McKinney

McKinney v. Superior Court

Good Law
124 Cal. App. 4th 951·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 2078·2004 Daily Journal DAR 14515·21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 773·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10752
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 7, 2004G034762California3,286 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

I. Introduction

California statutory law enumerates seven specific grounds by which the results of an election can be contested (see Elec. Code, § 16100 ) so that, under certain circumstances, the election can be set aside and a new election held. California case law holds that these seven grounds are the exclusive statutory grounds for postelection challenges. Although election results can be challenged under section 16100 on the ground that the winner is ineligible, the statute does not contemplate challenges based on the fact that one of the runners-up is ineligible.

In the case before us now, a postelection challenge has been brought on the theory that one of the losers in the election—a write-in candidate at that— was ineligible for office and her presence affected the outcome. This challenge, as we explain in more detail below, should have been brought before the election.

II. Background

On November 2, 2004, San Diego held a runoff election for mayor. The candidates on the ballot were the two top vote getters from the primary, Mayor Dick Murphy and County Supervisor Ron Roberts. However, about five weeks before the election the city clerk had qualified a third…

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.