Spencer v. Superior Court CA4/2 (2022) · DecisionDepot
Spencer v. Superior Court CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Aug 26, 2022 No. E079205Unpublished
Filed 8/26/22 Spencer v. Superior Court CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
REBECCA SPENCER etc. et al.,
Petitioner, E079205
v. (Super.Ct.No. CVRI2201438)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
Respondent;
AMY BARAJAS,
Real Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Daniel A. Ottolia,
Judge. Petition granted.
Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, Ronak N. Patel, Bruce G. Fordon and
Kathryn E. Romo, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
1
INTRODUCTION
Petitioners Rebecca Spencer and the Riverside County Registrar of Voters
(collectively “the County”) seek a peremptory writ of mandate directing respondent
Superior Court of Riverside County to vacate its April 19, 2022 order that required the
‘honest,’ ‘dishonest,’ ‘corrupt,’ ‘lazy,’ and the like.” (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 2, § 20716,
subd. (e).)
The error under these authorities is clear. The court-ordered ballot designation of
“Senior Deputy District Attorney” violates Elections Code section 13107,
subdivision (b)(3), because it does not include Riverside County. It violates Elections
Code section 13107, subdivision (e)(2), and Code of Regulations, title 2, section 20176,
subdivision (e), because it uses the term “senior,” a laudatory adjective that suggests
evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications. The designation is also potentially
misleading in violation of Elections Code section 13107, subdivision (e)(1), because it
implies that Barajas has more experience than her opponent, another Deputy District
Attorney, which may or may not be the case.
“[T]he purpose of the Elections Code . . . is ‘to insure the accurate designation of
the candidate upon the ballot in order that an informed electorate may intelligently elect
one of the candidates.’ ” (Andrews v. Valdez (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 492, 495.) The
appropriate place for candidates to distinguish themselves from their opponents is the
candidate statement, not the ballot designation. (See Elec. Code, § 13307, subd. (a)(1) [a
5
candidate statement for nonpartisan elective office “may include the name, age, and
occupation of the candidate and a brief description, of no more than 200 words, of the
candidate’s education and qualifications expressed by the candidate himself or herself”].)
DISPOSITION
Having followed the procedures and given the notice described in Palma v. U.S.
Industrial Fasteners, Inc., supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 178, we deem this an appropriate matter
for issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance. The error is clear, and acceleration
of the normal process is warranted because the issue impacts the upcoming general
election. (See Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1240-1241.)
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside
County to vacate its April 19, 2022 order directing the County Registrar of Voters to print
primary election ballots that include candidate Amy Barajas’s designation of “Senior
Deputy District Attorney.”
Consistent with Elections Code section 13107, subdivision (f), the County
Registrar of Voters shall give Amy Barajas three days from the date of the filing of this
decision, excluding weekends and state holidays, to accept or reject the County’s
previously recommended ballot designation of “County of Riverside Deputy District
Attorney.”
Petitioners are DIRECTED to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate
issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with
proof of service on all parties. Petitioners to recover their costs. This decision shall be
final as to this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)
6
The stay issued by this court on August 9, 2022 is lifted.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
SLOUGH J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the ballot designation 'Senior Deputy District Attorney' is impermissible because it violates Elections Code requirements by omitting the county name, using a laudatory adjective, and potentially misleading voters.
Issues
Whether the ballot designation 'Senior Deputy District Attorney' complies with Elections Code section 13107 and California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 20716.