Spinosa

Spinosa v. Andrews

Good Law
177 Cal. App. 3d 851·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2601·223 Cal. Rptr. 120
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 21, 1986No. A029485California502 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Elkington, J.

The above-named plaintiffs appeal from a judgment denying their application for a writ of mandate compelling defendant Republican County Central Committee of San Francisco and defendant Adolphus Andrews III, its chairman, tó allow plaintiffs Spinosa, Faulkner, Woods, and Silvestri, two votes each at all meetings of defendant Republican County Central Committee.

On their appeal plaintiffs contend that: “Under Elections Code sections 9323 and 9324(a) a Republican nominee for Assembly or Congress who is also an elected Republican County Central Committee member is entitled to two votes.”

Elections Code section 9323 simply provides: “In each city and county a county central committee shall be elected by Assembly districts and shall consist of 10 members elected from Assembly District 16, 10 members elected from Assembly District 17, and five members elected from Assembly District 19.” The City and County of San Francisco, as its name indicates, is such a “city and county” as is referred to in section 9323. Otherwise the statute has scant relevance to the issue of the appeal.

*853 It is section 9324, subdivision (a), upon which plaintiffs really rely; as here relevant it…

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.