238 Cal. App. 4th 859
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Wildomar incorporated in 2008 after LAFCO-ordered incorporation; Measure D on the incorporation ballot instructed that future city council members be elected by-district (voters chose by-district).
- City Council later adopted Ordinance No. 31 (July 22, 2009) establishing five districts, then placed a special election on the November 3, 2009 ballot.
- Voters approved Ordinance No. 09-E01 in November 2009, repealing the by-district ordinance and converting to an at-large election system. All subsequent council members elected at-large.
- Plaintiffs Bridges and Burkett sued, asserting (1) the repeal/ modification violated Government Code sections (including 57378, 34871, 34873, 34884) and (2) the modification was preempted by the California Constitution.
- Trial court granted Wildomar’s summary judgment; plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the city lawfully changed elections from by-district to at-large | The by-district choice made at incorporation (Measure D/LAFCO) was not revocable by the city; state statutes prohibit replacing by-district with at-large | City council had authority to repeal or amend its ordinance; Elections Code allows submitting ordinances to voters; Gov. Code §34873 permits amendment/repeal of ordinances enacted under the article | Held for City: council could amend/repeal the by-district ordinance and voters lawfully approved the change |
| Whether section 34873 / related statutes prevent wholesale repeal of a by-district system | Plaintiffs: §34871 limits options to specified district configurations; at-large not among them, so elimination is precluded; Measure D (LAFCO) is not an ordinance subject to §34873 | City: §34873 applies to ordinances enacted under Article 2; §57378 incorporates Article 2 into incorporation election results; Supreme Court precedent allows repeal power unless explicitly taken away | Held for City: §34873 applies and, together with §57378 and precedent, allows repeal changing to at-large |
| Whether LAFCO’s incorporation measure (Measure D) is irrevocable or supersedes city ordinance | Plaintiffs: Measure D was placed by LAFCO and created a county-level binding effect that Wildomar cannot repeal | City: Measure D triggered application of Article 2 statutes to the city, but the city council later enacted its ordinance and has power to repeal or supersede preexisting county rules; statutes contemplate revocability | Held for City: Measure D did not create an irrevocable bar; city could adopt and later repeal its ordinance |
| Whether the change is preempted by state law or violates constitutional preemption doctrine | Plaintiffs: conversion conflicts with sections 34881–34884 and other state rules, so local action is preempted | City: no conflict or duplication that preempts local action; statutes permit repeal/amendment and do not occupy the field | Held for City: no preemption; modification not barred by California Constitution |
Key Cases Cited
- Blotter v. Farrell, 42 Cal.2d 804 (Cal. 1954) (municipal power to enact implies power to repeal; ordinances are not irrevocable absent express limitation)
- City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc., 56 Cal.4th 729 (Cal. 2013) (local law preempted if it conflicts with state law)
- City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC, 235 Cal.App.4th 344 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (statutory interpretation principles; consider plain meaning before legislative history)
- County of Tulare v. Nunes, 215 Cal.App.4th 1188 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (summary judgment review is de novo)