order to call a special election. The court determined that the recall statute should be liberally construed and that the clerk's certification of sufficiency was adequate.

Issues

Whether the recall petition met the statutory requirement of signatures from twenty-five percent of the voters.
Whether an officer elected at a special recall election is subject to recall under the statute.
Whether the city clerk's certificate of sufficiency was legally adequate.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The recall has been largely adopted as a fundamental part of our present governmental system and the statute should receive a liberal construction so as to promote the purposes for which it was enacted.”

“For the clerk to say that the petition is sufficient is equivalent to saying that it was signed by the requisite number of qualified electors and reciting the number required.”

[634]

THOMPSON, J.

This action was instituted in the superior court seeking a writ of mandate to compel the Board of Trustees of the City of Hermosa Beach to call a special election responsive to a petition for a recall of four of the city trustees. A trial was had and a peremptory writ was issued, directed to the trustees, commanding them to call a special election forthwith. From that judgment the defendants appealed and urge four grounds for its reversal.

The first position advanced by appellants is that the court did not find and there is no evidence to show that the recall petition was signed by qualified voters equal in number to at least twenty-five per cent of the entire vote cast within the city, for all candidates for the office which the incumbent sought to be removed occupies, as required by “An act to provide for the recall of elective officers of incorporated cities and towns,” Stats. 1911 (Extra Sess.), p. 128. The judgment recites, and appellants concede, that it was stipulated at the trial that of the four trustees sought to be recalled, two (Louis Heath and Morris Woodland) were elected at the general municipal election held in 1924, “and that the total vote cast for the office of members of the said Board of Trustees at said election was 1113,” and that another member (Frederick Finer) “was elected a member” at a special recall election held May 22, 1923, “and that the total votes cast at said election was 764,” and that the last of the four trustees (Frank M. Bra-vender) was elected at the general municipal election held April 10, 1922, “and that the total vote cast at said election was 695,” and further, that on April 7, 1925, the petition was filed with the city clerk of Hermosa Beach, to which there were appended “at least 280 valid signatures of qualified voters of said city.”

To sustain their contention, appellants urge that the entire vote cast means that number which would be arrived at by multiplying the number of candidates for the particular office by the number of votes received by each. It appears, however, from the stipulation entered into by counsel that this objection cannot now be raised. They have stipulated to the entire vote cast at each election and that the petition was signed by at least 280 qualified electors, which number is more than the twenty-five per cent required by the statute even when the largest vote is considered. While there is no

Magoon v. Heath

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief