Ni v. Slocum
196 Cal. App. 4th 1636
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Petitioners sought to place the marijuana initiative on the ballot by endorsing the petition with an electronic image containing petitioner Ni’s signature; the signature was traced on an iPhone screen and submitted via a memory device (thumb drive) to the county.
- The county rejected the electronic signature as not personally affixed under Elections Code section 100, and denied mandamus relief.
- The trial court denied relief, concluding the thumb-drive petition did not comply with the statute and that electronic signatures could not satisfy the “personally affix” requirement.
- The parties presented expert declarations describing Verafirma’s software and the process of tracing a signature on a touchscreen device to generate an electronic image.
- The court discussed whether other statutes (Government Code §16.5, UETA) authorize electronic signatures for initiative petitions, and whether those authorities override Elections Code §100; the court found they do not.
- The opinion ultimately affirms the trial court, holding that Elections Code §100 requires personal affixation and that the electronic-tracing method is not authorized by the statute as currently written; it also notes that the Legislature has not expressly approved electronic signatures for initiative petitions and that allowing them would bypass circulator safeguards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether electronic signatures satisfy Elections Code 100 | Ni contends electronic tracing should be valid | County and Secretary argue not authorized by §100 | No; §100 requires personal affixation and not electronic tracing |
| Role of Government Code 16.5 / UETA in §100 applicability | These statutes authorize electronic signatures generally | They do not override §100’s personal-affixation requirement | They do not validate electronic signatures for initiative petitions under §100 |
| Impact of electronic-signature system on circulator declaration | Electronic endoser can substitute circulator role | Electronic system bypasses circulator safeguards | System incompatible with circulator declaration; not authorized |
Key Cases Cited
- Gooch v. Hendrix, 5 Cal.4th 266 (Cal. 1993) (enforces personal affixation concept in signature validation)
- Friends of Bay Meadows v. City of San Mateo, 157 Cal.App.4th 1175 (Cal. App. 2007) (addresses personal affixation and verification in signature process)
- Capo for Better Representation v. Kelley, 158 Cal.App.4th 1455 (Cal. App. 2008) (discusses requirement of personal affixation and verification)
- Mapstead v. Anchundo, 63 Cal.App.4th 246 (Cal. App. 1998) (holds signer must personally affix name/address; typing ok if signer does it)
- Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A., 50 Cal.4th 1389 (Cal. 2010) (statutory interpretation and use of extrinsic aids in interpreting statutes)