Summary
In Vincent v. Mott, 163 Cal. 342, [ 125 P. 346], relied on by petitioner, the application for a writ of mandate was denied without notice of the application to the respondents, on the ground that the petition did not sufficiently show that the election commissioners threatened to disobey the provision of the law claimed to be applicable.
Summary of this case from Booth v. MottOpinion
S.F. No. 6278.
July 17, 1912.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate to compel the city council of the City of Oakland and ex-officio Board of Election Commissioners, to appoint as officers of the election boards at a recall election persons of whom half belong to the Republican party and half to the Democratic party, as required by section 1142 of the Political Code. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
R.M. Royce, for Petitioners.
It does not appear from the petition presented that the Oakland council has been asked to appoint on the election boards to hold the recall election persons of whom half belong to the Republican party and half to the Democratic party, as required in section 1142 of the Political Code. We think that under the provisions of the charter that section applies to recall elections held under said charter. But because of the failure to aver that the council threatens to disobey that section, the application for mandamus is denied.