Padilla

Opinion by Judge PREGERSON; Dissent by Judge CANBY.

Plaintiffs, residents and registered voters in the Santa Ana Unified School District (“SAUSD”) whose primary language is Spanish, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their lawsuit, filed pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-1a(c). Plaintiffs’ suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Orange County elections officials charged with overseeing the recall election process in the SAUSD because the officials failed to ensure that petitions in the recall of School Board Member Nativo Lopez were provided in Spanish as well as English. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

Factual and Procedural Background

In March 2002, defendant Vivian Martinez, *912 1 along with ten other individuals, initiated a recall process against Santa Ana Unified School District (“SAUSD”) Board Member Nativo Lopez. Martinez and the other recall proponents (“Recall Proponents”) are private citizens, and all are registered voters of the SAUSD.

Pursuant to California Elections Code section 11000 et seq., the Recall Proponents drafted and printed a Notice of Intention to Circulate Recall Petition (“Notice of…

dissenting:

With all due respect, I cannot agree with the outcome reached by the majority opinion. I must confess that my approach to the problem is influenced by my conviction that application of § 1973aa-1a(e) of the Voting Rights Act to initiative or recall petitions is inherently perverse; it takes too little account of the incentives that operate on persons circulating and signing, or not signing, such petitions.

I certainly agree with the majority’s proposition that “the Voting Rights Act is to be broadly construed so as to achieve the Act’s objectives.” Supra, p. 918. One major objective is to ensure that citizens of language minorities not be “excluded from participation in the electoral process.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-1a(a). Those who circulate recall petitions, however, have no in- *925 eentive to exclude anyone from signing their petitions. There is no way, and no need, to vote “no” on a recall petition itself; those eligible voters who do not sign, for any reason, are effectively counted as “no” votes on the question of whether to have an election. 1 The purpose, therefore, of those who circulate recall petitions is to obtain as many signatures as possible in order to…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDRA PADILLA; VICTOR SANCHEZ; 

ROSA ANDRADE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROSALYN LEVER, in her official capacity as Registrar of Voters, Orange County Registration and No. 03-56259 Elections Department; SUZANNE SLUPSKY, in her official capacity as  D.C. No.

CV-02-01145-AHS

Assistant Registrar of Voters, OPINION Orange County Registration and Elections Department, Defendants-Appellees, and

VIVIAN MARTINEZ,

Defendant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 8, 2005—Pasadena, California

Filed November 23, 2005

Before: Harry Pregerson and William C. Canby, Jr., Circuit Judges, and Edward C. Reed, Jr.,* District Judge.

*The Honorable Edward C. Reed, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

15485 15486 PADILLA v. LEVER Opinion by Judge Pregerson; Dissent by Judge Canby PADILLA v. LEVER 15489

COUNSEL

Thomas A. Saenz, Mexican American Legal Defense…