Phelps v. Brennan

Opinion

THE COURT. William H. Phelps, a justice court judge in Shasta County, seeks a writ of mandate to compel respondent Shasta County Clerk to stay all proceedings relating to a June 8, 1976, election for the office of judge in each of three Shasta County justice court districts created by county ordinance 445-10 to become effective January 3, 1977. We conclude that because each such district will, on January 3, be a new district within the meaning of Government Code section 71080, subdivision (a), the initial judges must be appointed by the board of supervisors. (See § 71180.3.)1 We accordingly order that the writ issue.

[510]On January 5, 1976, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors adopted the ordinance reducing the number of justice court judicial districts in that county from eight to four. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, § 5; § 71040; In re Mize (1938) 11 Cal.2d 22, 24 [77 P.2d 472].) Only one of the former districts remained intact and no challenge is made to the succession to the judicial office of the justice court in that district. The territory which comprised the other seven districts was reapportioned to create the three districts for whose -judicial offices respondent-- seeks to conduct the challenged election. The terms of office of all eight of the incumbent judges expire on January 3, 1977, concurrently with the reduction in the number of judicial districts. (See § 71145.)

The determinative issue herein is whether each of the three judicial districts will, on January 3, be created as newly established districts or, as contended by respondent, be continued in existence as one of the former districts with additional territory annexed from one or more of four discontinued districts. If the three districts are deemed to be merely continued enlarged districts then, according to respondent, the succession to their judicial offices will be governed by the general election provisions forjudges of justice court districts. (See §§ 71141-71145, incl.) Respondent is immediately confronted, however, with the provisions of section 71080, subdivision (a), which is set out in the margin.2 That section purports to provide for the initial judicial office and succession thereto upon the “establishment” of a justice court. Respondent argues that section 71080 is not or will not be applicable because there will be no “establishment” of a justice court in any of the three judicial districts on January 3, 1977.

Section 71080 states a rule of judicial succession in the case of superseded inferior courts. It is, of course, statewide in its application and must be given uniform effect. It is a part of a comprehensive legislative plan intended to implement Constitutional Amendment No. 49 (Stats. 1949, res. ch. 153, ch. 1511) providing for the consolidation of