Wilson v. County of Napa
A149153M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 13, 2017Background
- Proponents submitted a county initiative titled “Water, Forest and Oak Woodland Protection Initiative of 2016” to the Napa County Registrar seeking placement on the ballot after collecting required signatures.
- The initiative would amend Napa County code to create an Oak Removal Permit program requiring permits to remove certain oak trees and mandating remediation measures as a condition of approval.
- The remediation provision incorporated by reference specific “best management practices” in Appendix D, Sections 1 and 3 of the Napa County Voluntary Oak Woodland Management Plan (2010) without printing or attaching their text to the circulated petition.
- The registrar, advised by county counsel, rejected the petition under Elections Code section 9101 for failing to include the full text of the provisions to be enacted. Proponents sought a writ of mandate to compel placement on the ballot.
- The superior court denied the writ; the proponents appealed. The Court of Appeal reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed the denial, holding the omission violated the full-text requirement because the cross-reference would make voluntary practices mandatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initiative complied with Elections Code § 9101 (full-text requirement) | Petition contains the full text of the measure; no need to include the referenced management-plan language because measure does not itself enact those documents | Because the initiative makes the referenced best management practices mandatory conditions for permits, their text must be included; omission violates § 9101 | Held: Petition did not comply with § 9101; omission of the best management practices frustrates the statute’s purpose and invalidates the petition |
| Whether a cross-reference to an external, nonbinding document is permissible without attaching the text | Cross-references commonly used; comparable statewide initiatives omitted referenced texts without invalidation | Cross-references are permissible only when they do not convert voluntary or external material into new legal obligations; here they do | Held: Cross-reference here would enact new obligations; therefore the text must be included; not all cross-references are invalid but this one is |
| Whether the registrar abused his ministerial duty by refusing to place the measure on the ballot | Proponents argued registrar should have placed measure on ballot pending substantive review | Registrar’s ministerial duty is limited to determining facial compliance of the petition; omission is evident on the face of the petition | Held: Registrar did not fail to perform a ministerial duty; he correctly rejected the petition based on its face for noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Mervyn’s v. Reyes, 69 Cal.App.4th 93 (court invalidated petition that referred to but did not contain text of provisions to be enacted)
- We Care—Santa Paula v. Herrera, 139 Cal.App.4th 387 (petition complied where it contained the full text of the measure and did not need to include text of plans merely affected)
- Costa v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 986 (explains substantial-compliance rule and focus on defects that mislead prospective signers)
- Nelson v. Carlson, 17 Cal.App.4th 732 (upheld strict application of the full-text requirement even for voluminous plans to avoid misleading signers)
- Lin v. City of Pleasanton, 176 Cal.App.4th 408 (distinguishes initiative and referendum contexts; emphasizes requirement to include text of challenged ordinance in referendum)
- Billig v. Voges, 223 Cal.App.3d 962 (discusses substantial compliance and when omissions invalidate petitions)