Christy v. Board of Supervisors

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1870 No. No. 2,207Published

Before: Crockett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The Legislature has the authority to change the timing of elections for county supervisors and to extend the terms of incumbent officers, provided the total term does not exceed the four-year constitutional limit. Consequently, the Act of 1868 effectively repealed the prior election schedule, rendering the 1869 votes for those offices void.

Issues

Whether the Act of 1868, by extending the terms of incumbent supervisors, violated the constitutional requirement that such offices be elective.
Whether the Act of 1868 repealed the provisions of the Act of 1863 regarding the timing of elections for supervisors in the third, fourth, and fifth districts.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The duration of the terms of office, except as limited by the Constitution, is a matter of purely legislative discretion.”

“The Legislature has the power to define the duration of the term, provided it is not fixed by the Constitution, and is within the constitutional limitation of four years.”

“We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the Act of 1868 repealed so much of the Act of 1863 as authorized an election to be held for these three districts in 1869, and that the ballots cast at that election for Supervisors for said districts were void.”

Synopsis

Statutory Construction.—Repeal op a Statute.—A statute may be repealed by express words, or by necessary implication. The latter takes place whenever, by subsequent legislation, it becomes apparent that the Legislature did not intend the former Act to remain in force.

Idem.—Unconstitutional Provision.—If the Legislature attempt to incorporate in a statute, which it is within their undoubted power to enact, an unconstitutional provision, the only result would be that that portion of the Act would be void, but in no other respect would the validity of the Act be impaired.

Idem. — The Act of 1868 (providing for the election of Supervisors in Sacramento County), repealed so much of the Act of 1863 as authorized an election to be held for three of the districts in 1869, and the ballots cast at that election, for Supervisors for those three districts, were void.

Constitutional Law.—When the Constitution declares an office to be elective, it cannot be filled in any other mode.

Idem.—Term op Oppice.—But when office has been filled by an election, the Legislature may extend the term of the incumbent; provided the whole term, when extended, does not exceed the time limited by the Constitution.

Crockett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court:

. By an Act of the Legislature, passed in 1863, Sacramento County was divided into five districts, in each of which a Supervisor was to be elected, to hold his office for two years and until his successor should be elected and qualified. (Stats. 1863, jd. 503.) The elections were, therefore, to be biennial, and all the five offices were to become vacant at the same time. Under the provisions of this Act, five Supervisors were elected at the general election in 1863, whose terms. expired on the first Monday of October, 1865. At the general election of that year, their successors were elected, whose terms expired on the first Monday of October, 1867; at the general election in which year, Bailey, Meredith and Beckman were elected Supervisors for the third, fourth and fifth districts, respectively, and entered on their terms of office on the first Monday of October of that year. If the law had not been changed, their terms would have expired on the first Monday of October, 1869, and their successors would have been regularly elected at the general election of that year. But, in. March, 1868, the Legislature deemed it proper to provide that the term of office of the Supervisors should be four years, instead of two; and that all the Supervisors should not be elected at the same time. Hence, by an Act passed on the 28th of March, 1868, it was provided that “the Supervisors for the first and second districts should be elected at the general election to be held in 1869, and should hold their offices for four years, and until their successors were elected and qualified; and that the Supervisors for the third, fourth and fifth districts should be elected at the general election to be held in 1871, and should also hold their, offices for four years. It was further provided, that the present Supervisors from [9]the first and second districts shall hold office until the first Monday in October, 1869, and until their successors are duly elected and qualified; and the present Supervisors from the third, fourth and fifth districts shall hold office until the first Monday in October, 1871, and until their successors are duly elected and qualified.” (Stats. 1867-8, p. 478.) At the general election in 1869, Supervisors were duly elected under this Act for the first and second districts; and under the belief that the terms of Bailey, Meredith and Beckman would also expire" on the first Monday of October, 1869, some of the voters cast ballots for other persons to fill these offices for the third, fourth and fifth districts, for a term to commence on the said first Monday in October; but the Board of Supervisors refuses to canvass the votes cast for Supervisors for said third, fourth and fifth districts, on the ground that there was no vacancy in these offices; and that, under the Act of March 28, 1868, Bailey, Meredith and Beckman are entitled to remain in office until October, 1871, and consequently that no election for their successors could be lawfully held in 1869, nor until the general election in 1871.

Christy v. Board of Supervisors

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief