City of Redondo Beach v. Padilla

• Decision Date: 23 March 2020
• Docket Number: B294016
• Citation: 46 Cal.App.5th 902,260 Cal.Rptr.3d 263
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Alex PADILLA, as Secretary of State, etc., Defendant and Appellant.

46 Cal.App.5th 902

260 Cal.Rptr.3d 263

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Alex PADILLA, as Secretary of State, etc., Defendant and Appellant.

B294016

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California.

Filed March 23, 2020

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Thomas S. Patterson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stepan A. Haytayan and Jonathan M. Eisenberg, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Appellants.

Michael W. Webb, City Attorney; Richards, Watson & Gershon, Lisa Bond, T. Peter Pierce and Marvin E. Bonilla, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Dennis J. Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney, Yvonne R. Meré, Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation, Aileen M. McGrath, Co-Chief of Appellate Litigation, and Ronald H. Lee, Deputy City Attorney, for League of California Cities as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

PERLUSS, P. J.

In 2015 the California Legislature enacted the California Voter Participation Rights Act ( Elec. Code, §§ 14050 - 14057 )¹ (VPRA) to remedy the typically low voter turnout in off-cycle local elections.² The VPRA requires political subdivisions in the state to consolidate local elections with statewide on-cycle elections if the local jurisdiction’s turnout falls at least 25 percent below the locality’s average voter turnout in the previous four statewide general elections.

The City of Redondo Beach challenged the VPRA on the ground it improperly infringed the plenary authority conferred on charter cities by article XI, section 5, of the California Constitution to schedule their own elections for local offices. The superior court upheld the City’s challenge, issued a writ of mandate barring the Secretary of State from enforcing the VPRA against the City and declared it unconstitutional as applied to charter cities. We affirm the judgment to the extent it restrains the Secretary from enforcing the VPRA against the City on the ground the Legislature failed to clearly provide the VPRA applies to charter cities.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The VPRA

The VPRA was signed into law on September 1, 2015 and became operative January 1, 2018. Section 14052, subdivision (a), provides that "a political subdivision shall not hold an election other than on a statewide election date if holding an election on a nonconcurrent date has previously resulted in a significant decrease in voter turnout." A " ‘[p]olitical subdivision’ " is defined as "a geographic area of representation created for the provision of government services, including, but not limited to, a city, a school district, a community college district, or other district organized pursuant to state law." (§ 14051, subd. (a).) " ‘Significant decrease in voter turnout’ means the voter turnout for a regularly scheduled election in a political subdivision is at least 25 percent less than the average voter turnout within that political subdivision for the previous four statewide general elections."³ (Id. , subd. (b).)

On July 11, 2017 the Attorney General issued an opinion concluding the VPRA applies to charter cities and school districts governed by city charter.

2. The City of Redondo Beach’s Challenge to the VPRA

The City of Redondo Beach is a charter city. Its charter requires all municipal and school board elections to be held on "the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each succeeding odd-numbered year ...." School board elections are required to be consolidated with municipal elections. Notwithstanding these charter provisions, in October 2017 the City school board unanimously adopted a resolution rescheduling board member elections to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each even-numbered year beginning in November 2020 to encourage voter participation and to comply with the VPRA. The board’s resolution relied on an analysis of voter turnout rates that demonstrated "a significant decrease in voter turnout in odd-numbered years as compared to statewide election dates."

The Redondo Beach City Council considered the effect of the VPRA at a November 7, 2017 meeting. A memorandum prepared by the City Clerk and the City Attorney advised the Council there was a question as to the applicability of the VPRA to charter cities but acknowledged that the City’s last four local off-cycle elections showed at least a 25 percent voter turnout decline from the average turnout of the previous four statewide general elections. A memorandum from the office of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to Redondo Beach’s City Clerk compared the estimated costs to the City for on-cycle and off-cycle municipal elections: The costs for on-cycle general municipal elections (that is, elections consolidated with statewide general elections) ranged between $97,000 and $111,000, while the projected costs for stand alone, off-cycle elections ranged between $588,000 and $593,000.

Despite these data and the school board’s action, the City initiated this lawsuit, filing a petition for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 and a complaint for declaratory relief against the State of California and the Secretary of State.⁴ The City sought a writ of mandate prohibiting the Secretary from applying the VPRA to the City; injunctive relief precluding the Secretary from enforcing the VPRA against the City; and a judicial declaration the VPRA is unconstitutional as applied to charter cities.

3. The Superior Court’s Decision

The matter was briefed for the court;⁵ and the League of California Cities, an association of cities throughout California, was permitted to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the City’s position the VPRA does not apply to charter cities.

After a hearing the superior court made no specific findings but entered judgment in favor of the City and issued a writ of mandate prohibiting the Secretary from enforcing the VPRA against the City and declared the VPRA unconstitutional as applied to charter cities.

DISCUSSION

1. Standard of Review

A writ of mandate "may be issued by any court ... to compel the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded ...." ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, subd. (a).) Mandamus under section 1085 is the appropriate vehicle to challenge the constitutionality or validity of statutes or other official acts. (See Jolicoeur v. Mihaly (1971) 5 Cal.3d 565, 570, fn. 2, 96 Cal.Rptr. 697, 488 P.2d 1 [mandate is the appropriate remedy for compelling a public official to act in accordance with the law and challenging the constitutionality or validity of a statute].) Because the construction and validity of a statute is a question of law, we review the superior court’s decision de novo. ( Vergara v. State of California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 619, 642, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 ; accord, Boyer v. County of Ventura (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 49, 53, 244 Cal.Rptr.3d 665.)

2. The Authority of Charter Cities over the Timing of Municipal Elections

California law recognizes two types of cities. A city organized under the general law of the Legislature is referred to as a general law city. ( Gov. Code, § 34102.) A municipality organized under a charter, like the City of Redondo Beach, is a charter city. ( Gov. Code, § 34101.) As the Supreme Court explained in State Building & Construction Trades Council of California v. City of Vista (2012) 54 Cal.4th 547, 555, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 529, 279 P.3d 1022 ( Vista ), "Charter cities are specifically authorized by our state Constitution to govern themselves, free of state legislative intrusion, as to those matters deemed municipal affairs. Article XI, section 5, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution provides: ‘It shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws. City charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.’ "

(Italics omitted.) Known as the home rule doctrine, the broad authority of charter cities was originally " ‘enacted upon the principle that the municipality itself knew better what it wanted and needed than the state at large, and to give that municipality the exclusive privilege and right to enact direct legislation which would carry out and satisfy its wants and needs.’ [Citation.] The provision represents an ‘affirmative constitutional grant to charter cities of "all powers appropriate for a municipality to possess ..." and [includes] the important corollary that "so far as ‘municipal affairs’ are concerned," charter cities are "supreme and beyond the reach of legislative enactment." ’ " ( Id. at pp. 555-556, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 529, 279 P.3d 1022 ; see Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, 394-398, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 841 P.2d 990 ; California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1, 12, 283 Cal.Rptr. 569, 812 P.2d 916 ( CalFed ).)

In Johnson v. Bradley, supra, 4 Cal.4th at page 398, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 841 P.2d 990 the Court elaborated on the constitutional definition of "municipal affair": "Whereas subdivision (a) of article XI, section 5, articulates the general principle of self-governance, subdivision (b) sets out a nonexclusive list of four ‘core’ categories that are, by definition, ‘municipal affairs.’ The first three categories of municipal affairs are: (1) regulation, etc., of ‘the city police force’; (2) ‘subgovernment in all or part of a city’; and (3) ‘conduct of city elections.’ The final category gives charter cities exclusive power to regulate the ...