Farley v. Healey

Citations: 67 Cal. 2d 325; 431 P.2d 650; 62 Cal. Rptr. 26; 1967 Cal. LEXIS 396Docket: S. F. 22567

Court: California Supreme Court; September 18, 1967; California; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Petitioners, Edward J. Farley et al., gathered over 21,000 signatures in San Francisco to place an initiative measure on the ballot advocating for an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal from Vietnam. The acting registrar of voters declined to assess the signatures' sufficiency based on advice from the city attorney, prompting the petitioners to seek a writ of mandate from the superior court, which they were denied on August 31, 1967. They subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court of California to compel the registrar and county clerk to evaluate the signatures and place the measure on the November 7, 1967, ballot, arguing that a decision was needed by September 22, 1967, and that an appeal was insufficient as a remedy.

The Supreme Court asserted that the acting registrar had overstepped his authority by attempting to evaluate whether the initiative was within the electorate's power. His role, as defined under section 180 of the San Francisco Charter, was purely ministerial, limited to ensuring procedural compliance for submitting an initiative measure. The court emphasized that the right to propose initiatives should not be obstructed by a ministerial officer's judgment about the measure's appropriateness. The registrar is mandated to place the initiative on the ballot if the formal requirements are met, unless a court instructs otherwise with compelling justification. The court referenced previous cases that supported this conclusion, clarifying that the cases cited did not contradict their decision, affirming the principle that the initiative power should not be hindered by administrative discretion.

Respondents have resisted proceeding with the proposed measure, arguing it should not be presented to voters. The measure, termed a declaration of policy, advocates for an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam to allow the Vietnamese people to resolve their own issues. According to Section 179 of the charter, registered voters can propose and vote on any ordinance or legislative act within the board of supervisors' authority. It allows any declaration of policy to be submitted to voters similarly to ordinances, and if a majority approves, the board of supervisors must enact ordinances to implement those policies, adhering to referendum provisions.

The power of initiative must be interpreted broadly to support democratic processes. Despite this broad interpretation, respondents claim that initiative measures must pertain to municipal affairs where binding legislation can be enacted by the board of supervisors. However, Section 179 does not impose such limitations; it grants the electorate the right to initiate "any ordinance, act or other measure" within the board's authority. Local government representatives, including boards of supervisors, traditionally make policy declarations on community concerns, even when they lack legislative power to enforce them. For example, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors previously commended a presidential stance on the Arab-Israeli crisis, indicating local bodies engage in policy discussions on broader issues.

Respondents argue that the proposed measure is a "declaration of policy," which should be governed by the second paragraph of Section 179, asserting that only those declarations feasible for enactment by ordinance can be adopted via initiative. However, this paragraph does not limit the types of measures that can be submitted, as it refers to "any" declaration. The board's obligation to implement policies approved by voters does not hinge on whether such policies can be enacted through binding ordinances, and narrowing the interpretation against the initiative would unjustly restrict voters' rights to declare policies.

The proposed initiative is authorized as the board of supervisors can enact ordinances to express the popular will, utilizing various advocacy methods. This includes directing legislative representatives in Washington, renaming public properties, or posting the declaration in public buildings. The charter imposes a numerical requirement as a safeguard against frivolous initiatives, but there are no limitations preventing petitioners from submitting their measures for a general vote. A peremptory writ of mandate is ordered to determine the sufficiency of signatures for the petition and, if sufficient, to place the initiative on the ballot for the November 7, 1967 election.

In dissent, Justice Burke argues that the judiciary must interpret the supreme law, maintaining governmental powers within constitutional limits. He contends that local elections should not be used for issues of exclusive federal jurisdiction, such as the Vietnam War, and that petitioners should address their concerns to federal officials. The California Constitution allows chartered cities to govern municipal affairs, but this authority is limited to internal business matters. The court has previously emphasized that initiative legislation must remain within the scope of municipal affairs, which encompasses issues directly affecting citizens' daily lives and safety. While there is a general rule favoring liberal construction of initiative powers, constitutional restrictions must not be overlooked.

Voter cooperation with public officials is essential for initiating and controlling governmental matters, primarily through elections and referendums. Courts have historically affirmed that initiatives or referendums should not undermine other governmental powers, as emphasized in Simpson v. Hite. The use of the term "declaration of policy" in charter section 179 is argued to create a unique polling mechanism, but any such intent would be invalid as it must comply with constitutional limitations. The history of local governance shows that referendums are utilized to gauge public sentiment on significant policy decisions, which are subsequently implemented through necessary ordinances by governing boards. The framers of the San Francisco Charter intended for the board to enact ordinances reflecting the electorate's decisions, and any interpretation suggesting broader applicability beyond municipal affairs undermines the statutory construction principles. Petitioners argue that if their proposed policies, particularly regarding the Vietnam War, were adopted, the board could execute them through various ordinances; however, these suggestions are deemed administrative and not true legislative acts. Moreover, local governing bodies lack authority over national policy matters, which should be addressed by elected representatives at the federal level, adhering to the separation of powers established in state and federal constitutions.

Local community representatives, such as boards of supervisors and city councils, have historically made policy declarations on community concerns, regardless of their legal authority to enact binding legislation. While these boards frequently express sentiments on various issues, their declarations have no legal weight when they exceed constitutional powers, as they represent individual opinions rather than the collective stance of the governing body. The freedom of speech allows board members to voice opinions, but the use of public funds for recording these resolutions, particularly on non-municipal subjects, raises concerns about fiscal responsibility. The potential for such resolutions to impose significant costs on taxpayers, especially if they lead to special elections for non-local issues, highlights the need for caution. The court emphasizes that public funds are a public trust and must be utilized for lawful purposes, warning against the misuse of the initiative process as a means of gauging public sentiment on issues outside local governance. This could undermine the concept of local government and lead to widespread financial burdens on communities. The document cautions against allowing petition-driven votes on contentious issues, which could burden municipal resources and distort the purpose of local governance.

Vivisection should be classified as a federal offense, the CIA banned, state borders closed to all individuals, and various other controversial issues like the abolition of daylight saving time, a ban on fluoridation, and the legalization of marijuana should not be included in municipal elections. Introducing such non-local issues would distract voters from critical local matters and degrade the quality of local governance. Candidates for local offices should be evaluated based on their qualifications related to municipal governance, not their personal views on unrelated issues.

The petitioners argue that the acting registrar overstepped his authority by questioning the legality of the proposed initiative. However, Section 180 of the San Francisco Charter allows for presumption of compliance with legal requirements unless proven otherwise. The registrar's authority to manage elections is affirmed in Section 173, and he acted according to the city attorney's advice that the initiative should not appear on the ballot. This decision aligns with established legal precedents, including Riedman v. Brison, which ruled that city officials have no obligation to act on non-municipal matters. The cited cases support the registrar's actions and the legal processes followed by city officials.

Judges exhibit reluctance to act in ways that may seem to undermine the electorate's intent, particularly when responding to a petition signed by approximately 21,000 individuals. However, the broader electorate has established limits on the legislative powers of supervisors, suggesting that invalidating the proposed legislative act would reflect the collective will of the state’s voters. A significant issue in municipal governance is the mixing of national and state politics with local matters, and the court's ruling could exacerbate this problem. The application for the writ should be denied. 

Initiative, referendum, and recall petitions must be filed, verified, and certified per general law and the registrar of voters' regulations, unless specified otherwise in the charter. Signers can withdraw their names by submitting a verified revocation before the petition is filed, but not afterward. Once filed, petitions are presumed to meet legal requirements, and their validity cannot be challenged after an election unless proven otherwise by an official investigation. If a signature is contested, the registrar must notify the alleged signer, who can either appear in person or submit a denial affidavit. Failure to respond or deny the signature results in it being considered genuine.

The registrar is required to maintain a list of individuals who claim their signatures are not valid, along with corresponding affidavits, for a minimum of one year. In cases involving municipal bond proposals, local officials have ministerial duties that can be enforced through mandamus when such proposals comply with constitutional and statutory requirements concerning their purpose and funding sources. The parties have agreed to forgo the issuance of an alternative writ or a show cause order and to resolve the matter based on written submissions without oral argument. A declaration of policy is recognized as a legislative power. Additionally, the First Amendment guarantees citizens the right to petition the government. Cities organized under specific charters have the authority to enact laws concerning municipal affairs but are still subject to general laws. The charter limits the initiative and referendum processes to actions within the legislative powers of governing bodies. Furthermore, it mandates that all legislative acts be executed via ordinances, with the petitioners' submissions failing to qualify as ordinances, as they were merely resolutions. Relevant case law is cited to support these provisions, highlighting the legal framework surrounding proposed initiatives and referendums.