Fickert

Fickert v. Zemansky

Good Law
157 Cal. 398·1910 Cal. LEXIS 270·108 P. 269
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 19, 1910S.F. No. 5362.California976 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

This was an application for- a writ of mandate to compel the board of election commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco, when it prepared the ballots, to be used by voters at the general city and county election. to be held on November 2, 1909, to print the plaintiff’s name upon said ballots as the nominee and candidate of the Union Labor Party for the office of district attorney of the said city and county. Upon the hearing the writ was issued as prayed, but ‘we deem it proper for guidance in future cases that the reasons for the decision should be given.

At the primary election previously held, under the primary law of 1909 (Stats. 1909, p. 691), for the nomination of party candidates to be voted for at the November election, no nomination papers had been filed proposing any person as the candidate of the Union Labor Party for district attorney. On the primary ballot of that party the name of no person was printed as candidate for that office, but a blank line was left thereon as the law directs, whereon a Union Labor voter could write the name of the person whom he desired to nominate as the candidate of his party for that office. At said primary election divers…

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.