CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/6/2023 1

Enjoining Nonbinding Voting That Allots 

One Vote Per House or Apartment Building 

Andrade v. Pulido 

(Cormac J. Carney, C.D. Cal. 8:03-cv-1157) 

A federal complaint, which was filed two days before a nonbinding 

mail-in election was to end, challenged as discriminatory the election on retaining traffic barriers, because one vote was assigned to 

each house or apartment building. The district judge issued a temporary restraining order on the following day and ultimately ruled 

against a related election held three years previously using the same 

vote allocation. 

Subject: Ballot measures. Topics: Enjoining elections; ballot 

measure; equal protection; attorney fees. 

A July 23, 2003, federal complaint filed in the Santa Ana courthouse of the 

Central District of California challenged a nonbinding mail-in election on 

retaining traffic barriers as discriminating against apartment dwellers in favor of house dwellers, because only one vote was assigned to each apartment 

building or house.1 With their complaint, which was filed two days before 

voting was to end, the plaintiffs filed an application for a temporary restraining order.2

According to the Los Angeles Times, 

The lawsuit alleges that the election favors French Park, a community of 

single-family homes on one side of the barriers, over French Court, made 

up mostly of Latino apartment dwellers on the other. 

. . . 

French Park residents say the barriers reduce north-south commuter 

traffic, but the apartment dwellers in adjacent French Court say they limit 

police access and make it difficult to leave the neighborhood.3

On the day after the complaint was filed, Judge Cormac J. Carney issued 

a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause by Friday, August 

1, why counting of the votes should not be enjoined.4 On Monday, Judge 

Carney issued a preliminary injunction against counting the ballots.5

 Santa 

Ana’s city council voted the same day to suspend the barrier election.6

1. Docket Sheet, Andrade v. Pulido, No. 8:03-cv-1157 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2003); see Jennifer Mena, Voting-Rights Suit Aims to Halt Santa Ana’s “Poll” on Barriers, L.A. Times, July 

24, 2003, Cal. Metro, at 1. 

2. Docket Sheet, supra note 1; see Mena, supra note 1.

3. Mena, supra note 1. 

4. Order, Andrade, No. 8:03-cv-1157 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2003), D.E. 9; see Jennifer Mena, 

Judge Stops Count of Votes on Barricades, L.A. Times, July 25, 2003, Cal. Metro, at 3. 

5. Preliminary Injunction, Andrade, No. 8:03-cv-1157 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2003), D.E. 10. 

6. See Jennifer Mena & David Haldane, Santa Ana Suspends Vote Tactic, L.A. Times, 

Aug. 5, 2003, Cal. Metro, at 3. 
Enjoining Nonbinding Voting That Allots One Vote Per House or Apartment Building 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/6/2023 

Reviewing an amended complaint, Judge Carney ruled on December 16, 

2004, that the barriers must be removed, because they were erected following 

a 2000 vote with the same flaws as the 2003 vote.7

On April 4, 2005, the parties agreed to a payment of $65,000 in attorney 

fees, in addition to the $1,339.45 bill of costs.8

7. Opinion, Andrade, No. 8:03-cv-1157 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2004), D.E. 55; Judgment, id.

(Dec. 17, 2004), D.E. 56. 

8. Order, id. (Apr. 7, 2005), D.E. 60; Bill of Costs, id. (Jan. 21, 2005), D.E. 57.