Dozier v. Board of Supervisors

PARKER, J.,

pro tem.

This is a

mandamus

proceeding to compel the Board of Supervisors of the County of Shasta to redistrict said county into supervisorial districts because of gross inequality of said districts in population. The court below denied the writ and petitioner appeals.

It is conceded that in 1921 the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance, dividing the county into supervisorial districts, which ordinance is still in effect. Further it is conceded that the districts by said ordinance established are not as nearly equal in population as may be.

Section 4029 of the Political Code reads as follows: "The Board of Supervisors may, by a two-thirds vote of the members of said Board, change the boundaries of any or all of the supervisor districts of a county. Said districts shall be as nearly equal in population as may be. The boundaries of no supervisor district shall at any time be changed in such manner as to affect the term of office of any supervisor who has been elected and whose term of office has not expired. No change in the boundaries of any supervisor district shall be made within ninety days next preceding a general election.”

The real question here presented is concerning the power of the court to compel by mandate a redistricting of the County of Shasta into supervisorial districts equal in population. A complete answer is to be found in the case of

Peterson

v.

Board of Supervisors,

93 Cal. App. 490 [269 Pac. 743]. We need not quote from the language of the case, but adopt the opinion in its entirety. Suffice to say here that the court there held that

mandamus

does not lie.

The plaintiff-petitioner seeks to have declared void the former ordinances of the supervisors dating back to 1904, by which ordinances supervisorial districts were established. It is contended that in all and each of these said ordinances section 4029 of the Political Code was disregarded and inequality of population within the respective districts was created.

[748]