Zaremberg

Zaremberg v. Superior Court

Good Law
115 Cal. App. 4th 111·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 84·8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 723·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 610
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 22, 2004A104920California3,363 words

Opinion

Opinion

Swager, J.

Allan Zaremberg and John Dunlap III are proponents of a voter referendum petition to overturn the Health Insurance Act of 2003 (Act) (Stats. 2003, ch. 673). By petition for writ of mandate, they challenge orders entered December 12, 2003, by the Sacramento County Superior Court which prohibit qualification of the referendum for the ballot. The superior court found that the Attorney General’s title and summary of the referendum petition is inaccurate and misleading (Elec. Code §§ 9004 & 9051), and also that the petition failed to comply with section 9011, which requires a short title at the top of each page after the first page. We disagree and accordingly will issue our peremptory writ.

The petition was filed in this court late in the day Friday, December 19, 2003 This court did not receive the complete petition, other filings and the record until the end of the day, December 22, 2003. Referendum proponents included a request for a stay of the superior court’s orders and of the printing of ballots for the March 2, 2004 election. But according to documents submitted by referendum proponents, the ballot labels for the 15 million ballots to be printed for that election were…

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.