Opinion
Hearing Dismissed as Moot Aug. 15, 1946.
Mandamus proceeding by Benjamin O. Walker against Michael J. Donoghue, Registrar of Voters of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, wherein alternative writ was issued.
Peremptory writ denied.
Fred M. Cross, of Los Angeles, for petitioner.
Harold W. Kennedy, Co. Counsel, and Charles C. Stanley, Jr., Deputy Co. Counsel, both of Los Angeles, for respondent.
B. W. Kemper, of Los Angeles, amicus curiae.
OPINION
SHINN, Justice.
Upon the filing of the petition herein, an alternative writ of mandate was issued, returnable on June 25, 1946, requiring respondent, as Registrar of Motors of Los Angeles County, to show cause why he should not be ordered to desist from allowing precinct numbers to be added after the signatures of voters upon original and supplemental sections of an initiative petition where, at the time of filing, no such numbers appeared after the names of the signers, and to show cause why he should not exclude such names in his count of signatures and in his certificate or certificates to the Secretary of State as to the number of total signers. The facts as developed at the hearing are that a great number of original and supplemental sections of a petition seeking to have placed on the ballot at the general election a measure to legalize greyhound racing and pari-mutuel betting thereon, have been filed in the office of respondent without any designation after the signatures of the numbers of the precincts in which the respective signers reside, and that respondent has allowed the same to be supplied by the proponents of the measure and their agents after the sections have been received and filed in his office. It appears from the answer of respondent that the practice complained of has been for many years the ‘uniform, impartial and undeviating practice of the office of the Registrar of Voters of Los Angeles County.’
The law on the subject is clear. It is required by section 1 of Article IV of the Constitution that the election precinct number must appear upon an initiative petition after the name and address of the signer. In Mayock v. Kerr, 216 Cal. 171, 13 S.E.2d 717, this requirement was construed to mean that the precinct designation must be upon the petition at the time it is filed. This also is the specific requirement of section 46 of the Elections Code. The Registrar of Voters is without authority to allow deviations from these strict requirements of the law. The times within which petitions and supplements thereto may be filed are limited by constitutional and statutory provisions. The records of the Registrar of Voters are available for public use in the securing of the information necessary to complete petitions by the addition of precinct names or numbers. This is required to be done before the petitions are filed, and if it cannot be done then it may not be done at all. The petitions and the various sections thereof must remain in their condition as of the date of filing and if, when the time for filing expires, any of them are incomplete because of the absence of precinct designations, there is no method by which they can be completed thereafter. Names which are not followed by precinct names or numbers are not to be included in the total number certified to the Secretary of State.
The petition to this court herein was filed June 19, 1946. Respondent is required to deliver his certificate to the Secretary of State as to supplements to the petition not later than June 27, 1946. It is alleged in his answer that a certificate has already been issued and forwarded to the Secretary of State as to the number of names upon the original sections of the petition and that there is no way to determine which names thereon did not have precinct numbers after them at the time said sections were filed.
A peremptory writ of mandate may not be issued by this court until the expiration of 60 days after the decision of the cause. Noel v. Smith, 2 Cal.App. 158, 83 P. 167; People v. District Court of Appeal, 193 Cal. 19, 222 P. 353; People v. Walker, 76 Cal.App. 192, 244 P. 94; People v. Sonoqui, 1 Cal.2d 364, 35 P.2d 123; Moran v. District Court of Appeal, 15 Cal.2d 527, 102 P.2d 1079. No purpose would be served by the issuance of our writ at that time and the petition for a peremptory writ must therefore be denied.
The alternative writ was issued for the reason that there appears to be a prevalent misconception as to the effect of the action of the District Court of Appeal in denying an alternative writ under similar conditions in Hyans v. Donoghue, Civil No. 14624, June 23, 1944, and a like denial by the Supreme Court upon the same facts in Haggarty v. Donoghue, S. F. 17059, on June 28, 1944, both without opinion. In the situations there involved, the certificate of the Registrar of Voters was due to be issued not later than June 29, 1944. These rulings should not be relied upon as decisions of the questions of law involved. It would seem that the alternative writs must have been refused because insufficient time remained in which the acts complained of could be controlled by final judgment of the court. Green v. Jordan, 216 Cal. 318, 14 P.2d 297; Clementine v. Board of Civil Service Com’rs, 47 Cal.App.2d 112, 117 P.2d 369.
For the reasons stated, a peremptory writ is denied.
DESMOND, P. J., and WOOD, J., concur.