Lopez

Lincoln v. Lopez

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 25, 2022A162529California6,157 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

The November 2020 election included three seats on the five-member East Palo Alto City Council. Seven candidates ran, and Lopez came in third, with Lincoln fourth. On December 3, the results of the election were certified by the County of San Mateo. On December 7, represented by counsel, Lincoln filed a 14-page statement of contest, naming as defendants Lopez and Solorzano. The contest was based on section 16100, subdivision (c) of the Elections Code, 1 and alleged that Lopez violated two sections of the Code: (1) section 18370, “ electioneering within 100 feet of a polling place”; and (2) section 18522, “by offering valuable consideration to voters voting for Lopez.” The statement of contest did not mention section 18502, a claim that was added at the hearing. On December 22, represented by County Counsel, Solorzano filed his answer to the contest. On January 7, 2021, Lopez filed his answer. Trial on the contest was held in February. Eleven witnesses testified, including Lincoln and Lopez; two San Mateo County Officials (Martin McTaggart and Herbert Masters); several current and former City Council members; Michelle Daher, a person present at the polling site to…

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.