Peterson v. City of San Diego

• Decision Date: 04 August 1983
• Citation: 34 Cal.3d 225,666 P.2d 975,193 Cal.Rptr. 533
• Parties: , 666 P.2d 975 Robert O. PETERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Defendants and Respondents. L.A. 31641.
• Court: California Supreme Court

Page 533

193 Cal.Rptr. 533

34 Cal.3d 225, 666 P.2d 975

Robert O. PETERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Defendants and Respondents.

L.A. 31641.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

Aug. 4, 1983.

John T. Holt, David W. Ault, Richard B. Ault and Ault, Midlam & Reynolds, San Diego, for plaintiff and appellant.

John W. Witt, City Atty., Ronald L. Johnson, Chief Deputy City Atty., and Katherine Manning So, Deputy City Atty., for defendants and respondents.

Anthony L. Miller, Richard B. Maness, William P. Yee, Sacramento, Best, Best & Krieger, Dallas Holmes, Barton C. Gaut, Michael T. Riddell, Los Angeles, Virginia A. Ettinger, Riverside, and Gerald A. Sherwin, County Counsel, Stockton, amici curiae on behalf of defendants and respondents.

BROUSSARD, Justice.

Article II, section 7 of the California Constitution states: "Voting shall be secret." The issue presented is whether the provision is violated by an election conducted by mail ballot. We conclude that such elections are valid.

After the City Council of the City of San Diego adopted an ordinance approving a lease in connection with construction of a convention center, it received a referendary petition and authorized a special municipal election to submit approval of the lease to the voters. The council provided that the election was to be conducted by mail ballot.

All city voters were mailed blank ballots approximately two weeks before the election. Voters were instructed to return their ballots to the registrar of voters either by mail or personal delivery to one of three designated locations by midnight on May 5, 1981. The ballots were to be enclosed in a special prestamped, return envelope, and voters were to place their signatures on the flap of the envelope. Locked ballot boxes were placed at three different government offices for voters to deposit their ballots if they chose not to mail them.

The signatures on the envelope flap were checked against the voter registration affidavit in the presence of public observers and deputy sheriffs as they were received, and the ballots were then locked up until after the close of the polls when the ballots were removed from the envelopes and canvassed, again in the presence of public observers and deputy sheriffs.

Before the election was held, plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the validity of the election. A preliminary injunction was denied, the election conducted, and the voters rejected the lease. The trial court held that the election by mail did not violate the constitutional provision for voting secrecy, and plaintiff appeals.

Although the case is technically moot, appellate courts have discretion to consider a case when the issues are of continuing public importance. (Hardie v. Eu (1976) 18 Cal.3d 371, 379, 134 Cal.Rptr. 201, 556 P.2d 301; District Election etc. Committee v. O'Connor (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 261, 265-266, 144 Cal.Rptr. 442.) As will appear, the question presented affects the validity of state statutes and numerous elections held pursuant to them, and we conclude that the question should be addressed.

Plaintiff contends that to assure the integrity of the ballot article II, section 7 should be interpreted to require not only that the voter's right to secrecy be protected by election procedures but also that the voters be required to cast their votes in secret. Unless the voter is required to cast his ballot in secret, plaintiff points out, the voter may demonstrate to another person how he has cast his ballot, opening the door to fraud, coercion, intimidation, and undue influence. "By compelling the dishonest man to mark his vote in secrecy, it renders it impossible for him to prove his dishonesty and thus deprives him of the market for it." (Wigmore, The Australian Ballot System (2d ed. 1889) pp. 50-51.) On the basis of such considerations, several states have invalidated votes (State ex rel. Edwards v. Abrams (1978) 270 S.C. 87, 240 S.E.2d 643, 645; Clark v. Quick (1941) 377 Ill. 424, 36 N.E.2d 563, 566; Evans v. Reiser (1931) 78 Utah [34 Cal.3d 228] 253, 2 P.2d 615, 625), but no case has been found invalidating all absentee or mail balloting. ¹

As to secrecy, absentee voting in polling place elections and voting by mail in all mailed ballot elections are substantially the same. In absentee voting the voter must apply for a ballot. The voter marks the ballot and returns it in person or by mail to the clerk or to a precinct polling place. (Elec.Code, §§ 1002, 1013-1014.) In mailed ballot elections the clerk mails each voter a ballot, and the voter marks it and returns it to the clerk by mail or in person or may mark it in the clerk's office and leave it with the clerk. Elections Code section 1350 requires that mail ballot elections be conducted in accordance with the procedures used for absentee voting.

Voting by mail has existed in California for 60 years. At the November 7, 1922, General Election the California Constitution was amended to permit absentee voting. (Prop. 22.)

Between 1930 and 1972, article II, section 1 of our state Constitution provided in part: "[T]he Legislature may, by general law, provide for the casting of votes by duly registered voters who expect to be absent from their respective precincts or unable to vote therein, by reason of physical disability, on the day on which any election is held." In addition, article II, section 5 until 1972 gave the Legislature broad authority to regulate the method of voting, providing: "All elections by the people shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law; provided, that secrecy in voting is preserved."

Pursuant to the authority conferred by these provisions, legislation was enacted as early as 1923 to permit absentee voting by mailed ballot. (Stats. 1923, ch. 283, § 1, pp. 586-587.)

In 1970, the California Constitution Revision Commission proposed amendments to simplify the language of article II which included deletion of the absentee voting authorization and a general provision directing the Legislature to provide for "registration and free elections." The proposed revisions were accompanied by comments that the purpose was to simplify the language of the section and to leave "to legislative prescription such matters as state and local residence requirements, removal of voters from one precinct or county to another registration, and absentee balloting." The comment also pointed out that the matters already appear in statutory form in the Elections Code and that the Legislature is compelled by the revised constitutional language "to provide for the election details such as the method of voting." (Cal. Const. Revision Com., Proposed Revision (1970) pt. II, pp. 17, 18.)

Although some changes were made in the recommended constitutional provisions, the recommendations were generally adopted, including provision for secrecy, deletion of the absentee ballot provisions, and direction to the Legislature to provide for "registration and free elections." (See present art. II, § 3.)

Over the years the Legislature extended the right of absentee voting to those serving in the military, the ill, the physically handicapped, those whose religion prevented travel to the polling place, and those residing a substantial distance from the polling place. (See Gaylord, History of the California Election Laws, 28C West's Ann.Elec.Code (1977 ed.) p. 42.) In 1978, the Legislature extended to every registered voter the right to vote by absentee ballot, regardless of the reason for not traveling to the polling place. (Stats. 1978, ch. 77, § 2, p. 213.)

In 1965 mail ballot voting was authorized for new residents and in small precincts. (Stats. 1965, chs. 929, 2004.) Mail ballot elections are presently authorized in a wide variety of situations by Elections Code sections 1340-1352, 23511.1 and city charters.

The use of absentee ballots and mail ballot elections is widespread. The Secretary of State informs us that 6.2 percent of the electorate cast absentee ballots in the 1980 General Election or almost 550,000 voters. She also states that there were at least 270 mailed ballot elections conducted in California between 1978 and the first half of 1982 in 32 counties with approximately 1 million eligible voters.

Mail ballot elections serve two purposes as compared to voting-booth elections. First, voting by mail is often more convenient than voting at the polling place and mail voting increases voter participation. Second, mail balloting can provide significant economies in the administration of elections permitting agencies to call special elections with relatively little cost to ascertain voter sentiment on pending issues. (Bolinger, Election Law During the 60's & 70's, 28C West's Ann.Elec.Code (1977 ed.) pp. 126-130.)

The right to vote is, of course, fundamental (e.g., Thompson v. Mellon (1973) 9 Cal.3d 96, 99, 107 Cal.Rptr. 20, 507 P.2d 628; Zeilenga v. Nelson (1971) 4 Cal.3d 716, 721, 94 Cal.Rptr. 602, 484 P.2d 578), and restrictions on exercise of the franchise will be strictly scrutinized and invalidated unless promotive of a compelling governmental interest (Dunn v. Blumstein (1972) 405 U.S. 330, 337, 92 S.Ct. 995, 1000, 31 L.Ed.2d 274; Young v. Gnoss (1972) 7 Cal.3d 18, 22, 101 Cal.Rptr. 533, 496 P.2d 445). As pointed out in Otsuka v. Hite (1966) 64 Cal.2d 596, 51 Cal.Rptr. 284, 414 P.2d 412, the United States Supreme Court " 'has stressed on numerous occasions, "The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 [84 S.Ct. 1362, 1378, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 523]. The right is fundamental "because preservative of all rights." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 [6 S.Ct. 1064, 1071, 30 L.Ed. 220, 226].' (Harman v. Forssenius (1965) 380 U.S. 528, 537 [85 S.Ct. 1177, 1183, 14...