Hartsock

The petitioner has moved for a peremptory writ of mandate upon a petition which he has filed alleging that the respondent, as city clerk of the city of Oakland, has arbitrarily, and through coercion on the part of his superiors, fraudulently refused to certify as sufficient a petition filed with him asking for an election to vote upon the question of the recall of C. C. Young, one of the commissioners of said city. The respondent has filed a demurrer and answer at the same time and the cause has been submitted on briefs.

In support of the demurrer the respondent argues that his action in rejecting the petition, no matter how arbitrary or fraudulent it may be, is conclusive and canno.t be controlled by court action. In support of this argument he cites a former decision of this court—Fraser v. Cummings, 48 Cal. App. 504 [ 192 Pac. 100 ]. In that case we held that the people of the city of Oakland “have in their charter conferred upon the city clerk the exclusive power to finally determine whether a recall petition conforms to all requirements of the charter and they have thereby denied to the courts the power of reviewing such determination in a proceeding of this kind.” But in…