City and County of S.F. v. Jordan

THE COURT.

This is a petition for mandate directed against the secretary of state. It alleges that pursuant to law forty-eight questions and propositions, including proposed laws and constitutional amendments are to be submitted to the electors of the whole state at the ensuing general election to be held in November. It alleges that one of these propositions concerns the issue of San Francisco harbor bonds. (Stats. 1913, chap. 602, p. 1122.) This statute in terms provides that this bonding proposition shall be submitted to the electors of the state at the general election to be held in November, 1914, “and all ballots at said election shall have printed thereon and at the end thereof” the proposition in the alternative so to be voted on.

The petition further points out that subdivisions 3 and 9 of section 1197 of the Political Code declare (sub. 3) that “The order in which all questions and propositions (including proposed laws and constitutional amendments), which are to be submitted to the vote of the electors, shall appear upon the ballot shall be determined by the secretary of state,” and (subdivision 9) that “Whenever any question, proposition or constitutional amendment is to be submitted to the vote of the electors, there shall be printed at the right of the last column of names of candidates, another column of sufficient width, with voting squares in which such question, proposition or constitutional amendment shall be designated, which designation shall consist of a statement prepared as hereinbefore provided for and opposite such question, proposition or constitutional amendment to be voted on, in separate lines, the words ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ shall be printed.” Further it is shown that acting under the authority so vested in him by subdivisions 3 and 9 the secretary of state in arranging the order has placed this harbor improvement bond proposition the last upon the list of state-wide propositions under the designation of “No. 48.”

[315]

Next it is alleged that certain propositions of local consequence, municipal questions, are to be voted upon by the electors of San Francisco as well as by the electors of other municipalities, and that the secretary of state has failed to designate upon the official ballot the place or places which shall be assigned to such questions of local or municipal cognizance. It is then finally asserted that it is a duty of the secretary of state imposed upon him by subdivision 9 above quoted to make such designation and that it is his additional duty under the provisions of the Harbor Improvement Act above quoted to place this last named proposition at the very literal end of the ballot following all other propositions of state-wide or local consideration. Wherefore, it is contended that the place fixed upon the ballot by the secretary of state for this harbor improvement proposition is illegal, and that the secretary of state has failed in the performance of his duty in neglecting and refusing to fix and determine the place upon the ballot where municipal questions and propositions shall be inserted and printed.