CC Min 1992-10-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

B. Councilman Murray referred to the opinion written by City Attorney Schricker answering City Clerk Jorgenson's question regarding her authority to respond to a citizens request for determination of residency of Dan Levin, a candidate for Member of the Redwood City Council, wherein City Attorney Schricker advised that the City Clerk had no authority to make such a determination, and it was up to an individual elector to pursue such an action in the courts. Councilman Murray advised private lawsuits are extremely expensive and an incredible burden for an individual to take on, and asked if there was some other way a City could respond where there is an apparent violation. Councilman Murray asked for a report on what can be done by way of declaratory relief, to put it in the hands of the Courts for their opinion, since apparently it is a factual determination that is needed. City Attorney Schricker described the legal duties of the City Clerk according to the California Election Code and advised that the Clerk has no authority to make determinations in factual disputes. The Election Code advises legal remedies, but they do not include action by the City Clerk. City Attorney Schricker advised declaratory action or a writ of mandamus could be brought, but the question is who brings it, since the Code focuses on the rights of the voters to bring such action. Councilman Murray advised that the City Clerk must administer the Oath of Office which is a very solemn act, and if the process by which a person is elected is tainted, then the entire process is tainted and there is a true, judiciable controversy, which is required to obtain declaratory relief; and the city would be an interested party in such an action. Councilman Murray asked the City Attorney to prepare a report on this question, which is different from the question regarding the authority of the City Clerk to make determinations regarding residency. MEMO 10/20/92 In response to Council questions, City Attorney Schricker described previous court cases regarding residency questions which were by and large post election suits brought by a voter; advised it would not be too difficult to find a basis for a member of the Council, or the Council, to bring such an action after the election; described the statutory framework for bringing such actions; the statutory remedies provided; and the cost of legal fees. In response to questions regarding qualifications in the City Charter, City Attorney Schricker advised that the law governing elections is so comprehensive and so pervasive, the City would be preempted from imposing additional qualifications. City Attorney Schricker provided background on domciliary requirements under the law. City Attorney Schricker stated that he, as City Attorney, was advising the municipal corporation, and at this point wanted to carefully research the question of whether it was appropriate to expend municipal funds in this matter. In answer to Council questions, City Attorney Schricker advised that the City did have authority over its boards, committees, and commissions, but eligibility for Council is determined by the electors, and the City Clerk does not have the authority to make that determination. In answer to the question, does the City Council have the authority to request that Regular Meeting Minutes October 19, 1992 MINUTE BOOK NO. 51 Page 5 Page No. 222