Galindo v. Walter
Before: Kerrigan
Synopsis
Charter oe San Jose—Legislative Power—Delegation—Invalid Ordinance to Ascertain Desire oe Voters on Prohibition.—The municipal charter of the city of San Jose vests the whole legislative power in the common council, and contains no referendum provision. It cannot delegate its power to the electors, and is granted no power, expressly or by implication, to pass an ordinance merely to ascertain whether it is the desire of the voters that the common council shall by ordinance prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors.
Id.—Mandamus to Compel Removal op Question fkom Ballots.— Mandamus will lie to compel the city clerk to remove such question, submitted without legal authority, from the sample ballots sent to voters, and from the voting machines.
KERRIGAN, J.
This is an application for a peremptory writ of mandate, requiring respondent to prepare the sample ballot, to be mailed to the voters of the city of San Jose, for the election to be held there on the third Monday of May, 1908, and the voting machines to be used at that election, according to law, by omitting from said ballots and from the voting machines the following: “Shall the sale of intoxicating liquor as a beverage be allowed in the city of San Jose?” and the words “Yes” and “No” placed in such juxtaposition to said question as to enable the elector to vote for or against the matter referred to therein, the petitioner alleging that the respondent threatens and intends to place such words on said ballots and on said voting machines.
The city of San Jose is a municipal corporation operating under a freeholders’ charter, formed and adopted under the provisions of section 8 of article XI of the constitution, and approved by the legislature March 5, 1897 (Stats. 1897, p. 592).
April 15, 1908, the common council, passed and adopted an ordinance, which was approved by the mayor, by the terms of which the city clerk (respondent herein) was directed and authorized to place upon the ballot on each voting machine the above-quoted question, in order to submit to the voters at the said election the proposition embodied in such question.
There is no referendum provision in the San Jose charter, the legislative power being conferred exclusively on the com
[236]
mon council (article III, chapters 1 and 2). Such power cannot be delegated to the electors (1 Abbott on Municipal Law, see. 110, p. 195;
City of Oakland
v.
Carpenter et al.,
13 Cal. 544;
Ex parte Wall,
48 Cal. 279, [17 Am. Rep. 425]); nor does the ordinance in question attempt to do so, it being admitted by both petitioner and respondent that its object is merely in this way to ascertain whether it is the desire of the electors of the municipality that the common council shall by proper ordinance prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor. The question for decision then is, Has the common council the power to adopt this method for ascertaining the electors’ wishes
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)