182 Cal. 289, L. A. 6377, Mundell v. Lyons

Docket Nº:L. A. 6377
Citation:182 Cal. 289, 187 P. 950
Opinion Judge:OLNEY, Judge
Party Name:JOHN HENRY MUNDELL, Petitioner, v. DAVID B. LYONS, as Registrar, etc., Respondent
Attorney:Don G. Bowker and R. M. Sheridan, for Petitioner. Edward T. Bishop, for Respondent.
Judge Panel:JUDGES: In Bank. Olney, J. Shaw, J., Lennon, J., Kerrigan, J., pro tem ., Lawlor, J., and Angellotti, C. J., concurred. Wilbur, J., concurring. WILBUR
Case Date:February 19, 1920
Court:Supreme Court of California

Page 289

182 Cal. 289

187 P. 950

JOHN HENRY MUNDELL, Petitioner,

v.

DAVID B. LYONS, as Registrar, etc., Respondent

L. A. No. 6377

Supreme Court of California

February 19, 1920

APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandamus to compel the registration of a voter.

Denied.

COUNSEL:

Don G. Bowker and R. M. Sheridan, for Petitioner.

Edward T. Bishop, for Respondent.

JUDGES: In Bank. Olney, J. Shaw, J., Lennon, J., Kerrigan, J., pro tem ., Lawlor, J., and Angellotti, C. J., concurred. Wilbur, J., concurring.

OPINION

OLNEY, Judge

Page 290

The legislature of 1919 passed an act (Stats. 1919, p. 857) repealing sections 3909 to 3958, inclusive, of the Political Code as they then existed and substituting other sections in their place, and also adding eight new sections, numbered 3959 to 3966. The sections repealed established and defined the boundaries of the various counties of the state existing at the time of the adoption of the code. The new sections adopted purported to do the same thing with regard to such counties and also with regard to the eight additional counties subsequently created. In many instances the boundaries under the new sections are the same as under the old sections, or under the special acts applicable to particular counties. In other instances they are not. One boundary which was so changed was that between Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

The petitioner is a citizen entitled to be registered and to vote in the county of his residence. He resides in a territory formerly a part of Ventura County but by the change in boundary mentioned now made a part of Los Angeles County if the act of 1919 mentioned be valid. He applied to the respondent, the registrar of voters of the latter county, to be registered and was refused on the ground that he was not a resident of that county, but still a resident of Ventura County. He has now applied to this court for a writ of mandate to compel the respondent to register him. He is entitled to the writ if he is in fact a resident of Los Angeles County, and the sole question is whether he is or not, and this in turn depends wholly on whether the statute purporting to change the boundary between the two counties is valid.

Page 291

The respondent claims that the statute in this particular is unconstitutional.

The constitutional provision applicable is the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP