2014-80001786 #48

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

r

Kevin T. Snider (SBN 170988) Michael J. Peffer (SBN 192265) Matthew B. McReynolds (SBN 234797) Pacific Justice Institute P.O. Box 276600 Sacramento, California 95827 Telephone: (916) 857-6900 Facsimile: (916) 857-6902 [email protected]

John C. Eastman (SBN 193726) Anthony T. Caso (SBN 88561) Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence c/o Chapman University Fowler School of Law One University Drive Orange, California 92866 Telephone: (877) 855-3330 Facsimile: (714) 844-4817

David L. Llewellyn, Jr. (SBN 71706) Llewellyn Law Office 8139 Sunset Avenue #176 Fair Oaks, Califomia 95628 916.966.9036 916.436.4236, fax

[email protected]

Attorneys for Petitioner, Gina Gleason

-NDORSED

l-EGAL PROCESS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

GINA GLEASON, in her capacity as official proponent of Referendum 1598,

Petitioner, V.

DEBRA BO WEN, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Califomia; Tim Dupuis, Registrar of Voters of Alameda County; Kimberly L. Grady, Registrar of Voters of Amador County; Candace J. Grubbs, County

Case no. 34-2014-80001786

ELECTION MATTER

AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, VERIFIED

Gteason v. Sowen, Amended Petition

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Clerk-Recorder-Registrar of Butte County; Madaline R. Krska, County Clerk of Calaveras County; Kathleen Moran, County Clerk-Recorder of Colusa County; Joseph E. Canciamilla, County Clerk, Recorder and Registrar of Voters of Contra Costa County; Alissia Northrup, County Clerk-Recorder of Del Norte County; William E. Schultz, Recorder-Clerk, Registrar of Voters of El Dorado County; Brandi L. Orth, County Clerk, Registrar of Voters of Fresno County; Sheryl Thur, County Clerk-Recorder of Glerm County; Carolyn Wilson Cmich, County Clerk, Recorder and Registrar of Voters of Humboldt County; Debra Porter, Interim Registrar of Voters of Imperial County; Kammi Foote, Clerk, Recorder & Registrar of Voters of Inyo County; Mary Bedard, Auditor-Controller, County Clerk, Registrar of Voters of Kem County; Kristina Mckay, County Clerk-Recorder of Kings County; Diane C. Fridley, Registrar of Voters of Lake County; Julie Bustamante, County Clerk-Recorder of Lassen County; Dean Logan, Registrar -Recorder, County Clerk of Los Angeles County; Rebecca Martinez, County Clerk-Recorder of Madera County; Elaine Ginnold, County Clerk, Registrar of Voters of Marin County; Keith Williams, County Clerk of Mariposa County; Susan M. Ranochak, Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder of Mendocino County; Barbara Levey, Assessor-Recorder-Registrar of Voters of Merced County; Darcy Locken, County Auditor, Clerk, Recorder of Modoc County; Lynda Roberts, County Clerk, Recorder, Registrar of Mono County; Claudio Valenzuela, Acting Registrar of Voters of Monterey County; John Tuteur, Assessor-Recorder-County Clerk of Napa County; Gregory J. Diaz, Clerk-Recorder, Registrar of Voters of Nevada County; Neal Kelley, Registrar of Voters of Orange County; Jim McCauley,

Gleason v. Bowen, Amended Petition

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar Placer County; Kathleen Williams, County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar of Voters of Plumas County; Rebecca Spencer, Registrar of Voters of Riverside County; Jill LaVine, Registrar of Voters of Sacramento County; Joe Paul Gonzalez, County Clerk-Auditor-Recorder of San Benito County; Michael J. Scarpello, Registrar of Voters of San Bernardino County; Michael Vu, Registrar of Voters of San Diego County; John Amtz, Director of Elections of San Francisco County; Austin Erdman, Registrar of Voters of San Joaquin County; Julie Rodewald, County Clerk-Recorder of San Luis Obispo Count>'; Mark Church, Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder of San Mateo County; Joseph E. Holland, County Clerk, Recorder and Assessor of Santa Barbara County; Shannon Bushey, Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County; Gail Pellerin, County Clerk of Santa Cruz County; Cathy Darling Allen, County Clerk of Shasta County; Heather Foster, County Clerk-Recorder of Sierra County; Colleen Setzer, County Clerk of Siskiyou County; Ira Rosenthal, Registrar of Voters of Solano County; William F. Rousseau, County Clerk, Recorder Assessor, Registrar of Voters of Sonoma County; Lee Lundrigan, County Clerk-Recorder of Stanislaus County; Donna M. Johnston, County Clerk-Recorder of Sutter County; Beverly Ross, County Clerk-Recorder of Tehama County; Deanna L. Bradford, County Clerk, Recorder, Assessor of Trinity County; Rita A. Woodard, Registrar of Voters of Tulare County; Deborah Bautista, County Clerk-Auditor-Controller of Tuolumne County; Mark A. Lunn, County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar of Voters of Ventura County; Freddie Oakley, County Clerk-Recorder of Yolo County; Terry A. Hansen, County Clerk-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Recorder of Yuba County; and DOES I ) through 100, )

) Respondents. )

GINA GLEASON ("Petitioner" or "Proponent") seeks judicial review and a peremptory

writ of mandate by the Superior Court conceming the actions and policies of the Respondents

Secretary of State and the Registrars of Voters (or other appropriate local elections officials) of

all of the counties in California related to the determination by the Secretary of State, based on

the actions ofthe county elections officials, that the proponents of Referendum 1598 (described

infra) failed to submit to the county elections officials a sufficient number of valid signatures of

Califomia voters on petitions in support of Referendum 1598 to qualify the referendum to be

placed on the ballot and submitted to the voters at the next general statewide election.

Specifically, Petitioner seeks first judicial review of the petitions and the signatures on

the petitions in support of Referendum 1598 that were rejected by county elections officials

and/or the Secretary of State, including, but not limited to, judicial review of signatures in the

manner approved by the state Supreme Court in Wheelhght v. Marin County (1970) 2 Cal.3d

448, 451-457, and judicial review of the petitions under the standard of "substantial compliance"

as established by the state Supreme Court in such cases as Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30

Cal.3d 638, 652.

Second, Petitioner seeks judicial review of the policies, procedures, guidelines and

regulations of the county elections officials and/or the Secretary of State applicable to statewide

referendum petitions, on their face and as applied to Referendum 1598.

Following this judicial review, assuming that the Court finds that a sufficient number of

valid signatures of California voters were submitted in support of Referendum 1598, Petitioner

requests that a preemptory writ of mandate be issued by this Court directing Respondent

Gleason v. Bowen, Amended Petition 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Secretary of State, DEBRA BOWEN, to certify Referendum 1598 for the November 2014

statewide election ballot (or, in the altemative, the next statewide election that complies with

applicable law) pursuant to the provisions of Elections Code §§9030, et seq., and other

applicable law.

Petitioner further requests orders of this Court requiring the Respondent count)' elections

officials and/or the Secretary of State to revise their policies, procedures, guidelines and

regulations applicable to statewide referendum petitions to conform to applicable law.

Expedited hearing priority is provided for this action by Code of Civil Procedure §35 to

permit timely resolution of this matter without delay or substantial interference with the

upcoming November 2014 election.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The relief sought in this petition is within the jurisdiction and venue of this Court

pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1085 and applicable law. The petition is subject to

expedited judicial procedures pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §35.

PARTIES

2. Petitioner is, and at all times mentioned in this petition has been, a competent

adult, citizen of the United States, and an elector registered to vote in the State of Califomia.

Petitioner brings this suit in the public interest as the official proponent of Referendum 1598,

with standing to bring this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 and applicable law.

3. Respondent DEBRA BOWEN is, and at all times mentioned in this petition was,

the Secretary of State ofthe State of Califomia, and in such capacity is charged by law with

receiving referendum petitions from county elections officials and processing them in

accordance with applicable law, including certifying a qualifying referendum to be placed on the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C

ballot of a subsequent statewide election. Petitioner is infomied and believes, and on such

information and belief alleges, that Respondent Secretary of State, as the chief elections officer

ofthe state, also has authority and responsibility under Elections Code §10, Government Code

§12172.5, §6253.5, and applicable law, to review elections procedures and practices, to enforce

elections laws, to adopt proper statewide, uniform regulations for elections, and to investigate

and review the actions of elections officials in the state, including investigation, review and

correction of the actions of county elections officials conceming validation of signatures on

referendum petitions, as in this action, particularly when ordered to do so by the Superior Court.

4. The Registrars of Voters of fifty-seven of the fifty-eight Califomia counties

("county elections officials") are named as respondents because these officials have authority

and responsibility under applicable law to investigate and validate the signatures on referendum

petitions.' Petitioner is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges, that in

this action each of these county elections officials improperly and unlawfully rejected valid

signatures on Referendum 1598. The names and capacities of these respondents are as follows:

Tim Dupuis, Registrar of Voters of Alameda County; Kimberly L. Grady, Registrar of Voters of

Amador County; Candace J. Grubbs, County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar of Butte County;

Madaline R. Krska, County Clerk of Calaveras County; Kathleen Moran, County Clerk-Recorder

of Colusa County; Joseph E. Canciamilla, County Clerk, Recorder and Registrar of Voters of

Contra Costa County; Alissia Northrup, County Clerk-Recorder of Del Norte County; William E

Schultz, Recorder-Clerk, Registrar of Voters of El Dorado County; Brandi L. Orth, County

Clerk, Registrar of Voters of Fresno County; Sheryl Thur, County Clerk-Recorder of Glenn

County; Carolyn Wilson Cmich, County Clerk, Recorder and Registrar of Voters of Humboldt

^ The elections official for Alpine County was not named because the signature submitted to that county was deemed valid.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

County; Debra Porter, Interim Registrar of Voters of Imperial County; Kammi Foote, Clerk,

Recorder & Registrar of Voters of Inyo County; Mary Bedard, Auditor-Controller, County

Clerk, Registrar of Voters of Kem County; Kristina Mckay, County Clerk-Recorder of Kings

County; Diane C. Fridley, Registrar of Voters of Lake County; Julie Bustamante, County Clerk-

Recorder of Lassen County; Dean Logan, Registrar - Recorder, County Clerk of Los Angeles

County; Rebecca Martinez, County Clerk-Recorder of Madera County; Elaine Ginnold, County

Clerk, Registrar of Voters of Marin County; Keith Williams, County Clerk of Mariposa County;

Susan M. Ranochak, Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder of Mendocino County; Barbara Levey,

Assessor-Recorder-Registrar of Voters of Merced County; Darcy Locken, County Auditor,

Clerk, Recorder of Modoc County; Lynda Roberts, County Clerk, Recorder, Registrar of Mono

County; Claudio Valenzuela, Acting Registrar of Voters of Monterey County; John Tuteur,

Assessor-Recorder-County Clerk of Napa County; Gregory J. Diaz, Clerk-Recorder, Registrar

of Voters of Nevada County; Neal Kelley, Registrar of Voters of Orange County; Jim McCauley

County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar Placer County; Kathleen Williams, County Clerk-Recorder-

Registrar of Voters of Plumas County; Rebecca Spencer, Registrar of Voters of Riverside

County; Jill LaVine, Registrar of Voters of Sacramento County; Joe Paul Gonzalez, County

Clerk-Auditor-Recorder of San Benito County; Michael J. Scarpello, Registrar of Voters of San

Bernardino County; Michael Vu, Registrar of Voters of San Diego County; John Arntz, Director

of Elections of San Francisco County; Austin Erdman, Registrar of Voters of San Joaquin

County; Julie Rodewald, County Clerk-Recorder of San Luis Obispo County; Mark Church,

Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder of San Mateo County; .Joseph E.

Holland, County Clerk, Recorder and Assessor of Santa Barbara County; Shannon Bushey,

Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County; Gail Pellerin, County Clerk of Santa Cruz County;


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cathy Darling Allen, County Clerk of Shasta County; Heather Foster, County Clerk-Recorder of

Sierra County; Colleen Setzer, County Clerk of Siskiyou County; Ira Rosenthal, Registrar of

Voters of Solano County; William F. Rousseau, County Clerk, Recorder Assessor, Registrar of

Voters of Sonoma County; Lee Lundrigan, County Clerk-Recorder of Stanislaus County; Donna

M. Johnston, County Clerk-Recorder of Sutter County; Beverly Ross, County Clerk-Recorder of

Tehama County; Deanna L. Bradford, County Clerk, Recorder, Assessor of Trinity County; Rita

A. Woodard, Registrar of Voters of Tulare County; Deborah Bautista, County Clerk-Auditor-

Controller of Tuolumne County; Mark A. Lunn, County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar of Voters of

Ventura County; Freddie Oakley, County Clerk-Recorder of Yolo County; Terry A. Hansen,

County Clerk-Recorder of Yuba County. The registrars of voters all are sued in their official

capacities. "Elections officials" in this petition refers collectively to the county registrars of

voters and the Secretary of State, unless the context indicates otherwise.

5. Petitioner does not know the true names or capacities of the respondents identi fied

under the names of DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, who are sued by fictitious names pursuant to

Code of Civil Procedure §474 and applicable law. Petitioner will amend this petition to allege

their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained. Petitioner is informed and

believes and thereon alleges that each fictitiously named respondent is directly and proximately

responsible for Petitioner's injuries and claims as alleged in this action.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION PREEMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AGAINST RESPONDENTS

6. On August 12, 2013, Assembly Bill No. 1266 was signed by the Governor and

thereafter chaptered to become effective on January 1, 2014.

7. Petitioner opposes Assembly Bill No. 1266 and has sought to exercise her


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c constitutional right to the referendum process, to permit the voters to accept or reject this law at a

statewide election pursuant to Article I I , §9 ofthe Califomia Constitution.

8. On August 16, 2013, Petitioner properly submitted the text of the proposed

measure to the Attomey General with a written request that a circulating title and summary be

prepared stating the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure, all pursuant to Elections

Code §9001. The Attorney General prepared the referendum's circulating title and summary, and

assigned the unique identifier number of 1598.

9. Petitioner, acting as the Proponent, timely submitted 620,422 referendum

signatures to county election officials in all of Califomia's fifty-eight counties. In order to

qualify for the statewide ballot, 504,760 valid qualifying signatures are required. County

elections officials and/or the Secretary of State, claimed that only 619,387 referendum signatures

were submitted, rejected 131,903 of those petition signatures, causing the referendum petition to

be disqualified, falling short of the required number to qualify the referendum for submission to

the electorate by 17,276 signatures. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on such information

and belief alleges, that at least 1,189 signatures submitted were not tallied by the county

elections officials in the raw count at all, and that within the 131,857 and 1,189 signatures

submitted, more than 17,276 were unlawfully invalidated by the county elections officials and/or

the Secretary of State, so that the referendum has been unlawfully disqualified from being

certified for submission to the voters of the state.

10. Petition signatures have been disqualified unlawfully because election officials

erroneously assert that the signers were not registered to vote. Registered voters have been

denied their constitutional right to petition because their signatures were rejected although they

were in fact registered to vote at the time of signing. In addition, elections officials cancelled the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

registrations of voters for reasons not authorized by law under Elections Code §2201. The

petitions substantially comply with this requirement of the law.

11. Petition signatures have been disqualified unlawfully because petition circulators

dated petitions inaccurately. Because of this circulator error, all signatures appearing on such

petitions have been disqualified, despite the fact that the dates of signature collection on these

disqualified petitions all fall within the timeframe authorized by law for the circulation of the

petition, that is, between August 26 and November 10, 2013. This is indisputable, because no

petitions were printed prior to the Attomey General's issuance ofthe title and summary. Hence,

no petitions were printed before August 26, 2013. Further, no petitions were filed after the

ninety-day time period prescribed by law, which ended on November 10, 2013. Thus, any dates

written by circulators that come before August 26 or after November 10, 2013, manifestly were

merely clerical errors; and any dates that may have been inaccurately written but that come

within the August 26 to November 10, 2013, period manifestly are timely, even i f they reflect

clerical errors. In all relevant respects, the signatures on the petitions with these circulator date

errors all substantially comply with Elections Code §9020 and applicable law.

12. Petition signatures have been disqualified unlawfully because of an alleged

"wrong address," that is, because the address on the petition does not match the address on the

corresponding voter registration affidavit, even when the address is sufficient to identify the

voter for purposes of comparison of the signature on the petition to the signature on the voter

registration affidavit. Elections Code §9020 only requires a voter to provide "his or her residence

address." The law does not authorize rejection of an otherwise verifiable signature because a

voter has changed his or her residence, as long as the new address is within the relevant election

district - in this case, anywhere in the State of California. The petitions substantially comply


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

with this requirement of the law.

13. Petition signatures have been disqualified unlawfully due to minor and obvious

transcription errors in writing an address, such as, but not limited to, transposing numbers within

a street address or zip code. These petitions substantially comply with the purposes and

requirements of the law.

14. Petition signatures have been disqualified unlawfully because of alleged "pre

printed or assisted addresses." The term "pre-printed or assisted address," as used by elections

officials, is not limited to typed or computer-generated addresses but rather is used to encompass

even instances when another person assists the signatory to the petition by writing the address of

the signatory on the petition, by hand, in the presence of the signatory, as a form of assistance to

the signatory and with the permission of the signatory. The law requires signatories personally lo

affix their addresses as well as their signatures, but when the signatory is personally present and

observes the writing of his or her address at the same time that the signatory personally signs the

petition, that practice substantially complies with the purposes and requirements of the law.

15. Moreover, there is no statutory provision applicable to statewide referendums and

elections for assisting individuals who find it difficult for any reason, or who are physically

unable, to fill in their address (or signature) on a petition. These people must not be

disenfranchised by technicalities. Such people include the disabled, the infimi, some elderly,

people unskilled in the English language, or men and women not able to read or write at a

sufficient level or otherwise unable to fill in the requisite infonnation without assistance. In local

elections Elections Code §100.5 provides that a person who is unable to fill out his or her address

on a petition may lawfully obtain assistance. There is no similar statute for statewide

referendums, but the need exists, and providing reasonable assistance in the presence of the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

signatory substantially complies with the core purposes and requirements of the law, without

excluding people from exercising their rights as voters. The actions of the elections officials

regarding Referendum 1598 have unconstitutionally disenfranchised people who, typically

through no fault of their own, needed assistance to fill in the requisite information on the

petitions. Not only the state and federal constitutions, but the federal Voting Rights Act (e.g., 42

U.S.C.S. §1973aa-6) compels the law to permit assistance in filling out petitions. Indeed,

Petitioner's preliminary examination of some of the disqualified signatures reveals that they

include people who are blind, elderly, and for whom English is their second language. The

petitions substantially comply with this requirement ofthe law.

16. Petition signatures similarly have been disqualified unlawfully because elections

officials claim that one person filled in the address for two or more people, as, for instance, a

wife allegedly filled in the address for herself and her husband, though both individually signed

the petition. Elections officials have unreasonably rejected one of such apparent pairs of

otherwise valid signatures. Such petitions substantially comply with the requirements of the law.

17. Petition signatures have been disqualified unlawfully because elections officials

claim that the hand printing on a petition does not match the hand printing on the corresponding

voter registration affidavit. But the law requires only that the signatures show that the same

person signed both documents. People may change their form of printing without altering their

signatures. This exclusionary practice of elections officials exceeds the legitimate handwriting

analysis for purposes of signature verification. Such petitions substantially comply with the

requirements of the law.

18. Petition signatures have been disqualified unlawfully because of inaccurate

comparisons of signatures on petitions with voter registration affidavits, whether by use of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

computer software programs, employed by some counties but not others, or by visual

examination of signatures, using the individual judgment of fifty-seven or more elections

officials. Neither method is uniform or consistent. Computer software programs especially are

unreliable when matching signatures, since they compare electronic signatures against pen-and-

ink signatures, which can vary greatly. Furthermore, pursuant to Vehicle Code §12950.5, the

Califomia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) obtains digitized signatures from licensed

drivers using a stylus on a signature pad, which is a notoriously inaccurate depiction of the actual

signature. Under the law, the DMV sends the Secretary of State the digitized signature of every

person who registers to vote using the DMV voter registration card and "provide[s] the Secretary

of State with change-of-address information for every voter who indicates that he or she desires

to have his or her address changed for voter registration purposes." This statute has been in

effect since January 1, 2004. At DMV offices, a signature is obtained using an electronic

signature pad. For online voter registration renewals, the DMV uses the last received digitized

signature. For persons who have registered through the DMV, election officials are comparing

hardcopy petition signatures to voter registration card signatures made on DMV electronic

signing pads. Electronic signatures frequently do not match handwritten signatures. Elections

Code §9020 requires that a voter "personally affix" the signature on a petition, that is, provide a

pen-and-ink signature. But "wet signatures" may not match electronic signatures, and

comparison of such signatures, whether visually or by computer scanning, can produce

discrepancies and unfairly invalidate petition signatures. Hence, petition signatures that

substantially comply with the requirements of the law have been unreasonably rejected.

19. Petition signatures have been disqualified unlawfully due to a strikethrough or

other correction on the petition. Such petitions substantially comply with the requirements of the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

law.

20. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on such infomiation and belief alleges,

that petition signatures have been disqualified unlawfully for reasons not described in this

petition, so Petitioner reserves the right to assert other unlawful reasons for disqualification of

signatures when they have been identified. Petitioner, acting as the Proponent under Government

Code §6253.5, has attempted diligently to exercise her rights to examine the disqualified petition

signatures and related documents. Some county elections officials have put up significant

obstacles to this examination, such as (1) refusing access to the Proponent for eight days; (2)

allowing only a limited number of persons (e.g., three) to examine petitions; (3) requiring a "wet

signature" of the Proponent for her representatives to engage in inspection of the petitions, when

the law requires only a written authorization and does not require any signature whatsoever; (4)

requiring that a written authorization by the Proponent for a representative must be on a certain

letterhead or stationary; (5) not allowing the examiners to touch the petitions; (6) not allowing

examiners to take notes; (7) not providing copies of invalidated signatures; (8) restricting the

days and hours for examiners; (9) taunting examiners, say for example that their names are being

turned over to the ACLU; (10) changing the entry rules and directing examiners to leave in the

middle of examination; (11) monitoring and taking notes on examiners' conversations; (12)

demanding that examiners sign documents purporting to limit the Proponent's rights for use of

the information beyond the limitations in the law and subsequently limiting access upon refusal

to sign these documents; (13) providing only those documents that support the conclusions of

disqualifications by the county elections officials rather than providing all of the relevant papers

needed for the examiners to reach independent judgments.

21. Due to the unlawful disqualification of signatures and petitions, the respondent


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

elections officials have failed to perform their legal and ministerial duties to qualify the petition

and to certify Referendum 1598 for submission to the electorate.

22. The constitutional rights to referendum of Petitioner, the voters who signed the

petitions, and indeed the entire California electorate have been abridged as a result of the failure

of the respondent elections officials to perform their legal and ministerial duties to qualify the

petition and to certify Referendum 1598. The infringement and abridgment of the constitutional

rights guaranteed under Article I I , §9 of the Califomia Constitution to the Petitioner, the signers

of the petition, and the Califomia voters at large is imminent, grave and irreparable.

23. Issuance of a writ of mandate in this action will not substantially interfere with the

conduct of the November election or any other statewide election. However, the Secretary of

State must have the materials for the November 2014 election ready by June 26, 2014.

24. Issuance of a writ of mandate correcting the actions of the respondent elections

officials will enforce an important right affecting the public interest. By validating the signatures

improperly rejected and by ordering certification of the referendum for presentation to the

electorate, a significant benefit will be conferred upon over 600,000 signatories and the public at

large. The necessity and financial burden of private enforcement justifies an award of attomey

fees and costs pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5 and applicable law.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION PREEMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AGAINST RESPONDENTS

25. Petitioner incorporates all of the foregoing allegations of the First Cause of Action

into this Second Cause of Action.

26. Principles of due process of law and equal protection of the laws require that

evaluation of referendum petitions and petition signatures regarding an act of the state


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Legislature be conducted according to consistent, statewide, uniform standards that comply with

the constraints of existing law and that protect the constitutional rights of present and future

petitioners, petition signers and circulators, and voters. The facts conceming Referendum 1598

as alleged in this petition evidence that such unifonn standards and practices do not now exist.

Petitioner seeks judicial review of the policies, procedures, guidelines and regulations of the

county elections officials and/or the Secretary of State applicable to statewide referendum

petitions, on their face and as applied to Referendum 1598, and issuance of appropriate orders

mandating constitutional and unifomi policies, procedures, guidelines and regulations to be

implemented by county elections officials and the Secretary of State in this and future

referendum proceedings.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests the following relief:

1. Judicial review of the petitions and the signatures on the petitions in support of

Referendum 1598 that were rejected by county elections officials and/or the Secretary of State,

including, but not limited to, judicial review of signatures in the manner approved by the state

Supreme Court in Wheelright v. Marin County (1970) 2 Cal.3d 448, 451-457, and judicial review

of the petitions under the standard of "substantial compliance" as established by the state

Supreme Court in such cases ?ts Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 652;

2. Judicial review of the policies, procedures, guidelines and regulations of the

county elections officials and/or the Secretary of State applicable to statewide referendum

petitions, on their face and as applied to Referendum 1598;

3. A judgment of this Court determining that the petitions in support of Referendum


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1598 received a sufficient number of signatures of qualified California voters to be certified for

placement on the ballot of the next statewide general election;

4. Orders of this Court directing the respondent county Registrars of Voters, their

agents, employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for them, and the respondent

Secretary of State, DEBRA BOWEN, her agents, employees, and all persons acting under, in

concert with, or for the Secretary to take all necessary and proper actions to validate and certify

Referendum 1598 in time for placement on the November 2014 statewide election ballot, or, in

the altemative, the next statewide general election following the conclusion of the trial of this

action;




concert with, or for the Secretary to adopt and implement constitutional and unifomi policies,

procedures, guidelines and regulations as determined by this Court, to be implemented by county

elections officials and the Secretary of State in this and future referendum proceedings;




concert with, or for the Secretary of State to take all necessar>' and proper actions to validate and

certify Referendum 1598 in time for placement on the November 2014 statewide election ballot,

and to adopt and implement constitutional and uniform policies, procedures, guidelines and

regulations as determined by this Court, to be implemented by county elections officials and the

Secretary of State in this and future referendum proceedings, or, in the alternative, to show cause


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

before this Court at a specified time and place why the relief prayed for herein should not be

granted;

7. Orders of this Court setting an evidentiary hearing on this Petition to address the

matters raised by the Petition in a timely and expeditious manner so that there will be sufficient

time for Referendum 1598 to be prepared to appear on the November 2014 state election ballot;

8. Costs of suit;

9. Reasonable attorney fees as provided for by applicable law, including but not

limited to Code of Civil Procedure §1021;

10. Any additional relief the Court deems proper.

Date: May 2, 2014

Kevin T. Snider Michael J. Peffer Matthew B. McReynolds PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE

John C. Eastman Anthony T. Caso CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE

David L. Llewellyn, Jr. Llewellyn Law Office

(Verification Attached)

Kevin T. Snider Michael J. Peffer Matthew B. McReynolds John C. Eastman Anthony T. Caso David L. Llewellyn, Jr.

Attomeys for Petitioner, GINA GLEASON


IViay 02 14 06:45p Kinetic Logistics Grou

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

oup

c 9096066574 p.19

VERIFICATION

I . Gina Geason, declare as follows: I

/'

I am the petitioner in this action. I have rdad the foregoing Verified Petition for Writ of

Mandate and know its content All of the facts alleged therein are of my own personal

knowledge, except as to those alleged on infonnation and belief, and as to those facts, I believe

them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of Califomia that the

foregoing is true and correct Executed on this 2nd day of Mary, 2014, in the County of

Riverside.

Gjha Gleason ,'..


KPerr

Typewritten Text

EQCF_48

2014-80001786 #48

Documents