Lee v. Superior Court
Before: Files
FILES, P. J. This proceeding was commenced on August 14, 1968, by a “petition for writ of prohibition” asking this court to overturn an order of the superior court made on August 12, 1968, hi a proceeding entitled Recall Reagan Committee, Inc. et al. v. Lee, et al., No. 936777.
[50]In view of the necessity for a prompt determination of the important issue, this court ordered the original superior court file transmitted here, together with a reporter’s transcript of the proceedings of August 12, and set the case for hearing on August 20. After considering the record and the law
and the arguments of all counsel appearing in this proceeding, the court is of the opinion that the order of August 12 exceeded the jurisdiction of the superior court and should be set aside.
The facts will be stated briefly. The real parties in interest (hereinafter called the Committee) did on July 31, 1968, file with the petitioner, Ray B. Lee, as Registrar of Voters, a petition for the recall of Governor Reagan, pursuant to article XXIII, section 1, of the California Constitution, and sections 27000-27004 of the Elections Code. The Constitution provides: “Any recall petition may be presented in sections, but each section shall contain a full and accurate copy of the title and text of the petition. Each signer shall add to his signature his place of residence, giving the street and number, if such exist. His election precinct shall also appear on the paper after his name. ’ ’
On the petition filed July 31, precinct numbers were omitted' for some of the signers. The Committee asked the registrar for permission to add precinct numbers after the petition had been filed. The registrar refused upon the ground that the law did not authorize any such addition to the petition after it had been filed. It was and is the position of the registrar that 'he will permit citizens to use the facilities of his office to ascertain the precinct numbers of the signers and enter such numbers on the petition before it is filed, but not afterwards.
The cited section of the Constitution requires that within 20 days after the filing of the petition the registrar shall determine from his records what number of qualified voters have signed it, and, upon completion of his examination, submit to the Secretary of State a certificate showing the result of his examination.
On July 31 the Committee filed in the superior court a complaint asking that court to order the registrar to allow the Committee to add precinct numbers to the petition. On August 12, after a hearing, the superior court ordered that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue. That writ contains the following language:
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)