What is a Ballot Initiative?

Useful Rulings on Ballot Initiative

Rulings on Ballot Initiative

1-25 of 659 results

CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA V. PRESTON

As a result, local regulation of parking meters may not be governed through the initiative process. (Ibid.) However, the people may resort to the referendum process to invalidate measures concerning municipal governance of metered parking. (Ibid.) Vehicle Code section 22508 was amended in 1961 to confirm the availability of the referendum process to overturn local parking ordinances.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PUTNEY V. GARIETZ, ETC.

Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 652 [substantial compliance test serves the long-established judicial policy of liberally construing statutory and constitutional requirements governing initiative and referendum petitions to protect the voters� initiative and referendum rights.]) � A similar situation was addressed in Hayward Area Planning Association v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 53 with respect to the analogous language required for referendums.

  • Hearing

JOSE VILLANUEVA VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD ET AL

legible so as to permit correlation with the subject voter registration affidavit and/or initiative petition signature.

  • Hearing

SAVE LAFAYETTE VS. CITY OF LAFAYETTE

Thus, Petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandate commanding the City to place a duly certified initiative on the ballot, unless the City makes a “compelling showing” that the referendum, if passed, would approve of a zoning ordinance that is inconsistent with the City’s general plan. The burden of establishing such invalidity falls squarely on the City.

  • Hearing

GLEASON VS. DEBRA BOWEN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Elections Code section 18650 provides that “[n]o one shall knowingly or willfully permit the list of signatures on an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to be used for any purpose other than qualification of the initiative or referendum measure or recall question for the ballot, except as provided in Section 6253.5 of the Government Code.”

  • Hearing

GLEASON VS. DEBRA BOWEN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Elections Code section 18650 provides that “[n]o one shall knowingly or willfully permit the list of signatures on an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to be used for any purpose other than qualification of the initiative or referendum measure or recall question for the ballot, except as provided in Section 6253.5 of the Government Code.”

  • Hearing

CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS MALAND

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE REGARDING SDSU INITIATIVE; COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL DECLARATION THAT THE PROPOSED SDSU WEST INITIATIVE CANNOT LAWFULLY BE SUBMITTED TO VOTERS by petitioner City of San Diego is DENIED, without prejudice. Requests for Judicial Notice are granted. Objections are overruled. Courts have described the initiative and referendum as articulating one of the most precious rights of our democratic process.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS MALAND

"The electorate has the power to initiate legislative acts, but not administrative ones: "While it has been generally said that the reserved power of initiative and referendum accorded by article IV, section 1, of the Constitution is to be liberally construed to uphold it whenever reasonable [citations], it is established beyond dispute that the power of referendum may be invoked only with respect to matters which are strictly legislative in character [citations].

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS MALAND

"The electorate has the power to initiate legislative acts, but not administrative ones: "While it has been generally said that the reserved power of initiative and referendum accorded by article IV, section 1, of the Constitution is to be liberally construed to uphold it whenever reasonable [citations], it is established beyond dispute that the power of referendum may be invoked only with respect to matters which are strictly legislative in character [citations].

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MOLLOY VS VU

The Elections Code "does not require an initiative petition to contain all the information an informed voter would want. It requires only the text of the measure proposed to be enacted." (We Care--Santa Paula v. Herrera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 387, 391; see also Lin, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 415, 422.) Petitioner also argues that the heading of the referendum petition is inaccurate and confusing.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS MALAND

"The electorate has the power to initiate legislative acts, but not administrative ones: "While it has been generally said that the reserved power of initiative and referendum accorded by article IV, section 1, of the Constitution is to be liberally construed to uphold it whenever reasonable [citations], it is established beyond dispute that the power of referendum may be invoked only with respect to matters which are strictly legislative in character [citations].

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS MALAND

"The electorate has the power to initiate legislative acts, but not administrative ones: "While it has been generally said that the reserved power of initiative and referendum accorded by article IV, section 1, of the Constitution is to be liberally construed to uphold it whenever reasonable [citations], it is established beyond dispute that the power of referendum may be invoked only with respect to matters which are strictly legislative in character [citations].

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS MALAND

"The electorate has the power to initiate legislative acts, but not administrative ones: "While it has been generally said that the reserved power of initiative and referendum accorded by article IV, section 1, of the Constitution is to be liberally construed to uphold it whenever reasonable [citations], it is established beyond dispute that the power of referendum may be invoked only with respect to matters which are strictly legislative in character [citations].

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BURBANK TENANTS RIGHTS COMMITTEE, A NONPROFIT INCORPORATED POLITICAL COMMITTEE, ET AL. VS ZIZETTE MULLINS, , IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS BURBANK CITY CLERK, ET AL.

“[C]onstitutional and charter provisions must be construed liberally in favor of the people's right to exercise the reserved powers of initiative and referendum. The initiative and referendum are not rights ‘granted the people, but ... power[s] reserved by them. Declaring it 'the duty of the courts to jealously guard this right of the people' [citation], the courts have described the initiative and referendum as articulating 'one of the most precious rights of our democratic process' [citation].

  • Hearing

GLEASON VS. DEBRA BOWEN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

If the addresses are different, or if the petition or paper does not specify the residence address, or, in the case of an initiative or referendum petition, if the information specified in Section 9020 is not contained in the petition, the affected signature shall not be counted as valid.

  • Hearing

GLEASON VS. DEBRA BOWEN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The change applies only to vote-by-mail ballots; the changes do not apply to signatures on referendum/initiative petitions. Further, in the absence of a clear expression of intent to apply the amendment retroactively, the amendment is presumed to operate prospectively. (Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Sav. Asso. v. Dennison (1935) 8 Cal.App.2d 173, 177.) In Lemons v.

  • Hearing

OAK HILL PARK CO. VS. THE CITY OF ANTIOCH

The Scope Of Initiative And Referendum. Oak Hill argues that the Richland Initiative exceeded the scope of initiative and referendum. (See, Cal. Const., Art. II, § 8.) This is because the powers of initiative and referendum apply only to legislative acts, and do not extend to administrative acts.

  • Hearing

ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE PLANNING V. EL DORADO COUNTY

This presumption rests on the fact that the 1911 amendment to the California Constitution conferring the right of initiative and referendum was “[d]rafted in light of the theory that all power of government ultimately resides in the people” and that “the amendment speaks of initiative and referendum, not as a right granted the people, but as a power reserved by them.” (Associated Home Builders, supra, 18 Cal.3d 582, 591, 135 Cal.Rptr. 41, 557 P.2d 473, fn. omitted.)

  • Hearing

GLEASON VS. DEBRA BOWEN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Properly construed, § 105 means that the signature shall not be counted as valid if (i) the addresses are different, or (ii) the petition or paper does not specify the residence address, or (iii) in the case of an initiative or referendum petition, the information specified in § 9020 is not contained in the petition. Any one of those three reasons is sufficient to disqualify the signature. The court denies the motion to strike Paragraph 14.

  • Hearing

GLEASON VS. DEBRA BOWEN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Properly construed, § 105 means that the signature shall not be counted as valid if (i) the addresses are different, or (ii) the petition or paper does not specify the residence address, or (iii) in the case of an initiative or referendum petition, the information specified in § 9020 is not contained in the petition. Any one of those three reasons is sufficient to disqualify the signature. The court denies the motion to strike Paragraph 14.

  • Hearing

GLEASON VS. DEBRA BOWEN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

For example, subject to specified exceptions,4 certain information in the affidavit of voter registration (i.e., name, home address, telephone number, email address) is provided to candidates for office, committees for/against an initiative or referendum, and to other persons for election, scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purposes.”5 (See Cal. Elec.

  • Hearing

GLEASON VS. DEBRA BOWEN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

For example, subject to specified exceptions,4 certain information in the affidavit of voter registration (i.e., name, home address, telephone number, email address) is provided to candidates for office, committees for/against an initiative or referendum, and to other persons for election, scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purposes.”5 (See Cal. Elec.

  • Hearing

GREATER SGV SAFE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION VS CITY OF EL MONTE, ET AL.

First, Petitioner has not shown that the initiative was defective pursuant to its first and second causes of action. Second, Petitioner has presented insufficient evidence to show that the initiative is a “sham.” The Elections Code empowers voters to circulate an initiative petition in order to create new laws. This is precisely what the initiative proponents did, and the California Supreme Court has condoned this method of avoiding CEQA review.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

OAK HILL PARK VS. CITY OF ANTIOCH

County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 787, fn. 9 [“[I]t is well established that any legislative act may be enacted by initiative and may be subject to referendum, regardless of whether that act is denominated an ‘ordinance" or ‘resolution.’”].) Whether a voter initiative may adopt an ordinance or resolution is a slightly different question than whether the City Council may adopt an initiative by ordinance or resolution.

  • Hearing

BURBANK TENANTS RIGHTS COMMITTEE, A NONPROFIT INCORPORATED POLITICAL COMMITTEE, ET AL. VS ZIZETTE MULLINS, , IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS BURBANK CITY CLERK, ET AL.

Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, proponents of a referendum “‘relied on a practice that not only had been accepted by the government entities charged with enforcing the referendum procedures but also had never been subjected to a challenge from any source.’ … In light of the ‘unique and unusual circumstances’ of the case, the Supreme Court concluded that the ‘failure to comply’ with the certain statute would not ‘be deemed to render the referendum petitions invalid.’” (Preserve Shorecliff Homeowners v.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 27     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.