impartial hearing in California

2024It would threaten that core tenet if one person who did not like the election result could hire lawyers and with ease could invalidate an expression of popular will.” ( Owens, supra, at p.124 .) “A litigant cannot simply intone the words ‘due process.’” (Kerr, supra, at p. 934.) California courts “‘have recognized the “possibility” that an impartial analysis of a county measure or other ballot materials can be so misleading and inaccurate “that constitutional due process requires invalidation of the election.”’” (Jobs & Housing Coalition v. City of Oakland (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 505 , 512 (Jobs

2023California courts “ ‘have recognized the “possibility” that an impartial analysis of a county measure or other ballot materials can be so misleading and inaccurate “that constitutional due process requires invalidation of the 21 election.” ’ ” (Jobs & Housing, supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at p. 512.) When there is an allegation that there are omissions, inaccuracies, or misleading statements in the ballot materials, due process “ ‘depend[s] on whether the materials, in light of other circumstances of the election, were so inaccurate or misleading as to prevent the voters from making informed choices.

2024It would threaten that core tenet if one person who did not like the election result could hire lawyers and with ease could invalidate an expression of popular will.” ( Owens, supra, at p.124 .) “A litigant cannot simply intone the words ‘due process.’” (Kerr, supra, at p. 934.) California courts “‘have recognized the “possibility” that an impartial analysis of a county measure or other ballot materials can be so misleading and inaccurate “that constitutional due process requires invalidation of the election.”’” (Jobs & Housing Coalition v. City of Oakland (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 505 , 512 (Jobs

2024It would threaten that core tenet if one person who did not like the election result could hire lawyers and with ease could invalidate an expression of popular will.” ( Owens, supra, at p.124 .) “A litigant cannot simply intone the words ‘due process.’” (Kerr, supra, at p. 934.) California courts “‘have recognized the “possibility” that an impartial analysis of a county measure or other ballot materials can be so misleading and inaccurate “that constitutional due process requires invalidation of the election.”’” (Jobs & Housing Coalition v. City of Oakland (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 505 , 512 (Jobs

2024It would threaten that core tenet if one person who did not like the election result could hire lawyers and with ease could invalidate an expression of popular will.” ( Owens, supra, at p.124 .) “A litigant cannot simply intone the words ‘due process.’” (Kerr, supra, at p. 934.) California courts “‘have recognized the “possibility” that an impartial analysis of a county measure or other ballot materials can be so misleading and inaccurate “that constitutional due process requires invalidation of the election.”’” (Jobs & Housing Coalition v. City of Oakland (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 505 , 512 (Jobs

2021The provisions of the Elections Code “do [not] provide a statutory bases ‘to attack the outcome of an election based on deficiencies in the impartial analysis’ of a ballot measure after the election,” as “[e]nforcing the requirements for an impartial analysis of a ballot is a preelection activity.” (Denny v. Arntz (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 914 , 921; accord, Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, 192 .) While postelection challenges to ballot materials cannot be brought under the Elections Code, “California appellate courts have recognized the ‘possibility’ that an

2020(See Huntington Beach City Council v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1426 [preelection petitions for writs of mandate to address false or misleading statements]; 5We note that courts have recognized “the ‘possibility’ that an impartial analysis of a county measure or other ballot materials can be so misleading and inaccurate ‘that constitutional due process requires invalidation of the election,’ ” but Denny does not raise any such claim here.

2020(See Huntington Beach City Council v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1426 [preelection petitions for writs of mandate to address false or misleading statements]; 5We note that courts have recognized “the ‘possibility’ that an impartial analysis of a county measure or other ballot materials can be so misleading and inaccurate ‘that constitutional due process requires invalidation of the election,’ ” but Denny does not raise any such claim here.

2020(Owens v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 107, 123 .) 10 McDonough v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1173 [preelection writ of mandate challenging ballot title and question].) Finally, even if Denny could rely on section 16100, subdivision (c) as a basis to challenge the ballot measure, Denny does not allege the defendants’ actions affected the election results for Proposition A as required for ballot measure election contests under section 16100, subdivision (c).

2020(Owens v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 107, 123 .) 10 McDonough v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1173 [preelection writ of mandate challenging ballot title and question].) Finally, even if Denny could rely on section 16100, subdivision (c) as a basis to challenge the ballot measure, Denny does not allege the defendants’ actions affected the election results for Proposition A as required for ballot measure election contests under section 16100, subdivision (c).

1990Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 243 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 239 , 583 P.2d 1281 ].) However, in this instance the two word changes and one deletion did nothing to significantly alter the meaning of the impartial analysis.

1990Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 243 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 239 , 583 P.2d 1281 ].) However, in this instance the two word changes and one deletion did nothing to significantly alter the meaning of the impartial analysis.

2025“Although the California appellate courts have recognized the ‘possibility’ that an impartial analysis of a county measure or other ballot materials can be so misleading and inaccurate ‘that constitutional due process requires invalidation of the election’ [citation], no California appellate court, to our knowledge, has invalidated an election on this basis. [¶] The courts have set a ‘very high’ bar [citation] for litigants to successfully mount a postelection due process challenge to a ballot measure . . . .” (Owens v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 107, 123 , fn. omitted (Owens

2025“Although the California appellate courts have recognized the ‘possibility’ that an impartial analysis of a county measure or other ballot materials can be so misleading and inaccurate ‘that constitutional due process requires invalidation of the election’ [citation], no California appellate court, to our knowledge, has invalidated an election on this basis. [¶] The courts have set a ‘very high’ bar [citation] for litigants to successfully mount a postelection due process challenge to a ballot measure . . . .” (Owens v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 107, 123 , fn. omitted (Owens

2022(Gray, at p. 632.) This court concluded that the police chief “has thus far failed to establish good cause to recuse the city council.” (Ibid.; see Dole v. City of Chino (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 673 , 682–684 [city council was appropriate body to hearing police chief’s appeal].) Similarly, on the record presented in this appeal, we cannot conclude the city council is a biased decision maker unable to provide an impartial hearing of the administrative appeal.

2022(Gray, at p. 632.) This court concluded that the police chief “has thus far failed to establish good cause to recuse the city council.” (Ibid.; see Dole v. City of Chino (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 673 , 682–684 [city council was appropriate body to hearing police chief’s appeal].) Similarly, on the record presented in this appeal, we cannot conclude the city council is a biased decision maker unable to provide an impartial hearing of the administrative appeal.

2014(Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279-284 ; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441 ; see also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124 .) Appellant contends he could not get an impartial hearing on the motion to suppress when his lawyer had him waive his rights and submit the motion on the police report because he “had no idea” what was going on and that he was “giving up so much,” and he only agreed to the waiver because his attorney told him to.

2006(See Kennedy Wholesale, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1991) 53 Cal.3d 245, 250 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 325 , 806 P.2d 1360 ] [considering ballot pamphlet arguments in interpreting scope of proposition].) Accordingly, we reject appellant’s interpretation of the Resolution’s exhibits and conclude *1190 that exhibit B to the Resolution properly included the list of specific school facilities projects as well as the remaining accountability requirements.

2006(See Kennedy Wholesale, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1991) 53 Cal.3d 245, 250 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 325 , 806 P.2d 1360 ] [considering ballot pamphlet arguments in interpreting scope of proposition].) Accordingly, we reject appellant’s interpretation of the Resolution’s exhibits and conclude *1190 that exhibit B to the Resolution properly included the list of specific school facilities projects as well as the remaining accountability requirements.

2004(See Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose (2000) 24 Cal.4th 537, 582 [ 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 653 , 12 P.3d 1068 ] (cone. & dis. opn. of George, C.

2004(See Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose (2000) 24 Cal.4th 537, 582 [ 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 653 , 12 P.3d 1068 ] (cone. & dis. opn. of George, C.

2003(See Brennan v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 87, 96 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 677 ] [if “reasonable minds may differ” on the “sufficiency” of a ballot summary, “it should be held sufficient”].) Now to the actual facts in Horwath .

2003(See Brennan v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 87, 96 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 677 ] [if “reasonable minds may differ” on the “sufficiency” of a ballot summary, “it should be held sufficient”].) Now to the actual facts in Horwath .

2003Given that the use of the word “may” denotes discretionary authority (e.g., Bohemian Club v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d *942 1, 23 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 769 ]; Fair v. Hernandez (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 868, 876 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 379 ]), it is relatively clear here that the board of supervisors’ decision not to refer Measure V out for a fiscal impact statement was within the realm of reason.

2003Given that the use of the word “may” denotes discretionary authority (e.g., Bohemian Club v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d *942 1, 23 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 769 ]; Fair v. Hernandez (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 868, 876 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 379 ]), it is relatively clear here that the board of supervisors’ decision not to refer Measure V out for a fiscal impact statement was within the realm of reason.

2000Real Parties correctly contend they are entitled to due process (In re Minnis (1972) 7 Cal.3d 639, 649 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 749 , 498 P.2d 997 ]), which includes having an impartial hearing, “free from bias or prejudice.” (O’Bremski v. Maass (9th Cir. 1990) 915 F.2d 418, 422 .) The California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 2250 defines an impartial panel as one whose members do not have a specific prejudice for or against the particular prisoner. 3 Real Parties have made no showing of such individualized prejudice.

2000Real Parties correctly contend they are entitled to due process (In re Minnis (1972) 7 Cal.3d 639, 649 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 749 , 498 P.2d 997 ]), which includes having an impartial hearing, “free from bias or prejudice.” (O’Bremski v. Maass (9th Cir. 1990) 915 F.2d 418, 422 .) The California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 2250 defines an impartial panel as one whose members do not have a specific prejudice for or against the particular prisoner. 3 Real Parties have made no showing of such individualized prejudice.

2000“Failure to provide for a consequence or penalty for noncompliance strongly suggests that the provision is merely directory. [Citation.]” (Meridian Ocean Systems, Inc. v. State Lands Com. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 153, 168 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 445 ].) There is no evidence to support a conclusion that counsel knowingly waived *505 the rights of Florence to enforce the provisions of section 14171 enacted after the waiver was signed. 9 Finally, the Department argues that the trial court erred in denying its request to file an answer and memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the petition af

2000“Failure to provide for a consequence or penalty for noncompliance strongly suggests that the provision is merely directory. [Citation.]” (Meridian Ocean Systems, Inc. v. State Lands Com. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 153, 168 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 445 ].) There is no evidence to support a conclusion that counsel knowingly waived *505 the rights of Florence to enforce the provisions of section 14171 enacted after the waiver was signed. 9 Finally, the Department argues that the trial court erred in denying its request to file an answer and memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the petition af