In Nguyen v. Superior Court, case no. G038475 (May 14, 2007), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, holds that a losing candidate’s challenge to a ballot recount that reversed the results of a board of supervisors election “should be heard by the more deliberative and thorough process of appeal, rather than the hastier route of a petition of writ of mandate,” but leaves open the possibility of writ review in other election challenges. In part, the court denies the writ because due deliberation and the procedural safeguards of appeal are especially important in a case that may result in the removal of an elected official that has already been sworn in to office. But the court also evaluates the classic factors for determining the appropriateness of writ review (see Omaha Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1266) — at least, those that it finds applicable to a petition brought after trial, when appeal is readily available. Since the legislature had specifically provided for relief by way of appeal (Elections Code section 16900) and expedited that relief by giving election cases preference on appeal (Code of Civil Procedure section 44), , the court finds that the petitioner has an adequate remedy by way of appeal. In the absence of any constitutional question, conflict in trial court decisions, or impending elections that might be affected by the statewide ramifications of an ultimate ruling, the court holds that writ review is inappropriate in this case.
Technorati Tags: California appellate practice, California writ practice, California election law