[EL] Palmdale California VRA case

[David Ely]

I lied.  Sorry I can’t stop myself.  The fact is that the court in Johnson V
Bradley explicitly rejected the standard of absolute legislative exclusion
in sec 5(b)(4). From their analysis of that particular provision:

 

Petitioners assert Mackey and the cases on which it relies (e.g., Uhl,
supra, 155 Cal. 776; City of Redwood City v. Moore (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 563
[42 Cal.Rptr. 72] [disapproved on other grounds in Bishop v. City of San
Jose (1969) 1 Cal.3d 56, 63, fn. 6 (81 Cal.Rptr. 465, 460 P.2d 137)]) are
distinguishable because they involved local election "procedures," and not
the integrity of the political or electoral process itself. The latter
matter, [4 Cal.4th 403] petitioners assert, is a statewide concern and hence
the exclusive province of the state under the Political Reform Act of 1974,
and the amendments thereto (§§ 81000-91015). fn. 14 They further claim
charter section 313 does in fact aim at regulating the integrity of the
political or electoral process, not simply the "manner" of electing
municipal officers, and hence the city's regulation is not a municipal
affair under article XI, section 5, subdivision (b)(4).

 

FN 14. As explained below, although we agree with petitioners that charter
cities may not enforce laws that are inconsistent with or impede statewide
regulation of the integrity of the political or electoral process, we
question petitioners' assertion that section 85300 is reasonably calculated
to address that statewide concern.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131208/cda0de24/attachment.html>