In Carson Citizens for Reform v. Kawagoe, (— Cal.Rptr.3d —-, Cal.App. 2 Dist., October 13, 2009), a California Court of Appeal considered the validity of requests by voters to withdraw their signatures from a petition to recall a local mayor. The Court of Appeal held that the requests to withdraw signatures were valid despite the fact that the requests were not accompanied by a declaration of circulator and were made prior to the time some voters signed the petition.
Facts
Carson Citizens for Reform (“CCR”) circulated a petition to recall the Mayor of the City of Carson. CCR needed 8,676 valid signatures for the petition to be certified as sufficient. The City Clerk received 5,842 requests from voters to withdraw their signatures from the petition. However, between 100 and 127 voters signed the petition for recall after they had already filed requests to withdraw their signatures. On February 5, 2007, CCR presented the petition with 12,164 signatures to the City Clerk for filing. The next day, the City Clerk sent both the petition and the withdrawal requests to the County of Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder (“Registrar”) for signature verification. There were 868 withdrawal requests that matched signatures on the petition and the Registrar withdrew those 868 signatures from the petition regardless of whether the voter had signed the petition before or after submitting a withdrawal request.
The Registrar notified the City Clerk that only 8,590 signatures were verified and sufficient, a number that was 86 less than what was needed to qualify the petition. The City Clerk notified CCR that the petition was insufficient. CCR sent a list of names to the City Clerk that it felt were improperly withdrawn or excluded. The City Clerk submitted the list to the Registrar but the Registrar refused to review the disputed signatures.
The City Clerk filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Registrar that named CCR and the Mayor as real parties in interest. The City Clerk asked the trial court to make a declaration of the duties of the Clerk and Registrar in regard to the signature verification process. CCR filed a cross-complaint against the City Clerk, Registrar, and the Mayor in which it alleged that the signature withdrawal requests that did not have a declaration of circulator and those that were signed before the voters signed the petition should be disregarded. The trial court found that the withdrawal requests required a declaration of circulator and also that a withdrawal was not valid if a voter signed that request before signing the recall petition.
Decision
The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the trial court. The Court found that (1) a voter’s request to withdraw his or her signature from a recall petition is valid even if the request to withdraw was signed before he or she signed the recall petition; and (2) a withdrawal request need not be supported by a declaration of circulator.
Election Code section 103 provides that a “voter who has signed an initiative, referendum or recall petition pursuant to the Constitution or laws of this state shall have his or her signature withdrawn from the petition upon filing a written request therefore with the appropriate county elections official or city elections official prior to the day the petition is filed.” Election Code section 11303 provides, “Any voter who has signed a recall petition shall have his or her signature withdrawn from the petition upon filing a written request therefore with the elections official prior to the day the petition section bearing the voter’s signature is filed.” The operative dates are (1) the date the withdrawal request is filed, and (2) the date the petition is filed. Neither section 103 nor section 11303 mandates that the withdrawal request must be signed after the voter signs the petition for recall. The court concluded “that a withdrawal request signed prior to signing a recall petition is effective if filed with the appropriate election official before the recall petition is filed.”
Election Code section 104 provides when “any petition or paper” is submitted to an elections official, “each section of the petition or paper shall have attached to it a declaration signed by the circulator of the petition or paper . . . in the circulator’s own hand,” which contains the information specified by statute about the circulator, the dates the signatures were obtained, and a certification regarding the truth and correctness of the contents of the declaration. There was no dispute that a withdrawal request is not a “petition.” The court found no indication in the statutory scheme that the Legislature intended a withdrawal request to be a “paper” that requires a declaration of the circulator. Therefore, the court concluded a declaration of circulator is not required to be attached to a request for withdrawal of a signature.
The Court of Appeal held that the withdrawal requests in this case were valid and the City Clerk properly certified the recall as insufficient.
Questions
If you have any questions concerning the content of this Legal Alert, please contact the following from our office, or the attorney with whom you normally consult.
Mona G. Ebrahimi | 916.321.4500