HORNEFF

HORNEFF v. City and County of San Francisco

Good Law
110 Cal. App. 4th 814·2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 79·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1095·2003 Daily Journal DAR 8035·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6404
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 18, 2003A100742California4,008 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stein, J.

The superior court granted a writ of mandate, pursuant to Elections Code section 9295 amending the digest prepared by the Ballot Simplification Committee of Proposition A, a revenue bond measure, submitted to the voters of The City and County of San Francisco (hereafter, the City) at the November 2002 municipal election. The City appeals, contending section 9295 does not authorize the revision of a digest that provides an impartial summary of the chief purpose and points of the measure and is neither false nor misleading. We shall conclude that the court erred in issuing the writ of mandate, but that the error does not require reversal.

FACTS

Proposition A

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors submitted Proposition A to the voters for the November 5, 2002 election. It asked the voters whether the City should issue revenue bonds, or other forms of revenue financing, in a principal amount not to exceed $1,628,000,000, to pay for improvements to the City’s water supply system. The proposition provided that the cost of repaying these bonds would be financed by an increase in water rates. It also provided that “the principal amount of the Bonds may be reduced if the City’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.