HomeMy WebLinkAboutRuling from California Supreme Court Regarding Charging Loca H��'J
' CITY ®F HUNTING'TON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
H UNTINGTON BEACH
To ALICIA WENTWORTH From GAIL HUTTON
City Clerk City Attorney
Subject VOTERS' PAMPHLET STATEMENTS Date May 2 , 1979
A new ruling has come down from the California Supreme Court
in regards to charging local election candidates for the
costs of printing voters ' pamphlet statements .
In East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Appellate Department
of the Superior Court of Alameda County, 153 CR 597 , the court
overturned the previous appellate court ruling disallowing
charges to candidates for qualifications statement printing.
In accord with our previous practice , it will be permissible
in all future elections to bill candidates for city election
for the cost of printing voters ' pamphlet statements .
Please contact this office if you have further questions con-
cerning this subject or the Supreme Court ruling.
GAIL HUTTON
GH: lm:ps
Attachment
�cZ'rrc�'1G -
_,� - - •,'i• :,i's�-.ri:3`t:-;, .:.r., .t„�;,�;�.r: •., -.x.r tm,-a�;e:�.;w .x y.t,:....� ..b,•,.::C y;'"1 ;:�'.i„°,�.- ;...:Xr '.}:. _,y
�•� an;(- '
�';``:j�` � 'S r.j,?' j�l-F•ti;"F"��>�.s',r.-�a,y..'i;r.> .�L 4. s. z"N„�:,Y •ris..d`'�i�i'�`r.{: :�3,� :�r.:e`s� �1.,'t•,t.{'�"� ,�+1�.,,
.)•""A.l�` - !.t•:.,. - '-!`,,.�,,�'', _1l�,;,e;,�:v' ,,z, •1 ':�_ii•r'h 3 w.f�,IyJ�, p -�••,��?!f;�, ryP' ta''. "4 i+: 3t•.`. 1"F F)" ,t�°-`a :i"t:+' �'"9 t•r
4J"`'�i ,:�., w•Y��,J,'15� - ..Y� 1 3>A,. �+ "'-iI A��,"�1' ' R`"."- ��: �qJ �" o'}n Y:: ��V _+,Yi" 4'... �1 .r• .�{
•.�'�} �.�".' ;.i' � '•'t' ,,}w;f u 7?,:,�`"�' .a.:. �.rr. tC'�'S 71° '?.�'r ,�„ .v,"{' t,,; ii1�, t `;t A� 'r lt' P•
+Y't�u` �n. �• 5.,4�`' ,yf�y5*r''st,{,' 'J-" F-`.�,t,�CS�"�3�•t# ��;`{ vt�;•wkYr; "4t..�,'�•:� t4; '��q, ."i�,�`. .` ',``
"N
�k, �� sk ��` •e.i„'Efe t�'Ya-�"3•,t+¢rV+,t;�i ,';4Y,y����; W y �'r�f, �t ''�•'k
'•.J4'4;Ki;<aTD?': '+: '3,hT:k{rr: n`Y , r�41,;S # * "` rY K�gr'ti f.'� .... 'T'. ,*t'(,ht ;rry ; 'o�,"fS�'O�
"l4ki,*#ttir4v`r7��,:ty gg'�_•;{"•.;"'b h.�;�l; r'n�,?i,4 J:4rS'r �.i�''j !;•'jt! +-s}d^..� } irS "' r=e�''Hr Yt'' L� t�. `.'+, ,. :,• ,} t•
a ,•±es" µ ,t',r..1r.�4;i x4?t,+ri. ,#k a :�� 9�#rw#,tia } F,A •+ ,s
;,'t•. #' ,>t" n ' ,< f.b r /- y,.i'. 8a`�,.+•'5:..`S ,';��t '�'�,•t ��'' y,g { J 3�u S a ' y t l P�
$ „tSc�.
a ts.
shi ey h+;�� 7•'P ,r �r �,y,. '"'�{�;I'�k �.� •4 ,,TLe. �" �'., .�� ke�i', t�, �r �1~ •?a, *? � � '�f !"s
p�tt;{" ''�"F';`.,�.5 �, .rr �..�'lt'y. ';3:,`.. �y. ��r,,r•1'b'� �� a
''a•c
�y
Y'•aM 7 Ni [n.`s f i,(;'q' :.,.�7 1i lJ = n 9 ! - ., .} r w•';b�r , 1 '.
ehjT•s�,.�!•t '�t. k,;..`�{ t�'i<'.:ry.'y`tg{f{^ �: "�f y-
41'gyp,9 . Tr
��t���,�s;r�'Y••�il�>a�'�,,3�5��� ,ry�,,,'t�t���•��;d��.�f4��,�jr ��,�����y'�,��•y it�+-'i
EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DIST. v. APPELLATE 597
Cite as,Sup.,153 Cal.Rptr.597 e t
taining an unauthorized credit for asserted
T in aUTILITY
iti a overpayments in temporary disability pay- EAST BAY MUNICIPAL
ment"s, which credit resulted in a reduction DISTRICT, Petitioner,
Pac. `
of the permanent disability benefits which V. r•1,°kJ
were ultimatelyaid. The board should '
t>49, p The APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF i a
consider the question whether this credit
it. is cons the SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAME-
constituted a separate act of misconduct `
DA COUNTY, Respondent; ,
q resulting in additional unreasonable delay
11d•be ! in furnishing compensation benefits. If so, Robert,KAHN et al., Real Parties l ;'
credit a second penalty would be appropriate as in Interest.
indicated above. Additionally, applicant as- ti tt,
S.F. 23675. x :
pre- serted that carrier unreasonably delayed in
'ecific Supreme Court of California.
reimbursing his travel expenses, a further P :,<<.:;
rkers' i � ,6A
��6 act of misconduct which, if proved, would March 27, 1979. s
y justify another 10 percent penalty, applied yE
1 303;
to the total.amount of travel expenses for ' "`r�'
�,uTnp. Municipal utility district brought action
376 which reimbursement was proper. We ex- P Y g
press no opinion on the question whether against general election candidates for dis-
lunge, tracts board of directors for refusing to pay
ward carriers alleged acts were unreasonable
within the meaning of section 5814. pro rata share of expense for voter pamph- '<
Par- let, even though each asked that his state-
of
an In penalty cases the board should proceed
ment of qualifications for office be included
(pomp. I with a view toward achieving a fair balance ''
therein. The Municipal Court entered }„3,
"8, 83 between the right of the employee to
Judgment in favor of district, and candi-
s;Tecif- prompt payment of compensation benefits,
dates appealed. The Appellate Department � , ��- _w��;•
'J, the and the avoidance of imposition upon the '•
P P of Alameda County Superior Court entered tm
;•ty of employer or carrier of harsh and unreason- jud ment reversing Municipal Court Judg-
able ttf
penalties.P ment. The Court of Appeal rejected certi- �� �' .' '*��,•?t
The decision of the Workers', Compensa- fication and district sought a writ of re- fir, ?,'.:
tion Appeals Board is annulled and the view. The Supreme Court, Clark, J., held
,award cause is remanded to the board for further that statute, which permits a general elec-
'qually proceedings consistent with the views ex- tion candidate for districts board of di
i.'} the pressed.herein. The parties shall bear their rectors to be billed for costs of including his
statement of qualifications in voter
�,�uabiy own costs. 's
solved, ' pamphlet after such pamphlet has beents; ,
printed and distributed, does not violate
;ed for BIRD, C. J., and TOBRINER, MOSK,
to and e, MANUEL and NEWMAN, JJ. ither equal protection clause nor California ' s
CLARK ,
Constitution section, which provides that t ��
tad by concur' Legislature shall provide for free elections.
;,mount Appellate judgment of responding
it class court annulled and that court directed to °f
:bly de- affirm trial court's judgment in underlying
4 w action.
t o E
KEY NUMBER SYSTEM
to the T Newman,J.,dissented and filed opinion
award_ 1 in which Bird, C. J., joined.
unrea-
manent
1. Constitutional Law (3=-225.2(l)
w total
r�PPli Equal protection clause does not pro- 1• ' `
hibit a local agency from billing a candi- ;y
vmtnit-
date, after distribution of voter pamphlet,`
tinob-
;+'-r+. .m ;n.. a r ,, r„a; 'A't,�¢ z "PIT
r '" ?�� ? y� ':
'. "l.,v'�.' 5}i{ 1.. . ajK:� �.�+''t :'S".Gi;J , t �,.:� ,�. ...1 � t„�'1 `ti-; :�'rsY��' ,'•v.�h, f:,.. �•??�,rf�,r•-�;1�� ta�tk'x�:
., , ,b-" '�•` ';r , t'{a` r '< ,w. y —;3•f4�;-t, r J''ti'4,{'i'
598 153 CALIFONNIA REPORTER
wx,
for pro rata sharing of publication and dis- 5. Elections 8-21
m u n,
tribution costs, since inequality is eliminat- Statute, which permits a general elec-
EBN!
ed when all candidates are permitted to tion candidate for municipal utility dis- gene
make a statement of qualifications without trict's board of directors to be billed.for i in e Il
:i,Tq prepayment and equal protection does not costs of including his statement of qualifi- in t'
further require that candidates be relieved cations in voter's pamphlet after such elect
of their pro rata costs of publication any pamphlet has been printed and distributed, Elec
W?
more than'they are entitled to relief from does not deny such a candidate or electors
& 1975
other personal costs of candidacy. Election access to ballot. Election Code, § 1002.5,
elect
Code, § 1002.5, St.1974, p. 2363, § 1; U.S.C. St.1974, p. 2363, § 1. pro,
A.Const. Amend. 14. Rea]
6. Elections ca 21
Coll)
2. Statutes Q-174 Statute, which permits a general elec-
A statute must be construed toward, tion candidate for municipal utility dis men
-
giving it meaning and effect. West's Anna trict's board of directors to be billed for
W.1; Code Civ.Proc. §§ 1858, 1859. costs of including his statement of qualifi- A
cations in voter's pamphlet after such rest)
printed and distributed,
W 3. Elections 2:-197 pamphlet has been grot
While statute, which permits a general does not violate California Constitution see- tion
election candidate for municipal utility dis- tion, which provides that Legislature shall COW
trict's board of directors to be billed for provide for free elections, since cost of per- the
4
costs of including his statement of qualifi- sonal qualification statement is not part of sect
sfril
cations in voter's pamphlet after such public expense of I "free election." Elec-
pamphlet has been printed and distributed, tion Code, § 1002.5, St.1974, p. 2363, § 1;
expressly confers a power only to "bill" at West's Ann.Const. art. 2, § 3. Goll
discretion of local agency, Legislature in-
tended that power to include collection
through access to courts, since, in addition John B. Reilley and Robert C. Helwick,
to billing,statute speaks of"charges" which Oakland, for petitioner. of
rring creation of
may be "levied," thus infe
James P. Botz, County Counsel, Mark J. 11,:
a legal obligation rather than merely a ster- -Freed, Deputy County Counsel, Santa Rosa, t bc,
ile "right" to bill. Election Code, 1002.5
John H. Larson, County Counsel, Edward G. Eli!
St.1974, 1). 2363, § 1.
Pozorski, Deputy County Counsel, Los An-
.4. Constitutional Law c:-225.2(l) geles, Richard J. Moore, County Counsel, the
John H. Cosier and Richard R. Karlsson,
Contention that on. some theory of
equal protection a general election candi- Deputy County Counsels, Oakland, it's amici
date for municipal utility district's board of curiae for petitioner.
t directors is not to be charged for his or her No appearance for respondent.
statement of qualifications in a voter
kt Glen L. Moss and Moss & Murphy, Hay-,
pamphlet because candidates for board of Ward, for real parties in interest.
M directors of a corporate utility are not
charged for a proxy statement published to
CLARK, Justice.
shareholders provided no basis for relief,
since State could rationally provide discrim- Petitioner East Bay Municipal Ut.ilit.N,
rict (EBMUD) seeks review Of :In order
inaLory rules affecting two agencies and Di,A
COAS associated with the election of its gov- by respondent Appellate Department of
al - reversing erning body, because there were ration, Alameda County Superior CoulL r(,v rsing 2.
and fundamental distinctions in classifica- municipal court judgment in favor of EB-
tions created. Election Code, § 1002.5, St. MUD against real parties in interest. We
1974, 1). 2363, § 1; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. conclude respondent court erred and we set
,§g
14. aside.its order of reversal.
,T�� fi;�, •� i '
�X�14 777, 7, 37,
1 7,M7.07:��R5
.6
�Tk
Z,lAi,617
Ia T ONt
Y - .-I- :_sr, ': +,:x: -.i,,._ '. ,• ,:?>>..i-.f.:,i?:d•, 't.,_..,�#r,:��Y- ., F:' :.};•,•s:•:1•.:'x.,tf.�,., .�s. ..'u[-•Y:v, c' ..._� '•'+w3+'r3F�,:;"�s..
.`3..:.' tdy„ t•;',.f H.. ! x:- r
..tr::a.,,5 .a .v, ..:- ;3r}�t'.e •,y-LL;"i "..��,.> -kl s-' ,ao- 'x
`,' `'' •.s,`> 'i iF� .:�,.L+,n.. �, 'a "L• '�',•` q,�arh�'.'.` .'•,,�_>... .ea..- k•'' =W
yl _ `..,C_ �'.. -t?.-r„v sk, ..t:: ..,:-i :� ,.1} ,�z,.,7{i,• ttt trL'g.�•.,,..�r; wt.�?f4•t+�,t.".'a '`f•�%?7 - 'C•^'
:1,,4i';_ •-';r`tY3'` er'• •.,C/:' . �t. ti }: s.. �. ,.t<` ..'9,'1.*`Sii -'�..+. -{ .,A', w- j'T.1>r+}',r-.• ;u�{ `-- „-"i�t,7,tL1*hf;tll,„ •s�, i,-h,.. .`,l
.ta'*•x a. "{ 7 `'.fi ,'�in,t �``'" .� ,.ty( .wS:•`qF �.�x,." „;t rr �1
,S't�,'jy1•.V�`�'t•.Jt il:�'`%•J' y �.Ktif F, f�'d:{' Y •ye� > rl".. Y . �' D''%.k,,` � i' L 4' 4. y! �«+�'(,i�i..A'&'` S '•�nF '�;,m`f �`ti'43..:'
,.L`jrd',,,vs�D t"r�;:7�tlll .y'.•+f's llt�„ �F5 A .q,''L f 'k.. �., ` ` 47C' d.v. •, .i �?"i; F 1.
j .t.,c r ,ld a r,<';,,t:�,�„� '�'ly�,a�r;;d3ai!� :yr' #.,,,y.�, -`t�Y 4 �' •} '� a
4
",f�°„;%Y •Q r';�}y'.'yRp�,.�+}dS'�3's'• (��y,''y<•I'� •r?f•,^`..;`�}.;:F,,,l!5."rkii?.a "'�;?w '�`,�,'; `..:Svh' .,tb k",�y' >' T F'•' ;; {y .� t,t
".Y
l•'''„r{9r�J•1 a,.�f`'M,fy�ri"o•'�y`y--J',y,+LLijj.�-G,',{`;m�r'"p;.t,jG 4i,,""�hn,ili�?•tiu;.;ra'`.tf&pF+•-,,y:;�/s��ltt�T,,;a.1�}qi.�;,.,:'.ki,zr�3 t�#l,}d'c',•i1�,,tt ty,.'%.Cr15 r:rr.,t..;.�.�••t,tt:;;'�,_�j;`f2.ryYie,sY,n.'•1,�P,r,,.�5�N�•1r.�1,."�t}'`kE.."r��y'3'.y•i,...s,�'n e)r�.t.,a,M1,t;rc'�i:''.nM1�r,^�'>r rtw�:+t s•if:,,,YN.s�'x,�le't.�;A�Lu``•itt'p�'o+ir,txi?.<'�r•e'7•A?•..l:".i y},Jir':�;.�.d•',�,irj✓,f•.yr rt rn,,�.',j+?�'-i!te"',(y`¢�e�,.ty;M��;�e'Yii�;�"••.'a•;�:..�+%",A]l:,S`N•t1rk,,f:,a�,'.4't9,k'�'f.MyMh�S tji.N't�.,'.4•.ry a ry�',L r:r 6La}.iK.r j'$"+'n�RN'�1 9+-�.;.i�Yi,s ce,*h r-?�StLv,.,,."�A,�y<f.'}.,...5�.£��.s'"!�..,a,ir•.rS,wk Li.•:,'{:.(,.��?�"�,.'g�a:`t'�i kl4e R�.`if;in r y,I�N�i"i tr�,.'�S r_aM�.,'`r•t .�x, 5�{`''Fr,+t�3.i�S`S*-,r.1fj.4�,t>,•,';'L�. 4a.a v u,', z,-:d'�-.,y.,'rTCi•�+.�t'�it��'•
"t�+u"..r.".Ur R•�,�:'r I` i t+,.�''c.•T�,I y•'��.+S,T, '9 t
Y�
I
,
:4! �:?�. L ii "t,A �'r !W 9 v .:X7.,� t. 's.,x} �.s�.•. � •n. ,�y .�E.. .t�+ /'+A'[.E t,.,#:-�d.- �e
'_r _< -P�•bl�a,:e •a/ t a; +" "i y 3�� '�x6 �:}`' a��' lr•}.� ji° �a e '�'`_ rt ',r: , �j` r
'g=,.sS„ :;t.T .�K..t 14J-�,-f'..l�rµ tt�r�5,-�'*, •.�}.•.a, �, �� _r � 'y ,�. s ?k,%, ,•TYrart. (}' ;�' jfe"43'1 4` ,° :h
_• ti;.f ti�',,.,�'��_�,.I,, t ,�+�• '•�c` �•,�y..•.z;�t-„4�``de,�y'W,_�, -.rt.`'"•.. t�,,4C�a i�,Y.ta�w -� � -.��+<' _ t rf#,.+v,��.r o e``',y >t. •`�'
v�.1L„y, •-�t,�'gy� r � f 'r+ldrl>tr �}°w :R r.>'ru �.?I i. m ,.i.., �?•'" si�'t i � �"'- '",�' +��,M,1'
p a
FAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DIST. v. APPELLATE 599
Cite as,Sup.,153 Cal.Rptr.597 }'1
Real parties in interest in the underlying tection. This court recognized that c;mdi-
'aSd; 1
Itiunicipal court action were candidates for dates whose statements of qualifications r .
rcral elec-
I ;u�P:t''t ����•
tility di:;- i EBMUD's board of directors in the 1974 were included in the voter pamphlet pos- a� ;d
billed for general election. Each asked that his state- sessed an advantage over candidates unable
ment of qualifications for office be included to prepay printing costs. The court con- s) ,tl
of qualifi-
in the voter pamphlet distributed to the eluded the governmental agency may not
f Ler such , Aats•
istributed, electorate prior to election. (See former constitutionally require prepayment of costs '•�f
,r electors Elec.Code, § 10012.5, now § 10012 (Stats. as a condition to printing statements of
nc.
1975, ch. 1158, § 19, p. 2854).) After the qualifications. The court held the condition
t, r
1002.5, election EBMUD billed each candidate a constituted an invidious discrimination fa-
1 pro rata share of expense for the pamplilet.l voring wealthy people. But the court ree-
Real parties refused to pay and EBMUD ognized the agency's interest in securing .' `
!eral elec- commenced the underlying action.2 Judg- Payment for services rendered, concluding ' #`•' „+:
1 �` 1;1 '
1 meat was rendered for EBMUD in the the statute permits the local agency to bill, ;1
tithe dis•• ,
i ere at its option, each candidate, who has had a
billed for � amounts charged plus interest. P 1/ statement of qualifications included in the
)f qualifi- Appeal by defendants to respondent court
pamphlet, for his pro rota share of the
fter such resulted in reversal of judgment on then. ; �'•
actual costs of printingand handling, after
stributed, ground that enforced collection is constitu- "! ti}t
the voters pamphlet has been printed and ^ .;r�yr:e;'
1p
ution sec- tionally prohibited. However, respondent �
'
distributed." (Id. at p. 353 11.6 Cal.Rptr. at
tu,re shall i court certified that transfer of the cause to
P. 108, 525 P.2d at p. 1284). The court also A "'.
st of per- h the.Court of Appeal appeared necessary to stated "that although prepayment of the
A part of 1 secure uniformityof decision on a matter of 3_
prorated cost . . . may not be consti-
i." Elec- statewide concern., (See Code Civ.Proc.,.
tutionally required the statute in question
s363, § 1; § 911; Cal.Rules,of Court, rule 63(a).) The
constitutionally permits the candidate to be
Court of Appeal rejected certification andb 'k<fa.rla
billed for such cost after the voters pamph- 4rT ;
EBMUD commenced the instant proceed- let has been printed and distributed." (Id. t, y°`
� ings. �
at 338 116 Cal.Rptr. at 98 525 P.2d at
Helwick, P P P t r kr r
1 We must determine the applicability
P ) ..
of Knoll v. Davidson supra, 12 Cal.3d 335 Rea] parties contend that language in � sl
Mark J. 116 Cal.Rptr. 97, 525 P.2d 1273, to the issue Knoll relative to the power of a local agen-
nta Rosa, r x`,
before us. In Knoll the court dealt with cy to bill for pamphlet costs after publica-
,a:\vard G. Elections Code section 10012.5 (now Lion and distribution is only dicta and is
Los An- § 10012). The statute was challenged on inconsistent with Knolls prepayment prohi-
counsel, ! the ground it invidiously discriminated bition. However, Knoll concerned the ine-
harlsson, against poor candidates, denying equal Pro- quality resulting when only those candi-
as
amid
1. The pro rata charge was $650 for each state- financial means to pay their pro rata share of t
ment plus$650 I'or each language translation of proper costs.
the statement. 1'he amount charged is not in t"
issue. 3. A writ of review issued and the parties are
•hy, Ha former section 10012.5 provided in pertinent Y' P P now before us in a certiorari proceeding. (See
part: "The local agency [EBMUD] may bill Code Civ.Proc., §§ 1067, 1071.) For reasons
each candidate availing himself of these serv- appearing, we deem that respondent court has rt`
i ices a sum not greater than the actual prorated acted in excess of jurisdiction within the mean-
costs of printing, handling, and translating, if
ing of Auto Equity Sales,Inc. v. Superior Court �
any incurred by the agency as a result of pro- (1962)57 Cal.2d 450,455,462,20 Cal.Rptr.321,
1 Utility viding this service. Only those charges may be +^•'
369 P.2d 937(see also 5 Witkin,Cal. Proceduref1f
all order levied with respect to the candidate's statement 2d ed. 1971( ) § 10, p. 3787) by its failure to a}.
and each candidate using those services shall
went of comply with directions contained in Elections
be charged the same.". '
reversing Code section 10012.1 and Knoll v. Davidson
FB 2. This is not,a case in which real parties seek to (1974) 12 Cal.3d 335, 116 Cal,Rptr.97,525 P.2d
''yobligation,,
t ' avoid payment of lawful obli+ation,,on rounds P-+-
P' 6 g 1273. The question is whether the appellate ;. ; !s,
est. We of indigency or other inability to pay. None of "judgment" of respondent court is to be af- ii 4'{t
Id we set re interest—defendants
al parties in interestdefendas in the un- firmed or annulled. s y
1
derlying action—claims Owy are without the
4�YI:
1 •�tY
:tf�a.'.�T _,`'-1.,`;: ,v"',•�t t• tv:. ".:.•,,•1Cf - .>a �,:A" Y•'.t 2 h { } i i '�ai '
>'("^.,i _f •� t�y''p4gi}'r' '�t � S •n,}:f,,�f•1`�n '}: `�"'' , f J 4i„`•�
7c.61�::t'F.,.`,` ;lti'. .+,':r.tt::r_ F.`;t�'� '=r.,e H:t..� .Z'• '.iL. ,�•f, ,ai^,a .trr.,,!p . .}t 1. .*r'7; ';• .,s,d. tL f°r 4 , .^r:';
' `si., a'r?. ,+[. }.L' t:`7 L' .eS s?:'t. ,:•.i i'i i•'.Y_;,' � r,.X.` S ,b°cf-f�.SL'*< a� ,? y �' .�a::•r �`Y 4.',bi':hSYr', ^N _61��nr�r4;kl'w' d
Xi�i ,: -
,`:h`r tlti:-R..-�Hc....r- q xr- 'e.2. - - a k'•5-Z: j.�'ita;^ (c"•-ti:' sue: ,, ^t"':aa` ,c'•h:y "v -.ri'; :^r,,. ,<:• ._
•3•, i.'.. ':+f.-, ;a'.;�.}'.•i�i„�'� yh�x'F,7: t.N ..� Y,,rh p,•'� ,rf F, .�..,hi: 'ir $. - +i�i t'.v��.�t :t�.•,• �i,.i,;:`,»'i:�:,:r;•,..;f•i:-f'yu• �'h,,_.;- :,i."..:�'';F,l�.
.,fiwi• ed3'1.,*. _q8;�i.:\�,.t;rp,.�:''.t3 , ."r.[';r ^ "r'l,�'d :!iS., .>``tr"bi�1•r�•. 3�a. y' 'il� ail.: v� .�,ra.f.,i,� .td r.H'[�r.-1�+f�f,M1' h,,tr.�,.;?;��.v � t
i ' } ! ��$ + II' ,r4,ir r. )ayy Fi Is g� N, `k�. na !•. :w e > ..L`Xr.-5�.�}y .1r• 1, k > •Y N'�ia �- ,
.T. •, 4, 3 't ..t ip.-.'..�-f3S "is'i: 'J. ',.,f..d•
: 'r.V4�'7 '- e� h't etr :•C.r �'• u��' ,.. Mom,' �i?d�t_ ',ter .t- e�T'o-y�.i':. . .fi; 'ln •ti- p,� y ,t_°.':',
600 153 CAi. FORNIA REPORTER
dates able to prepay costs present their While the statute cxpre`;sly confers a El3MIlU
�,1•. w ti qualifications to the voters through the of- power only to "bill at the discretion of the paying it
ficial voter pamphlet. Inequality is elimi- local agency, we deem the Legislature to ! those exl
s^tfrro� `
} nated when all candidates are permitted to have intended that power to include colice- roughly c
make a statement of qualifications without tion through access to the courts.' We en- ballot inf
prepayment. Equal protection does not dorsed such a construction of the statute in E• EBMUD.
further require that candidates be relieved Knoll: "It appears that the county need If real
not be compelled to z the cost of rovid-
tx of their,pro rata costs of publication any. P pa P to—that
more than they are entitled to relief from ing this service of printing and mailing i a candid;
other personal costs of candidacy. 'Certain- candidates' statements of qualifications and municipa
that, as indicated in Bullock v. Carter
�:,��:;;�• ly there is nothing in either Knoll or in [ � his or'hc
( )1972 405 U.S. 134, 92 S.Ct. 849 31 L.Ed.2d
other equal protection concepts requiring because
r 92 the count has a legitimate state inter-
reconsideration of our holding that a local �' Y g rectors
ry'•'g` r, ', 'r`, est in collecting the actual cost ofproviding
A, �: g Y Y g _ charged
agency may bill a candidate, after distribu- g'
,ra such a service." Knoll v. Davidson, supra,
' Lion of the voter pamphlet, for pro rata ( P sharcholr
12 Cal.3d 335, 351, 116 Cal.R tr. 97 108 525
'kaif haring of publication and distribution p ing in ii
costs. We view the challenged langtuige in P.2d 1273, 1284; italics added.) privately
ll:';r',•,,�• `�, 'c`•••�y.� ,. Knoll not as dicta but as defining the limits [4] Real parties also claim that aside ;
under la
rate of
r, �,^�,•� of our holding, and we reaffirm that hold- from statutory considerations, constitution-
1 rational]
mg. al prohibitions preclude collection of pro-
rated charges for the voter pamphlet.
Live tre;
[2,3] It is further contended that while While acknowledging that the "government. ed by pi
for prof;
;• ' a� the statute provides a local agency may bill has no obligation to finance the campaign
it may lay'
r'•� a candidate his pro rata costs, it may not expenses of individual candidates, they ;
1^ - enforce collection by legal action. Such claim the cost of the pamphlet statement is utility, t
�: A h t• interpretation of the statute would effec- not a campaign expense but instead part of q
'• ;�s menu i,
„
Lively repeal it, as collections could be made the cost of a free election which the state
r The stat
` only from those candidates who voluntarily is constitutionally obligated to provide.
so—rat•tt
pay their publication costs—an election According to real parties the right to a
.. of fectinf
4' �;' they can make with or without the statute. free election does not distinguish between
:� , �tssociat.c
A statute of course must be, construed elector and candidate expense and the issue
, f body, he
toward giving it meaning and effect. See is "whether the particular candidate's state-
s . � y g g g ( me n t i t
Mercer v. Perez(1968)68 Cal.2d 104, 112, 65 ment under consideration should be viewed ltal
CaLRptr. 315, 436 P.2d 315; Code Civ.Proc., as an election expense, or a campaign ex-
r,� 6 � mG: se;•:
§§ 1858, 1859.) While not addressing the Pense•" 1 cr p;rr:.,
issue directly in Knoll, this court held that In urging the cost of a statement be the Iwat
�' w the statute, served a useful function. deemed an election expense, real parties require
�L 5q'4
f6r, " W e do not deem it necessary to strike argue that EBMUD is effectively t cor o to beal
-
L down section 10012.5, because, as we read rate public utility, that such corporations ,
�L�4s` , , [5] ,
n<�ul the statute, it permits the county are able to charge the cost of proxy state-
�'G� r regulati
u to subsequently bill the actual cost of pro- menu for election of its directors, and that the ball+
viding the services once the services con- the public customers of the utility eventual-
merit.
templat.ed by the statute have been provid- ly pay the cost of such statements since all
ed." (Knoll v. Davidson, supra, 12 Cal.3d proper expenses are accounted for in rates 6. As s
335, 352, 116 CaLRptr. 97, 108, 525 I'.2d fixed by the Public Utilities Commission. cnu:1:`•
Such i.
ilr,•R- ' t 1273, 1284.) That being the case, real parties argue, if (1976)
It is
4. In addition to billing, the statute speaks of 5. California Constitution, article 11, section 2,
"charges" which may be "levied," thus infer- now article 11, section 3, provided in 1974:
paigns
ring the creation of a legal obligation rather "The Legislature shall define residence and pro-
y "right" g thnufl
?°.`; lalfi t• •* - ,, than morel a sterile ri ht" to bill.. (!n. 1, vide for registration and free elections."
Party r
ante.)
�r" t
�r •'it �yrLLk•{ --- --- -------- -- - --- * - ,� - ----5 .1�' ^,r j ,`�b�irl[ �=,u`w'.i•.c.'!'t' - �`' ..r +k'' °t,-r�, r. ..J7 f v.,:i
: } 'rYti Rt 5i' pe. �vi4 r4r. 17"i.• ' I� Ir ?{T°a•sSr' .}'.w7y�F4.{.'.rni lvf�..♦ ?`�, (! e Pi,4�13 Y '}I 1:�~''4•
y' t' }T ,: y > . �, 0.1 �e f' tti :+'r%'` •+ '1 , n• ,4,,,.`42�Je!•:�{'�•�e°!"'�:. •Cu'F;y. ¢%Pa..�j'9•�h.;`S"+r'x"`�,•.,...
'.�',t�3 w t� �.,-/�6,,• c•���`r� "-r'6:k': a. fryi,;.w?p, �
a t '..` ;` } •C,-r,' v t?,r�i;?. d a ', �,I'��yy�%r.+L '`:r.Vi�,,�u •:,.
' lzt-.� tir. d '' °• '';,,�+'PN ar xG't r`; "t r.t+i{u. .,;, ,'• "k":. �7 i' ,U
��• r.. 0" � fit,,:, rat„4;�r•a. �,t,.i�.t r;_S�
�a 8 ,hh' ,t p•�y .3'9. .+. � '� '-�',kY +.c�._ �1�.`,'�,}�r t,
r} �„t..i- t:;§ Y H 'f. '�.i•I ti�:•••
r+4t;at �,�1. ',+, t; i' i - 'tP' ' t.�.�•?�a�5;,M4�_}l;f,,•,��i,;, �:� ,�e,x.. t L,',-:!�2 �, �,-•s, �;.<.�, S_,:y�i.d,. ..r�,'.
.+, F ��33� X. tl�•.o vi t }
{S •, 't �"'•'� '.,•:f?'" � •- � .k7 � C, �$.�T,,�r' t,y �+ .���F«s{,� .,s%'.c '�';� ••,y, •�s�"tt• -{ 1•.
�i pyj� �. '>;� A,e ,p:,r• 4 �RP:'•g +i` z`t.- ,v• 1: yU'�y y�'. .6:' Y" [ 4f���t•
;.ji ^ 1�' �!"•I���� 4 ,r���� 'd 'rr i�:,�., �'kal f'R� .;r��a'�ti. },L G:�� ,'i 4?4.n,•,5�7�!.'�'q�l
��. �;. ��' ,. •� `� ;>�.�+ .w4�.�,"r'�• .a •'�.� �%;� :' ..��„ s .��::;�'' '� kh.�^"�,r�... t..?�..• r�,"Q;?yi� z.�•g'Ny :�::il..t,�
���.,�' °fi:"f� ''4 �.'&. ,;��at1�• y, ,r"�rF ��� •��� K��;-F r£`-1jf'^, `�q, y.,�• �s T::�,,kr r}ai�'"'ice r �@W..:.�;�J�E- p� r
rj"' ., f{',,�! �'t + d.. ,}"�r-''��pt ,.•A`-tti 1.; ��++.r#.�i'a a. ;� C�a-"-x,^,'�'e�y �,r,, ,6���,�• •,fir_ .t. `':'-`,r;`P'�S'` �..' ;,�'.`6„�a��:4�:4.�.
.�" ��3" ;• 'i � �'} r g�i�. 'M'xr s.'9i`'�'43i'F.,. f.�! ,J :�`ry ,,'i `• ,�?-� >;t� e. ti` Ff� :f�".,,�ti ,�, r'w:
trlaya�- ,� %t t 'i,a'Wr: ������ d,,{{;;,,gg�u� ' .Y „rSr .3"�• rxtp .';t ',j�-'-a_ 'i'S"�d"�r.:;7;i��.����i:�:r.�.,'�','i t,Y3.J�r Y.�i�,:,,' {.�'
.r,.` v. Y'' -.� � "q "�•� 5' t�'.v'. '-f j .is .�7 � p4 r4�..`„`� �. .�.�:!�,�jt ��a.v.�`�H..x.'�, r4 B'e''i` ��' (. � ,�; .�
•a, '.Y� .a � � '�' `" � �+` .;i.j'�"� � 's�.u.t•,, -P,ur "iy f`�,, � ,� 1"'�',�� .�' ���, ,,5. S!�.;`a: ;{: ,r Pv`t �^ .�:'`".;, �s�,n: ���:
,i, >!a r ��'rj v' J".q I-ir a,•k 4 ;?�.,,�,rSsa<,�{ 4 •hC ti; t. ��' ,. f'• f";�,t;i�` t, �;' '
•��'s A,.i, t;.�'� x �' -� ";•1�•:u0. r'�'.`';'4r .y J N _� iN"•.v t.�^' II,shR�'"W' ,};,:_.lr�'�€.•: Tb:y�i!i�•- ::q•.f. �,�.,rt<� ••. t
,lr, �;., iy iM •�til.r..x..,t'�4� ^> � ti .S,n. ,!' ,'' ,�i;'�.gr-j � ;;' ,� 5^.,k,�#! _ a' at ,a.,. .hsi'' ,.f".
.,, y 3#• ' ;4�c,. ,,yt gr" ..r i' -, 1'��, ,,,�� �p93„ � -4.,, :T',Y"T 'riie�;�•.,�.J.-'�;.',�• s �nr ., .._s ,t, .
.i�'.�,.�.' :.f;, .�FMT c ..`h !,•:;•- Lb r.�:�,5�.4:'}'.to-4r ._�: (. .fi.�JF�f .`+Y :Jr_ ,}, � '+4., n ;(� ' .-
�.�.�`�-
'l; _Z17 tXV,..'i-N, i_ 1� V.
A
rX
S,
.,A ;V Til
4;
441. f"t'M
30 W
.................................
EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DIST. v. APPELLATE 601
Cite as,Sup.,153 Cal.Rptr.597
iy confers a EBMUD were privately owned, the rate- the electoral process, as in the case of laws A
retion of they paying public "would be required to pay requiring a candidate to satisfy certain con-
cgislature to those expenses of the candidate statements ditions in order to place his or her name on
:1011de collet- roughly equivalent to those contained in the the ballot. (See American Party of Texas
rts., We en- ballot information [pamphlet] furnished by" v. Whitc (1974) 415 U.S. 767, 94 S.Ct. 1296,
he statute in ERNIUD. 39 L.Ed.2d 744; Storer v. Brown (1974) 415
county need If real parties contend—as they appear U.S. 724, 94 *S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714;
Yst of orovid- i
to—that on some theory of equal protection Lubin v. Panish(1974)415 U.S. 709, 94 S.Ct. X
and mailing 1315 )7
a candidate for the board of directors of a , 39 L.Ed.2d 702.. Such requirements
fications and municipal agency is not to be charged for constitute "direct burdens not only on can-
-k v. Carter
his or her statement in. a voter pamphlet didate's ability to run for office, but also on
9, 31 L.Ed.2d r because candidates for the board of di- the voter's ability to voice preferences re-
e state inter-
rectors of a corporate utility are not garding representative 'government and
of providing
charged for a proxy statement published to contemporary issues." (Buckley v. Valeo,
,idson, supra, shareholders, the contention is totally lack- supra, 424 U.S. 1, 94, 96.S.Ct. 612, 670, 46
97, 108, 525 ing in merit Legislative treatment of a L.Ed.2d 659.) Here, as in Buckley, the
privately funded corporate utility entitled government's refusal to pay candidate earn-
V
under law to a profit based on a reasonable aign costs "is not restrictive of voters'
ri that aside p
constitution- rate of return on its investment, cannot rights and less restrictive of candidates'." tea
:tiori of pro- rationally determine the standard of legisla- (1d.) The regulation "does not prevent any
r pamphlet. 1 tive treatment of a public agency not fund- candidate from getting on the ballot or any 4
ed by private investment and not operated voter from casting a vote for the candidate
I;e campaign for profit. If the cost of proxy statements of his choice (Id.) Our holding
dates," they may lawfully be borne by the corporate in Knoll v. Davidson, supra, 12 Cal.3d 335,
statement is utility, there is no fundamental compulsion 116 Cal.Rptr. 97, 525 P.2d 1213 disallows
;',cad part of 1 requiring the cost of voter pamphlet state- any legitimate claim that former Elections
rich the state ments be borne by the municipal agency. Code section 10012.5 denies real parties ac- RA
to provide.' j The state may—if as here it elects to do cess to the ballot. MV,
N
SO—rationally provide discriminatory rules
right to a
affecting the -two agencies and the costs, - [6] Finally, if real parties simply con-
uish between
associated with the election of its governing tend the cost of the personal qualifications
�
sand the issue 64
body, because there are rational and funda- statement is part of the public expense of a 31.1
;date's state- mental distinctions in the classifications ere- "free election" provided for in article 11,
ld�be viewed
ated. The state has done that here—for- section 3(see f n. 5, ante) that contention is
ampaign. ex-
mer section 10012.5 governs the cost of vot- also rejected. A "free election" does not
er pamphlet statements for candidates to mandate a free ride from all election earn-
tatement 'be
the board of EBMUD and, as we have seen, paign expense and particularly not from the I ads?
real parties
requires candidates not claiming indigency pro rata cost of publicizing personal qualifi-
;ely a corpo- to bear that cost: cations for the office one seeks.
corporations
k tw
[5] If it, is real parties' contention the We conclude Elections Code- section
proxy state era, and that regulation denies them or electors access to 10012.5 (now § 10012) allows collection by a
the ballot, the contention is equally without local agency of pro rata charges for publish
lity eventual- i 0
merits Here there is no denial of access to ing and distributing candidates' statements
ants since all.
for in rates i 6. As stated, real parties agree they are not 7. Even in Knoll v. Davidson, supra, 12 Cal.3d
Commission. entitled to public financing of their campaign. 335, 116 Cal.Rptr. 97, 525 P.2d 1273—wherein
Such issue was put to rest in Buckley v. Valeo prepayment charges were a condition to ap-
As argue. if (1976)424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612,46 L.Ed.2d 659.. pearing on the ballot—this court did not con-
11, section 2, j It is established in Buckley that equal protec- sider access to the ballot as an issue of consti-
,ided in 1974: tion does not require government finance cam- tutional infirmity. The practices there were
Bence and pro.
coons." paigns of candidates of minor parties, even struck down on equal protection grounds. (Id.,
though government provides funds to major at pp. 351--353, 116 Cal.Rptr. 97, 525 11.2d
part%, candidates. 1273.)
lull
tg
U I NIP
4Ni
112
602 153 CALIFORNIA REPORTER
of qual
ifications in the voter pamphlet, account for trust funds and for a pattern of of V
when such charges and collections are ef- misconduct in which breaches of oath and Ann
fected after distribution of the pamphlet. of duties as attorney have become common 6076
The appellate judgment of respondent place.
court is annulled, and that court is directed Attorney disbarred. JC
to affirm the trial court's judgment in the
C1
n i underlying action.
1. Attorney and Client (2-60 pCtil
TOBRINER, MOSK, RICHARDSON and Bad*faith is not necessary element of
willful" failure to comply with court order el,
if MANUEL, JJ., concur.
4®r�, in disciplinary proceeding. West's Ann.Bus.
NEWMAN, Justice, dissenting. & Prof.Code, § 6083(a)- Cal.Rules of Court, 13 pia f} I dissent. The majority opinion states, rules 952(a), 955, 955(a, c—e).
t
2"V "A 'free election' [guaranteed by article II, See publication Words and Phrases section 3 of the California
Bar
for other judicial constructions and
Constitution]
oral
definitions.
ban
does not mandate a free ride from all elec-
tion campaign expe nse and particularly n
Ot 2. Attorney and Client 0-57 (a);
from the pro rata cost of publicizing person- Attorney waives claim of prejudice
a] qualifications for the office one seeks.".
when he neglects to seek disqualification of groi
qWk
By no means does this case involve "a hearing panel members under rules of pro-
free ride from all election campaign ex- codure. Rules of Procedure of State Bar disc`
pense'.'. It involves government action, (1927), rule 7.10, West's Ann.Bus Prof.
'Non
government financing. In my view an oleo- Code following section 6087.
tion is not free, within the meaning of of
article 11, section 3, if a government is 3. Attorney and Client o--51
Personal motivations for initiating dis-
allowed to assess any of its'costs to the
ciplinary proceedings are not important
candidates. where record independently discloses mis-
UT
conduct. Rules of Procedure of State Bar
BIRD, C. J., agrees. 74(1927), rule .10, West's Ann.Bus & Prof.
A
Code following section 6087.
o N
E KEY NUMBER SYSTEM 4. Attorney and Client C-57
T
Unanimous recommendation of discipli-
nary board is entitled to great weight.
5. Attorney and Client �44(2)
Attorney was fiduciary as to funds be-
... Jesse A. HAMILTON, Petitioner,
longing to, and received from, members of
V. club" investing in second deeds of trust.
The STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA,
6. Attorney and Client 0-53(1) or
Respondent.
In making recommendation, disci
L.A. 30980, L.A. 30919. nary board properly considered attorney's
record of 'three prior disciplinary proceed-
Supreme Court of California,
ings.
In Bank.
March 28, 1979. 7. Attorney and Client Q=�58
Disbarment is appropriate discipline for
failure to protect and account for trust
In a disciplinary proceeding, the Su- funds and for pattern of misconduct in
promo Court held that disbarment is appro- which breaches of oath and of duties as,
priate discipline for failure to protect and attorney have become commonplace. Rules
;"3�tZ
,W — ;%I�
5 M;FT ,7717
ip
X
WX"'I
.'ny
M
W11 "Z'fk
A i,4
At'
- �,1. "�
Zo
4 4w,
7'4:
�`R
NA
t
1.A.
4 Y_
R.,