Melendez

I concur not only because the issue is moot but also because I believe it was correctly decided by the trial court. In my opinion Elections Code section 27521 is constitutional.

This section is a limitation on candidacy and only incidentally affects the right to vote. Under the latest cases neither the Supreme Court of the United States (Bullock v. Carter (1972) 405 U.S. 134 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 92 , 92 S.Ct. 849 ]) nor the Supreme Court of California (Knoll v. Davidson (1974) 12 Cal.3d 335 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 525 P.2d 1273 ]; Thompson v. Mellon (1973) 9 Cal.3d 96 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 20 , 507 P.2d 628 ]) has been willing to accede a fundamental status to the right to be a candidate alone. Where the primary infringement is on the right of candidacy and the right to vote is only incidentally concerned, the test to be applied is, is the provision involved reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of legitimate state objectives. (Bullock v. Carter, supra; Smith v. Evans (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 154, 158 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 684 ].)

The prohibition, against a municipal officer who has been recalled again running for the same office within one year after the recall, found in Elections Code section…

TAMURA, Acting P.J.

This appeal involves the constitutionality of Elections Code section 27521 insofar as it disqualifies a recalled city officer of a general law city from being a candidate for such office for a period of one year after his recall. The issue is one of first impression in California. [1]

Three recalled city councilmen of the City of Norco (city), a general law city, appeal from an order denying their petition for a writ of mandate to compel the city clerk to place their names on the ballot for a general city election to be held within a year after their recall. On August 21, 1973, an election was held in the city which resulted in the recall of petitioners. To fill their positions a special election was called for November 13, 1973. Petitioners attempted to file nomination papers for that election but the city clerk refused to accept them on the ground Elections Code section 27521 [2] disqualified petitioners from seeking councilmanic office for one year following their recall. On November 1, 1973, petitioners sought a writ of mandate in superior court to compel the city to accept their nomination papers and cause their names to appear on the ballot for…

This appeal involves the constitutionality of Elections Code section 27521 insofar as it disqualifies a recalled city officer of a general law city from being a candidate for such office for a period of one year after his recall. The issue is one of first impression in California. 1

Three recalled city councilmen of the City of Norco (city), a general law city, appeal from an order denying their petition for a writ of mandate to compel the city clerk to place their names on the ballot for a general city election to be held within a year after their recall. On August 21, 1973, an election was held in the city which resulted in the recall of petitioners. To fill their positions a special election was called for November 13, 1973. Petitioners attempted to file nomination papers for that election but the city clerk refused to accept them on the ground Elections Code section 27521 2 disqualified petitioners from seeking councilmanic office for one year following their recall. On November 1, 1973, petitioners sought a writ of mandate in superior court to compel *914 the city to accept their nomination papers and cause their names to appear on the ballot for the special…