Unger v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 27 February 1980
• Citation: 102 Cal.App.3d 681,162 Cal.Rptr. 611
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Samuel UNGER, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the State of California, COUNTY OF MARIN, Respondent; MARIN COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE, also known as Democratic Central Committee/Marin, a county central committee, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 47927.

Page 611

162 Cal.Rptr. 611

102 Cal.App.3d 681

Samuel UNGER, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the State of California, COUNTY OF MARIN, Respondent MARIN COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE, also known as Democratic Central Committee/Marin, a county central committee, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 47927.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

Feb. 27, 1980.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing March 28, 1980.

Hearing Denied May 22, 1980.

Lynn S. Carman, San Rafael, for petitioner.

Herbert G. Hawkins, Hawkins & Petersen, San Rafael, for respondent.

MILLER, Associate Justice.

In this extraordinary writ proceeding, we consider whether Article II, section 6 of the California Constitution prohibits a county central committee of a political party from endorsing, supporting or opposing a candidate for a school office.

Article II, section 6 of the California Constitution provides: "Judicial, school, county and city offices shall be nonpartisan."

The salient facts are undisputed. Petitioner Samuel Unger is a resident and registered voter of the County of Marin and was a duly qualified candidate on the ballot for election as a member of the governing board of the Marin Community College District at the November 6, 1979 election. On or about September 1, 1979, real party in interest Marin County Democratic Central Committee, a county central committee created pursuant to Elections Code section 8820, et seq., invited all registered Democrats who were candidates for the governing board of the district to attend a September 6, 1979 meeting of the county central committee to seek the endorsement of the county central committee for the office and to apply for financial assistance. ¹ Petitioner neither attended the meeting nor sought the endorsement or assistance of the county central committee. On September 6, 1979, the county central committee did in fact endorse four registered Democrats (out of 6 registered Democrats, 4 registered Republicans and 3 registered independents) for the vacancies on the governing board to be filled at the November 6, 1979 election. The county central committee subsequently sent letters to unsuccessful applicants, publicly announced the endorsement of the four candidates, and planned to make "small" financial contributions to the candidates it had endorsed.

On September 12, 1979, petitioner filed a verified petition in respondent court seeking relief by mandate or by injunction to enjoin the county central committee from endorsing or supporting candidates for the nonpartisan office of member of the governing board of the district in the forthcoming November election and in all future elections for such nonpartisan office on the ground that the county central committee's activities violated Article II, section 6 of the California Constitution and section 37 of the Elections Code. ² Petitioner alleged that the conduct of the county central committee was causing great and irreparable injury to him in his capacity as resident, registered voter and candidate for the governing board of the district, an injury which was continuing and for which he had no plain, adequate or speedy remedy other than in the proceeding instituted by him.

On September 27, 1979, respondent court sustained a demurrer to the action without leave to amend and ordered that the action be dismissed. ³ Although the order of dismissal is a final judgment (Code Civ.Proc. § 581d) which is appealable (Code Civ.Proc. § 904.1), petitioner sought review by extraordinary writ, contending that appeal was not an adequate remedy in that he needed relief prior to the November 6, 1979 election. The issue of the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law has been determined by the Supreme Court in its order directing the issuance of an alternative writ of mandate to be heard before this court. (Brown v. Superior Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 509, 515, 96 Cal.Rptr. 584, 487 P.2d 1224.)

In its return to the alternative writ, real party does not deny that it had engaged in the conduct objected to by petitioner; real party contends that its conduct was in conformance with accepted practice which it believed to be proper. Real party has submitted declarations attesting to the fact that the county central committees have been openly endorsing and supporting candidates for nonpartisan office for many years. The declarations show that the practice is widespread in the San Francisco Bay Area. ⁴

Before examining the provisions of Article II, section 6 of the Constitution (added to the Constitution as § 5 in 1972 and renumbered § 6 in 1976), we note that the Constitution furnishes a rule for its own construction. That rule, unchanged since its enactment in 1879, is that constitutional provisions are "mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise." (Art. I, § 26, Cal.Const.) ⁵ The rule applies to all sections of the Constitution alike and is binding upon all branches of the state government, including this court, in its construction of the provisions of Article II, section 6. (State Board of Education v. Levit (1959) 52 Cal.2d 441, 460-461, 343 P.2d 8.)

Section 26 of Article I " 'not only commands that its provisions shall be obeyed, but that disobedience of them is prohibited. Under the stress of this rule, it is the duty of this court to give effect to every clause and word of the constitution, and to take care that it shall not be frittered away by subtle or refined or ingenious speculation. The people use plain language in their organic law to express their intent in language which cannot be misunderstood, and We must hold that they meant what they said.' . . . (Citation.)" (State Board of Education v. Levit, supra, at p. 460, 343 P.2d at p. 19 emphasis added.)

Applying the foregoing rule of construction, the language of the constitutional provision is plain, explicit and free from ambiguity. "There is no necessity or opportunity to resort to judicial construction to ascertain its meaning. When the facts in any particular case come within its provisions it is the duty of the court to apply and enforce it." (French v. Jordan (1946) 28 Cal.2d 765, 767, 172 P.2d 46, 47.)

It cannot be denied that the office for which petitioner was a candidate was a "school" office within the meaning of the constitutional provision. "Nonpartisan" is defined as "not affiliated with or committed to the support of a particular political party: politically independent . . . viewing matters or policies without party bias . . . held or organized with all party designations or emblems absent from the ballot . . . composed, appointed, or elected without regard to the political party affiliations of members . . . " (Webster's New Int. Dictionary, 3d ed., 1965.)

In light of the foregoing, we hold that the explicit and unqualified language of Article II, section 6 prohibits a political party and, in particular, a county central committee of a political party, from endorsing, supporting, or opposing a candidate for the office of governing member of the board of a community college district, a nonpartisan school office within the meaning of the constitutional provision, in any election. ⁶

Real party acknowledges that it is prohibited by the "Truth in Endorsements Law" (Elec.Code § 11700, et seq.) from endorsing, supporting, or opposing any candidate for nomination for partisan office in the direct primary election, but suggests that if the doctrine of Expressio unius est exclusio alterius is applied, section 11702 constitutes the sole limitation upon its activities, and that it may participate in nonpartisan elections. ⁷

We do not agree. Former Article II, section 21/2, in which the "Truth in Endorsements Law" finds its genesis, expressly empowered the Legislature to regulate the manner in which political parties could participate in the direct primary election. (Cal. Democratic Council v. Arnebergh (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 425, 43 Cal.Rptr. 531.) ⁸ Reasonable regulation pursuant to such a constitutional grant in order to prevent evils which formerly had been prevalent does not infringe on freedom of speech or association guaranteed by the federal and state Constitutions (Cal. Democratic Council v. Arnebergh, supra, at p.429, 43 Cal.Rptr. 532; petition for hrg. denied; appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 382 U.S. 202, 86 S.Ct. 395, 15 L.Ed.2d 269), nor does such regulation, even to the extent that it excludes parties and individuals from participating in primary elections under certain conditions, restrict the constitutional right of suffrage. (Communist Party v. Peek (1942) 20 Cal.2d 536, 544-545, 127 P.2d 889.) ⁹

In a nonpartisan election, 'the party system is not an integral part of the elective machinery and the individual's right of suffrage is in no way impaired by the fact that he cannot exercise his right through a party organization. ' (Communist Party v. Peek, supra, at p. 544, 127 P.2d at p. 894.) The evils of partisanship in certain offices are well illustrated in Moon v. Halverson (1939) 206 Minn. 331, 288 N.W. 579, 581-582 (concurring opinion of Loring, J.). No constitutional provision was at issue in Moon; here, by constitutional command, the People have directed that certain offices shall be nonpartisan. The provisions of Article II, section 6, unlike the provisions of former Article II, section 21/2, are self-executing; these provisions will be given effect without implementing legislation. (Chesney v. Byram (1940) 15 Cal.2d 460, 463, 101 P.2d 1106; Taylor v. Madigan (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 943, 950-952, 126 Cal.Rptr. 376.) ¹⁰ Although the legislature may enact legislation to implement a self-executing provision of the Constitution (Chesney v. Byram, supra, at p. 463, 101 P.2d 1106), " '(i)t is not and will not be questioned but that . . . it is not within the legislative power, either by its silence or by direct enactment, to modify, curtail or abridge this...