lexisONE® Community

1. Strauss v. Horton, S168047, S168066, S168078, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 26, 2009, Decided, May 26, 2009, Filed

OVERVIEW: California Supreme Court concluded that Proposition 8, which provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment, not an impermissible revision, does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and is not invalid under an "inalienable rights" theory.

2. Californians for an Open Primary v. McPherson, S126780 , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 25, 2006, Filed

OVERVIEW: Resolution containing proposed amendments to the California Constitution, which were a primary elections provision and a state property and bonds repayment provision, violated the single subject rule governing Cal. Const., art. XVIII, § 1, which required a showing that the provisions were reasonably germane to a common theme, purpose, or subject.

3. Costa v. Superior Court, S136294 , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 16, 2006, Filed

OVERVIEW: Slight discrepancies between the version of an initiative measure submitted to the California Attorney General and the version circulated for signature did not mislead the public; hence, there was substantial compliance with the title and summary requirements of Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (d), and Elec. Code, §§ 9002, 9004, 9005, 9007.

4. Edelstein v. City and County of San Francisco, No. S102530. , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, November 7, 2002, Decided , November 7, 2002, Filed

OVERVIEW: A measure adopted by the City of San Francisco, California, prohibiting write-in voting in runoff elections for municipal offices did not violate the free speech clause of the California Constitution.

5. Wilson v. San Luis Obispo County Democratic Central Com., No. B209293, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, June 3, 2009, Filed

OVERVIEW: Assuming that the California Elections Code did not authorize a political party's county central committee to remove a member on grounds other than those specified in the Elections Code, plaintiff failed to show that this restriction was necessary to ensure an election that was orderly and fair.

6. Americans for Safe Access v. County of Alameda, A121390, A122619, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, May 22, 2009, Filed

OVERVIEW: Trial court correctly determined that four categories of election materials requested by plaintiff were relevant within the meaning of Elec. Code, § 15630. The requested materials were necessary for determination that certain electronic voting machines accurately recorded the votes cast on a ballot measure and were not tampered with.

7. Greene v. Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, A120228, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 11, 2009, Filed

OVERVIEW: Fee election under Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 6, subd. (c), had to be set aside because voters were instructed to cast signed ballots with their names and addresses printed on the face of the ballots and were given no assurances that ballots would be kept confidential, which was a denial of the right to vote under Elec. Code, § 16100, subd. (e).

8. Vargas v. City of Salinas, H027693 , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, December 29, 2005, Filed

OVERVIEW: A city did not make improper government expenditures for communications on an initiative election because its communications did not contain words of express advocacy. Therefore, proponents of the initiative did not establish a likelihood of success, and their action was properly struck under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute.

9. Costa v. Superior Court, C050297 , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 9, 2005, Filed

OVERVIEW: Where proponents of an initiative measure negligently circulated a different version of the measure than the one submitted to the California Attorney General pursuant to Cal. Const. art. II, § 10(d) and Cal. Elec. Code § 9002, the measure could not be placed on the ballot; substantial compliance was not found because the changes were significant.

10. Penrod v. County of San Bernardino, E034908 , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 31, 2005, Filed

OVERVIEW: County ordinance stating that the sheriff could be removed for cause by a four-fifths vote of the board of supervisors and that there could be no interference with the sheriff's investigative and prosecutorial functions was constitutionally valid.

« Back to Top

Did you find the case you're looking for in these results?
If not, check the available jurisdictions and courts for Free lexisONE Case Searches.