Songstad

Songstad v. Superior Court

Bad Law
113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 729·93 Cal. App. 4th 1202
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 26, 2001D038503California3,713 words

Opinion

Opinion

McDONALD, J.

We here decide whether a voter who opposes a proposed countywide initiative may prevent proponents of that initiative from collecting the signatures needed to qualify it for the ballot based on a contention that the title and summary of the initiative prepared by a county counsel are not impartial or accurate.

I

Background

Before proponents of a countywide initiative may begin collecting signatures to qualify it for the ballot, the proponents must first file the text of the proposed initiative with the county elections official and request that a ballot “title and summary” be prepared. (Elec. Code, § 9103, subd. (a).) County counsel must then prepare a ballot title and summary that express the chief purposes and points of the proposed initiative. (Cf. Lungren v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 435, 439-440 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 690 ] [construing title and summary requirements for statewide initiatives].) County counsel’s title and summary shall “give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the proposed measure in such language that the ballot title shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.” (§ 9105,…

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.