Rawls v. Zamora
Decision Date | 15 April 2003 |
Docket Number | No. H024372.,H024372. |
Citation | 107 Cal.App.4th 1110,132 Cal.Rptr.2d 675 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Alexander E. RAWLS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Evonne ZAMORA, as Registrar of Voters, etc., Defendant and Respondent. |
Plaintiff Alexander E. Rawls was a would-be write-in candidate for Santa Clara County Sheriff at the March 5, 2002 Primary Election. He sued defendant Evonne Zamora, Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, seeking declaratory relief and a writ of mandate after defendant informed him that write-in votes for him would not be counted because his nomination papers showed that he did not meet the qualifications for office specified by Government Code section 24004.3 ( ).1 The trial court rendered judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Given that the primary election has passed, the mandate aspect of plaintiffs action, which sought a judgment compelling defendant to count votes for plaintiff, is moot. Plaintiff concedes as much. But he urges that the declaratory relief aspect of the action is not moot because he (1) seeks a judgment declaring that section 24004.3 is unconstitutional, and (2) intends to run for sheriff in the future. "If a matter is of general public interest and is likely to recur in the future, a resolution of the issue is appropriate." (Green v. Layton (1975) 14 Cal.3d 922, 925, 123 Cal.Rptr. 97, 538 P.2d 225.) Given that there is an obvious public interest in the constitutionality of section 24004.3 and plaintiff or others may later face the issue, we agree to address the question. As to the merits, we disagree with plaintiff. We therefore affirm the judgment.
The pertinent part of the statute in question is subdivision (a). It states:
Plaintiff is an advocate of the right to bear arms that stems from the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. He favors "shall issue" laws, which generally bar law enforcement authorities from denying applications for concealed weapon permits. According to plaintiff, civilians generally favor such laws while law enforcement authorities generally oppose them. By way of example, plaintiff claims that the current sheriff has earned a reputation for denying virtually all such permits. He concludes that there is a division of opinion over this aspect of law enforcement policy.
Plaintiff admittedly lacks the law-enforcement qualifications specified by section 24004.3. He seeks election as sheriff on a civilian platform that promises to limit denials of concealed weapon permits.
Plaintiff specifically contends that section 24004.3 transgresses the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws.2 He generally urges that, by restricting the pool of sheriff candidates to law enforcement personnel, section 24004.3 effectively excludes the civilian viewpoint from being heard. He cites authority to the effect that ballot restrictions place burdens on two different although overlapping kinds of rights, which rank among our most precious freedoms: the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs; and the right of qualified voters, regardless of their political persuasion, to cast their votes effectively. (See Williams v. Rhodes (1968) 393 U.S. 23, 30, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 [ ].) The parties agree that the constitutionality of election laws3 can only be determined by a complete weighing of interests given the high stakes goal that elections be fair and honest. (See Burdick v. Takushi (1992) 504 U.S. 428, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (Burdick) [ ]; Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983) 460 U.S. 780, 789, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (Anderson) [ ].)
In Burdick, which, in turn, relies on Anderson, the Supreme Court developed a balancing test to resolve the tension between a candidate's speech rights and the state's interest in preserving the fairness and integrity of the voting process. It explained the test as follows.
(Burdick, supra, 504 U.S. at pp. 433-34, 112 S.Ct. 2059.)
We emphasize that it is only when the restrictions are real and substantial, that the Court must review them under a heightened standard. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Field v. Bowen
...opn. of Moreno, J.) [voters deprived of this right are “effectively disenfranchised ”] (italics original); Rawls v. Zamora (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1114, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 675 [qualified voters have the right “to cast their votes effectively ”] (italics added).) We must, if possible, avoi......
-
KERN County WATER AGENCY v. ENFORCERS
...or scope of application of a statute would typically be a matter of general public interest. (See, e.g., Rawls v. Zamora (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1113, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 675.) The statute at issue is the core of CESA's provisions regarding the taking of endangered or threatened species. W......
-
People v. Wagner
...general public interest and is likely to recur in the future,'" a resolution of the issue by the court is appropriate. (Rawls v. Zamora (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1113 .) In addition, cases are not moot when they present questions that are capable of repetition, yet evade review. (Hammond......
-
J.F. Shea Construction, Inc. v. County of Siskiyou, C062117 (Cal. App. 2/9/2010)
...approve a development project that creates more jobs than housing is a matter of public interest and likely to recur"]; Rawls v. Zamora (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1113 [appropriate to consider issues raised by write-in candidate for county sheriff who intended to run again and challenged ......