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. It has long been judicial policy to apply a liberal construction to this power wherever it is challenged in order that the right be not improperly annulled. If doubts can reasonably be resolved in favor of the use of this reserve power, courts will preserve it. (Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 591) The court should shortcut the normal initiative procedure only where the invalidity of the proposed measure is clear beyond a doubt. (Save Stanislaus Area Farm Economy v. Board of Supervisors (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 141, 150–15
Hearing Date
July 03, 2018
Category
Civil - Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
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. It has long been judicial policy to apply a liberal construction to this power wherever it is challenged in order that the right be not improperly annulled. If doubts can reasonably be resolved in favor of the use of this reserve power, courts will preserve it. (Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 591) The court should shortcut the normal initiative procedure only where the invalidity of the proposed measure is clear beyond a doubt. (Save Stanislaus Area Farm Economy v. Board of Supervisors (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 141, 150–15