Independence League v. Taylor
Before: Beatty, Angellotti
Synopsis
Election Commissioners of San Francisco—Party Casting Highest Vote for Governor—Nominee of Two Parties—Determination of Party Votes.—The mayor of the city and county of San Francisco in determining which political party had cast the highest vote for governor in such city and county at the last preceding general election, where the same person was the nominee of two regular parties for such office, for the purpose of making his appointments to the board of election commissioners in pursuance of section 1 of chapter I of article XI of the city charter, is not limited to a consideration of the evidence furnished by the official statement of the vote of the state at such general election compiled and issued by the secretary of state, in which the aggregate vote cast for such dual nominee was attributed to him under a single party designation.
Id.—Comparison with Votes Cast for Other Offices.—Where the same person is the nominee of two regular parties for the office of governor, there could not be found, in the strictly official records of the city and county of San Francisco, or of the secretary of state, any segregated statement of his party vote, and the mayor must resort to other than strictly official records in order to determine which of two or more parties with a common nominee for that office is entitled to representation on the board. In determining such question, the mayor should consult the records of the votes cast for other candidates of such parties who received only the nomination of their respective political party.
Id.—Mandamus against Mayor—Negligence of Officers of Party.— The duty imposed upon the mayor of complying with such provision of the city charter is one which concerns the public, and will be enforced by mandanms, irrespective of any default or negligence of the members or official representatives of the political party entitled to representation on the board.
Opinion — Beatty
BEATTY, C. J.
The opinion of the court overruling a general demurrer to the petition of the Independence League in this cause will be found reported in 154 Cal. 179, [97 Pac. 303]. It was there held, upon the facts confessed by the demurrer, that it was the plain statutory duty of the mayor to appoint two members of the Independence League as its representatives on the board of election commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco, and further, that the party as a corporate body could invoke any proper legal remedy for the enforcement of its statutory rights. There remained, to be tried, however, after the demurrer was disposed of, certain issues of fact raised by the answer of the mayor, wherein it was alleged in effect that at the general election of 1906 the Democratic party polled a larger vote in said city and county for its candidate, Theodore A. Bell, than the Independence League polled for its candidate, William H. Lang-
[296]
don. Other minor issues relating principally to questions of procedure were also presented, but they were practically eliminated at or prior to the hearing by agreement of the parties, and since there had been no question at any time as to the number of votes (10,413) received by Mr. Langdon in the city and county, the evidence at the hearing was limited to the question as to the number of Democratic votes cast for Mr. Bell. The evidence offered by the petitioner and admitted subject to any objection to its competency, was the testimony of the registrar of voters of San Francisco and another witness to the effect that the duplicate returns made to the registrar in pursuance of the requirements of section 1261 of the Political Code, show that of the votes cast for Bell at said election in said city and county 6,634 were from Democratic voters, and 4,979 were cast by voters of the Union Labor ticket. The fact that Mr. Bell had been regularly nominated for governor by both the Democratic party and the Union Labor party was admitted, and if we are to accept this evidence we are satisfied that the figures given show with substantial accuracy the number of Union Labor votes to be deducted from his total vote in order to determine whether the Democratic vote for Mr. Bell was equal to the vote for Langdon, the candidate of the Independence League. But the competency of this evidence is denied by the mayor who insists that the best and only competent evidence of the number of Democratic votes cast for Mr. Bell in San Francisco is that contained in an official "statement of the vote of California at the general election held November 6th, 1906,” which was compiled and issued by the secretary of state. This report embraces a detailed statement of the vote cast in every county of the state for each of the candidates for state offices, for representatives in Congress, for members of the legislature, and for and against proposed amendments to the constitution—it is, in short, a transcript of the record of the official canvass, and with respect to the office of governor it merely shows that in the city and county of San Francisco Theodore A. Bell (Democrat) received in the aggregate 11,650 votes and William H. Langdon (Independence League) 10,523 votes. It was by this report that the mayor was guided in making his appointments to the board of election commissioners, and the question to be decided here is reduced to
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)