Kenfield

Kenfield v. Irwin

Good Law
52 Cal. 164
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1877No. 5572California801 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Wallace, J.

The Governor could not, by failing to issue a proclamation, defeat an election held to fill a vacancy. A special election is one in which the time and place are to be fixed by proclamation, or by a writ of election. This was an election to fill a vacancy held at the time of a general election, to wit, the Presidential election of 1876, and therefore not a special election. ( West-brook v. Rosborough, 14 Cal. 188; People v. Peek, 11 Wend. 605 ; People v. Cowles, 3 Kern. 350.)

Jo Hamilton, Attorney-General, Haymond & Coggins, J. C. Burch, and Pane in C. Allen, for the Respondent.

The Code declares that the Governor shall give, in addition to offering a reward for the purposes therein named, notice at least thirty days in advance of . every general, judicial, and special election, by proclamation. (Political Code, sec. 1053.)

This being the established law of this State, every elector may claim and has an undoubted right to such notice in the case of every election.

As regards special elections, the law everywhere is that the statute is mandatory and indispensable. Such is the law in every State of the United States where the question has been settled save in New York. (People v.…

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.