About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 Robert Timothy Reagan, et al., Discrepancies between Ballot Petitions and Ballot Text 1 (2018)

handle is hein.congcourts/fjcdbpp0001 and id is 1 raw text is: CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION Discrepancies Between Ballot Petitions and Ballot Text Martinez v. Monterey County (Jeremy Fogel, N.D. Cal. 5:05-cv-2950) A federal complaint challenged a ballot initiative as different in wording from the text circulated for ballot-access signatures and challenged the change in wording as a change in election proce- dures requiring preclearance pursuant to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In parallel litigation, the state's supreme court provi- sionally ruled that the electorate should not be denied an oppor- tunity to vote on the initiative unless the text discrepancies were sufficiently misleading. A three-judge federal district court declined to interfere with state proceedings because the state court also had jurisdiction over the federal question. The initiative failed and the state's supreme court subsequently ruled that the text discrepancies were not so great as to merit an injunction against including the initiative on the ballot. Subject: Ballot measures. Topics: Ballot language; ballot measure; section 5 preclearance; matters for state courts; three- judge court; case assignment. Two Monterey County voters filed a federal complaint in the Northern Dis- trict of California's San Jose courthouse on July 20, 2005, to enjoin a Novem- ber 8 ballot initiative as different in wording from the text circulated for bal- lot-access signatures, claiming the change in text to be a change in voting practices requiring preclearance pursuant to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, because Monterey County was subject to section 5 preclearance re- quirements.' According to the complaint, Proposition 77, a purported good government initiative, seeks to change the time and manner in which congressional, state legislative, and board of equalization districts in California are drawn in disregard of the California Constitution and the state elections code provisions designed to ensure the integrity of the initiative process and provide accurate infor- mation to the California electorate.2 The November election was a special election set by Governor Schwarzenegger for initiatives, including several favored by the governor.' With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order' and a request for a three-judge court.' The 1. Complaint, Martinez v. Monterey County, No. 5:05-cv-2950 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2005), D.E. 1; see Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, § 5, 79 Stat. 437, 439, as amended, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (2015) (requiring preclearance of changes to voting procedures in juris- dictions with a certified history of discrimination). 2. Complaint, supra note 1, at 1. 3. See Robert Salladay & Nancy Vogel, Initiative Is Under Review, L.A. Times, July 6, 2005, at 1. Federal Judicial Center 7/31/2018 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most