Canon

By complaint filed in the justice court, appellant was charged with violating Elections Code section 12047. 1 That court overruled appellant’s demurrer and *450 denied his motion to dismiss, which urged, on various grounds, that appellant was constitutionally protected from prosecution under this statute. He then sought a writ of prohibition in superior court, attacking the jurisdiction of the justice court to try him under the statute. The superior court denied his petition. We hold that the writ must be granted because the statute is unconstitutionally discriminatory.

Prohibition, in this ease, is a proper remedy. It is well settled that when the claimed infirmity appears on the face of the statute, prohibition is an appropriate means to challenge the constitutionality of the statute. The writ provides a speedy procedure by which the accused may be protected from prosecution under a statute which does not state a public offense. The courts, zealous to protect constitutional rights, have recognized the propriety of the use of the writ for this purpose. (Whitney v. Municipal Court, 58 Cal.2d 907 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 16 , 377 P.2d 80 ]; Lambert v. Municipal Court, 53 Cal.2d 690 [ 3…