Opinion

Scheafer v. Herman

  • 172 Cal. 338
  • 155 P. 1084
  • 1916 Cal. LEXIS 536
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Mar 18, 1916
Status
Published
Author
Melvin
On the bench
Shaw, Melvin
Cited by
19 cases

recall procedures affecting city attorney held municipal affair

How later courts described this case

  • recall procedures affecting city attorney held municipal affair

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

MELVIN, J., Dissenting.

I dissent. The duty of the election board is to examine the petition and to determine whether or not each petitioner was qualified as a registered voter at the time he affixed his signature. How can such a duty be performed unless the date of signature be established? The opportunities for fraud in the inauguration of a recall are so numerous that every precaution should be taken to guard against improper practices. It may be that the law does not

in terms

command the dating of the signatures. It does, however, require the election commissioners solemnly to certify to the status of each signer as a registered voter at the moment when he affixed his name to the petition. They can

*345

not possibly perform that duty without evidence upon this subject, and surely the law does not contemplate the calling of all of the signers as witnesses before the board. Therefore, it seems to me, there is a clear implication that the date of signing must be indicated by each of the petitioners or by the person who circulates and verifies the petition.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.