“The right of referendum preserves the opportunity by the governed to respond collectively to, and change, the actions of those who govern.” (Kuhs v. Super. Ct. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 966, 974.)
The origins of section 3753 can be traced to former Political Code section 4058 as enacted and amended at an extra session in 1911. In pertinent part, that section required a referendum petition be signed "by qualified electors of the county equal to ten percent of the entire vote cast therein for all candidates for Governor of the state at the last preceding general election at which a Governor was voted for." This statutory definition obviously does not include a gubernatorial primary.
In 1939 the Legislature passed “An act to establish an Elections Code, thereby consolidating and revising the law relating to elections....” (1939 Stats., ch. 26, at 49.) In setting out the requirements for a valid referendum petition, the new Elections Code eliminated the reference to a "general election" and adopted the language presently under review herein. It required the petition contain "at least 10 percent of the entire vote cast within the county for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election." (Sylva v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 648, 652 citing Former sections 1652 and 3753.)
The effective date of an ordinance must be suspended and the legislative body must reconsider the ordinance if a petition protesting the adoption of the ordinance is:
(Elec. Code Sec. 9237.)
Each section of the referendum petition shall contain:
(Elec. Code Sec. 9238(b).)
The petition sections shall also be designed so that each signer shall personally affix all of the following:
(Elec. Code Sec. 9020(a)(incorporated by Sec. 9238(b)).)
In addition, each section shall have attached thereto the declaration of the person soliciting the signatures (i.e., the circulator). (Sec. 9238(c).) The declaration must certify under penalty of perjury, inter alia:
(Elec. Code Sec. 104 (incorporated by Sec. 9022 and Sec.9238(c)).)
Such declarations are prima facie evidence that the signatures are genuine and that the persons signing are qualified voters. (Sec. 9022(d) (incorporated by Sec. 9238(c)).) Unless and until otherwise proven upon official investigation, it shall be presumed that the petition presented contains the signatures of the requisite number of qualified voters. (Id.)
Elections Code section 3753 requires referendum petitions be filed prior to the effective date of the challenged ordinance:
“If a petition protesting against the adoption of an ordinance is presented to the board of supervisors prior to the effective date of the ordinance, the ordinance shall be suspended and the supervisors shall reconsider the ordinance. The petition shall be signed by voters of the county equal in number to at least 10 percent of the entire vote cast within the county for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election.” (Kuhs v. Super. Ct. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 966, 969-70.)
Elections Code section 3751 provides: “Except an ordinance granting a franchise, the following ordinances shall take effect immediately:
(Kuhs, supra, 201 Cal.App.3d at 970.)
“A referendum and an initiative do not have the same effect. A referendum suspends the effect of an ordinance until the issue is resolved by the voters at the next election. An initiative does not become effective until passed by the voters. Availability of an initiative does not remedy denial of the right to a referendum.” (Kuhs, supra, 201 Cal.App.3d at 971 citing Beck v. Piatt (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 611, 617.)
In construing Elections Code section 3751 we are in a very real sense construing the scope of the right of referendum as it pertains to county measures; if the ordinance becomes effective on the 30th day then proponents of a referendum in reality have but 29 days in which to qualify their petition. Thus, we must be guided in our construction of Elections Code section 3751 by the general rule that referendum provisions are to be construed liberally in favor of the right of referendum. (Kuhs v. Super. Ct. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 966, 972-73 citing Geiger v. Board of Supervisors (1957) 48 Cal.2d 832, 839; see also Beck v. Piatt, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d at 616.)
After the ordinances were passed, Plaintiffs circulated 22 referendum petitions to Commerce citizens, each entitled “Referendum Against an Ordinance Passed by the City Council,” and gathered the requisite number of signatures required to present each petition to the City Council. (Compl. ¶¶ 41-42.) Plaintiffs allege that the City Clerk improperly rejected all the petitions. (Compl. ¶¶ 43-44.)
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
The following constitute the procedural requirements for the implementation of mediation and factfinding on County Charter amendments or other matters subject to referendum: 1. All proposals under this section must be submitted to the other party at least 90 calendar days prior to the final date to place the measure on the ballot. 2.
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 868, 874 [city acting in representative capacity to challenge a referendum petition].) Plaintiff argues that the law is well settled that the Estate is entitled to recovery of the funds because the check was deposited without an indorsement. He argues that the Estate is entitled to restitution from U.S. Bank for making the deposit without a proper indorsement, and that U.S. Bank has failed to show that it acted in good faith.
San Luis Obispo County, CA
“The local electorate's right to initiative and referendum is guaranteed by the California Constitution, article II, section 11, and is generally co-extensive with the legislative power of the local governing body.” (DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 775.) “[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.
Los Angeles County, CA
In either case, however, “the Attorney General is afforded considerable latitude” because “drafting a title and summary can be a difficult task where multiple reasonable interpretations of the referendum . . . are possible.” (Id. at 1452-53.) Accordingly, “If reasonable minds may differ as to its sufficiency, the title and summary prepared by the Attorney General must be upheld.” (Id. at 1453.)
Sacramento County, CA
In either case, however, "the Attomey General is afforded considerable latitude" because "drafting a title and summary can be a difficult task where multiple reasonable interpretations of the referendum . . . are possible." {Id. at 1452-53.) Accordingly, " I f reasonable minds may differ as to its sufficiency, the title and summary prepared by the Attomey General must be upheld." {Id. at 1453.)
Sacramento County, CA
The director may at his own discretion or upon a proper showing, extend the referendum for a period not to exceed 30 days. The text thus distinguishes between the hearing that precedes the referendum and the referendum itself The referendum is the confldential vote to approve or disapprove a proposed pooling plan. The hearing occurs beforehand pursuant to procedures outlined in Section 62705. Section 62757, however, does not refer to Section 62705.
Sacramento County, CA
the commencement ofthe referendum period by all producers who voted in the referendum approve the plan.
Sacramento County, CA
The Third District Court of Appeal denied the challenge, finding that a referendum was an inappropriate vehicle for the challenge, and noted that essential governmental functions should not be “seriously impaired by the referendum process.” (Id. at 301.) The Court found this reasoning applied to a “local enactment adopting new water rates in order to keep providing water services which are clearly essential functions.”
Sacramento County, CA
The Third District Court of Appeal denied the challenge, finding that a referendimi was an inappropriate vehicle for the challenge, and noted that essential governmental functions should not be "seriously impaired by the referendum process." (Id. at 301.) The Court found this reasoning applied to a "local enactment adopting new water rates in order to keep providing water services which are clearly essential functions."
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
One referendum would not allow for a cannabis business at the Premises. Lang Decl. ¶7. Due to the potential change in policy and without the $ 2 million, Lang’s company was not yet created. Lang Decl. ¶8. Chatsworth and Lang, as an individual, entered a fictional Lease for Chatsworth to secure funding from the bank. Lang Decl. ¶8. They did not intend the Lease to be a valid contract and intended to later amend it to form one. Lang Decl. ¶8, Ex. A.
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
The state constitutional right of initiative or referendum is “one of the most precious rights of our democratic process.” [Citation.] These powers are reserved to the people, not granted to them. Thus, it is our duty to “ ‘ “jealously guard” ’ ” these powers and construe the relevant constitutional provisions liberally in favor of the people’s right to exercise the powers of initiative and referendum. [Citation.]
El Dorado County, CA
The state constitutional right of initiative or referendum is “one of the most precious rights of our democratic process.” [Citation.] These powers are reserved to the people, not granted to them. Thus, it is our duty to “ ‘ “jealously guard” ’ ” these powers and construe the relevant constitutional provisions liberally in favor of the people’s right to exercise the powers of initiative and referendum. [Citation.]
El Dorado County, CA
After the ordinances were passed, Plaintiffs circulated 22 referendum petitions to Commerce citizens, each entitled “Referendum Against an Ordinance Passed by the City Council,” and gathered the requisite number of signatures required to present each petition to the City Council. (Compl. ¶¶ 41-42.) Plaintiffs allege that the City Clerk improperly rejected all the petitions. (Compl. ¶¶ 43-44.)
Other
Intellectual Property
Richard E. Rico or Jon R. Takasugi
Los Angeles County, CA
Similarly, the City points out that the Elections Code provided Petitioner with a workaround — a referendum petition. “If a petition protesting the adoption of an ordinance … is submitted to the elections official of the legislative body of the city … and is signed by not less than 10 percent of the voters of the city …, the effective date of the ordinance shall be suspended and the legislative body shall reconsider the ordinance.” (Elec. Code § 9237.)
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Contra Costa County, CA
In November 1993, after the Development Agreement had already gone into effect, the City adopted Proposition L through a referendum, which added section .503-K-K to the City’s Municipal Code. (Pomona Municipal Code § .503-K-K, Editor's Note.) Section .503-K-K states, in relevant part, that no new or structurally altered offsite billboards shall be permitted within the City. The first term of the Development Agreement ended in 2004 but was automatically extended for a subsequent 10-year term. (SAC ¶ 16.)
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
In Walmart, by successfully opposing Walmart’s petition for writ of mandate plaintiff protected the rights of thousands of voters to decide an issue by a referendum in accordance with state law. And in City of Sacramento the plaintiff successfully prevented the city from imposing the cost of building schools on its citizens without a vote by those citizens.
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
The initiative had three basic parts: one would have made the selection of public parking sites the subject of popular referendum, a second would have abrogated local officials’ authority to acquire public parking sites through eminent domain, and a third would have halted a particular parking project. (Id., pp. 819-820, 830.) The court held that the initiative was invalid because the transfer of power it contemplated could not be achieved through an initiative ordinance.
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Contra Costa County, CA
Real Parties are registered voters and proponents of the proposed referendum. The petition challenges the validity of the referendum petition, as well as activities associated with gathering signatures for the referendum petition – activity within the protections of CCP 425.16. In the second step, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a "probability of prevailing" based on admissible evidence. (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384; City of Santa Monica v.
Administrative
Writ
San Diego County, CA
Certain citizens of the City, including Petitioner filed a petition and referendum against the adoption of the ordinance. The City was then required to either repeal the RSO or present it as a referendum to all of the voters. On February 26, 2019, the City Council considered a resolution calling for a special election on June 4, 2019, to present to St. Helena voters the question of whether to adopt the RSO. The agenda packet prepared by staff for the meeting included a draft resolution.
Napa County, CA
Courts have thus refused “for example, to withhold a measure from the ballot because of the theoretical possibility that a smaller type size in a title might have affected potential signers when the actual type size utilized was not unduly small and was clearly readable, or to invalidate a referendum petition because of the theoretical possibility that minor errors in the text of the measure attached to the petition might have been read and relied upon by some of the persons who signed the petition.”
Santa Clara County, CA
"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].
Administrative
Writ
San Diego County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
