Mundell v. Lyons

OLNEY, J.

—The legislature of 1919 passed an act (Stats.j 1919, p. 857) repealing sections 3909 to 3958, inclusive, of, the Political Code as they then existed and substituting other! sections in their place, and also adding eight new sections, numbered 3959 to 3966. The sections repealed established and defined the boundaries of the various counties of the state existing at the time of the adoption of the code. The new sections adopted purported to do the same thing with.' regard to such counties and also with regard to the eight additional counties subsequently created. In many instances-the boundaries under the new sections are the same as under, the old sections, or under the special acts applicable to par-' ticular counties. In 'other instances they are not. One boundary which was so changed was that between Los An-' geles and Ventura Counties.

The petitioner is a citizen entitled to be registered and to vote in the county of his residence. He resides in a territory formerly a part of Ventura County but by the change in boundary mentioned now made a part of Los Angeles County if the act of 1919 ,mentioned be valid. He applied to the respondent, the registrar of voters of the latter county, to be registered and was refused on the ground that he was not a resident of that county, but still a resident of Ventura County. He has now applied to this court for a writ of mandate to compel the respondent to register him. He is entitled to the writ if he is in fact a resident of Los Angeles County, and the sole question is whether he is or not, and this in turn depends wholly on whether the statute purporting to change the boundary between the two counties is valid.

[291]

The respondent claims that the statute in this particular is unconstitutional.

The constitutional provision applicable is the portion of article XI, section 3, of our state constitution reading: “The legislature, by general and uniform laws, may provide for the alteration of county boundary lines, and for the formation of new counties.” In their arguments before us it is assumed by counsel on both sides that this constitutional provision is one of limitation upon the power of the legislature and that the sole question is whether or not the statute of 1919 is a general and uniform law as the constitution requires.