August 13, 2005

Proposition 77 Notes

Court of Appeal Justice Richard Aldrich, who was assigned to participate in the Proposition 77 case in the wake of the resignation of Supreme Court Janice Brown and who cast the deciding vote in support of granting review, was appointed by Governor Wilson in 1994. He authored the decision in D'Agostino v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 107. In that case, the court held that the failure of a candidate to obtain the required 500 valid signatures to qualify as a candidate for local office did not constitute substantial compliance with the Los Angeles Municipal Election Code, observing that "[i]t is not the province of this court to legislate a lesser level of community support. Were we to do so we would become immersed in ambiguity, i.e. would 450 or 425 valid signatures be substantial compliance? Future applicants could never be certain how many valid signatures were actually required even though the law clearly prescribed 500."

Interestingly, it appears that the Legislature has chosen to include a reference to "substantial compliance" in only one section of the Elections Code. Section 10200, related to municipal elections, states that "[t]his chapter shall be liberally construed to promote its objects, and no error, omission or irregularity shall invalidate an election if there has been a substantial compliance with this chapter."

It may be time for the Legislature to provide greater guidance to the courts regarding the circumstances where it is appropriate for a court to find that less than full compliance with a specific stautory requirement is sufficient to fulfill the legislative purpose of that requirement.

Posted by Randy Riddle at August 13, 2005 03:41 PM