CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 11/12/2023 1

Ballot Petitions Do Not Have to Be Multilingual 

Padilla v. Lever (Alicemarie H. Stotler, 8:02-cv-1145), 

Imperial v. Castruita (R. Gary Klausner, 2:05-cv-8940), 

and Chinchay v. Verjil (Audrey B. Collins, 2:06-cv-1637) 

(C.D. Cal.) and Madrigal v. County of Monterey 

(5:06-cv-1407), Melendez v. Board of Supervisors 

(5:06-cv-1730), Rangel v. County of Monterey 

(5:06-cv-2202), and Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition 

v. Board of Supervisors (5:06-cv-2369) 

(James Ware) and Heredia v. Santa Clara County 

(Ronald M. Whyte, 5:06-cv-4718) (N.D. Cal.) 

After nearly four years of litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit determined that recall petitions do not have to be offered in multiple languages. The litigation began with a December 

12, 2002, complaint challenging a petition to recall a member of the 

school board for Santa Ana, California, in a February 4 election. Ultimately, the litigation included complaints filed in 2005 and 2006 as 

well. 

Subject: Recall elections. Topics: Ballot language; ballot 

measure; recusal. 

After nearly four years of litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit determined that recall petitions do not have to be offered in multiple 

languages. District courts ultimately applied the same rationale to initiative 

and referendum petitions. 

Santa Ana: Recall 

A December 12, 2002, federal complaint filed in the Central District of California’s Santa Ana courthouse challenged a petition to recall a member of 

Santa Ana’s school board who supported bilingual education.1 On the day after the plaintiffs filed a December 23 amended complaint, Judge Alicemarie 

H. Stotler denied the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order, but she ordered 

the defendants to show cause at a January 6, 2003, hearing why the February 4 

recall election should not be enjoined.2

 At the hearing, Judge Stotler denied 

the plaintiffs immediate relief.3 On January 10, Judge Stotler largely adopted 

1. Padilla v. Lever, 463 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th Cir. 2006); Docket Sheet, Padilla v. Lever, No. 

8:02-cv-1145 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2002) [hereinafter C.D. Cal. Padilla Docket Sheet]; see Daniel 

Yi, Group Sues to Block Lopez Recall Election, L.A. Times, Orange Cty., Dec. 13, 2002, Cal. 

Metro, at 3. 

2. Order, Padilla, No. 8:02-cv-1145 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 24, 2002), D.E. 8; C.D. Cal. Padilla 

Docket Sheet, supra note 1; Padilla, 463 F.3d at 1049. 

Judge Stotler died on June 9, 2014. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges [hereinafter FJC Biographical Directory], www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

3. C.D. Cal. Padilla Docket Sheet, supra note 1; see Daniel Yi, Santa Ana Recall Vote to 

Proceed, Judge Says, L.A. Times, Orange Cty., Jan. 7, 2003, Cal. Metro, at 3. 
Ballot Petitions Do Not Have to Be Multilingual 

2 Federal Judicial Center 11/12/2023 

the defendants’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.4 The recall 

election was successful.5

Multilingual Petitions Required 

On November 23, 2005, in a two-to-one decision, the court of appeals determined that the Voting Rights Act required multilingual recall petitions.6

Rosemead: Recall 

A December 27, 2005, federal complaint filed in the Central District’s Los Angeles courthouse by the mayor of Rosemead and a Chinese-speaking voter 

challenged a planned February 7, 2006, election on whether to recall the mayor 

and a member of the city council, because the ballot petitions were not multilingual.7

 The recall election was intended to remove from office supporters of 

Wal-Mart.8 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed an application for a temporary restraining order.9

Rosemead was under a September 6, 2005, consent decree mandating legally required accommodations for voters speaking Chinese, Vietnamese, and 

Spanish.10 Paramount and Azusa were under similar consent decrees as a result of similar actions also brought by the Justice Department in 2005 concerning Spanish.11

The court issued, on January 4, 2006, a temporary restraining order and 

an order to show cause on January 17 why a preliminary injunction against 

the Rosemead recall should not be granted.12 On January 6, in response to an 

application for clarification, Judge Dale S. Fischer said that preparations for 

4. Opinion, Padilla, No. 8:02-cv-1145 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2003), D.E. 23. 

5. See Daniel Yi & Claire Luna, Lopez Walloped in Schools Recall Vote, L.A. Times, Feb. 5, 

2003, Cal. Metro, at 1; Ray F. Herndon & Jennifer Mena, Ousted Santa Ana Trustee Lost Even 

His Latino Base, L.A. Times, Orange Cty., Feb. 6, 2003, Cal. Metro, at 1. 

6. Padilla v. Lever, 429 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2005), vacated, 446 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2006); see

H.G. Rexa, Santa Ana Recall Petitions Faulted, L.A. Times, Nov. 24, 2005, Cal. Metro, at 1. 

7. Docket Sheet, Imperial v. Castruita, No. 2:05-cv-8940 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2005) [hereinafter C.D. Cal. Imperial Docket Sheet]; Imperial v. Castruita, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1176–77 

(C.D. Cal. 2006); see Jason Kosareff, Judge Deals Blow to Recall, San Gabriel Valley Trib., Jan. 

5, 2006. 

8. See Christina L. Esparza, Wal-Mart Helped by Recall Defeat, San Gabriel Valley Trib., 

Sept. 21, 2006; Jason Kosareff, Wal-Mart Foes to Resume Rosemead Recall Effort, San Gabriel 

Valley Trib., Jan. 23, 2006. 

9. C.D. Cal. Imperial Docket Sheet, supra note 7; Imperial, 418 F. Supp. 2d at 1176–77. 

10. Consent Decree, United States v. City of Rosemead, No. 2:05-cv-5131 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 

8, 2005), D.E. 8; see Imperial, 418 F. Supp. 2d at 1177. 

11. Consent Decree, United States v. City of Azusa, No. 2:05-cv-5147 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 

2005), D.E. 8; Consent Decree, United States v. City of Paramount, No. 2:05-cv-5132 (C.D. 

Cal. Aug. 19, 2005), D.E. 9. 

12. C.D. Cal. Imperial Docket Sheet, supra note 7; Imperial, 418 F. Supp. 2d at 1176–77.
Ballot Petitions Do Not Have to Be Multilingual 

Federal Judicial Center 11/12/2023 3

the election could continue while the legality of the election was under review.13 On January 12, Judge R. Gary Klausner informed the parties that he 

would decide the matter on papers alone.14

On January 17, Judge Klausner issued a preliminary injunction.15 He relied 

on, and retroactively applied, the court of appeals’ decision in the Santa Ana 

case.16

Loma Linda: Initiative and Referendum 

Two Loma Linda voters and a property owner filed a federal complaint on 

March 17 challenging two referenda and an initiative because the ballot petitions were circulated only in English.17 On March 21, Judge Mariana R. 

Pfaelzer recused herself, and the case was reassigned to Judge Audrey B. Collins.18 On March 24, Judge Collins issued a temporary restraining order and 

an order to show cause at an April 7 hearing why the election should not be 

enjoined.19

Judge Collins issued a preliminary injunction on April 10 with respect to 

the initiative, retroactively applying the Santa Ana case.20 Noting that the referendum-petition process includes less state involvement, Judge Collins did 

not enjoin the referenda.21 “[A] given referendum petition is neither submitted 

to, received by nor supplemented in any way by the state until after it has been 

circulated and all signatures have been collected . . . .”22

(On April 12, 2006, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed an April 4 action filed 

in the Eastern District respecting a Kern County initiative on biosolids.23) 

13. C.D. Cal. Imperial Docket Sheet, supra note 7; Imperial, 418 F. Supp. 2d at 1176–77 

n.1. 

14. Minutes, Imperial v. Castruita, No. 2:05-cv-8940 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2006), D.E. 22. 

15. Imperial, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1174; see Kosareff, supra note 8. 

16. Imperial, 418 F. Supp. 2d at 1179–80; see Padilla v. Lever, 429 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2005), 

vacated, 446 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2006). 

17. Docket Sheet, Chinchay v. Verjil, No. 2:06-cv-1637 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2006); Preliminary-Injunction Opinion at 1–3, id. (Apr. 10, 2006), D.E. 30 [hereinafter Chinchay Preliminary-Injunction Opinion]. 

18. Reassignment Order, id. (Mar. 21, 2006), D.E. 10. 

Judge Collins retired on August 1, 2014, and Judge Pfaelzer died on May 14, 2015. FJC 

Biographical Directory, supra note 2. 

19. Order, Chinchay, No. 2:06-cv-1637 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2006), D.E. 11; Minutes, id.

(Mar. 24, 2006), D.E. 22; Chinchay Preliminary-Injunction Opinion, supra note 17, at 3. 

20. Chinchay Preliminary-Injunction Opinion, supra note 17; Preliminary Injunction, 

Chinchay, No. 2:06-cv-1637 (C.D. Cal. May 2, 2006), D.E. 37; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, id. (Apr. 28, 2006), D.E. 36. 

21. Chinchay Preliminary Injunction Opinion, supra note 17, at 13–16, 18. 

“The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the 

Constitution and to adopt or reject them.” Id. at 7. “The referendum is the power of the electors to approve or reject statutes or parts of statutes.” Id. at 8. 

22. Id. at 14. 

23. Dismissal Order, Bonilla v. Barnett, No. 1:06-cv-375 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2006), D.E. 18; 

see Amended Complaint, id. (Apr. 11, 2006), D.E. 15; Docket Sheet, id. (Apr. 4, 2006) (noting 

a hearing on April 7, 2006); Complaint, id. (Apr. 4, 2006), D.E. 1. 
Ballot Petitions Do Not Have to Be Multilingual 

4 Federal Judicial Center 11/12/2023 

Multilingual Petitions Not Required 

On September 19, over the dissent of one judge, a fifteen-judge en banc panel 

of the court of appeals reached a conclusion different from the three-judge 

panel’s and affirmed Judge Stotler’s ruling: recall petitions are not provided by 

the government, and a multilingual requirement would only chill their distribution.24

On May 8, 2006, Judge Klausner denied an application to intervene in support of the Rosemead recall.25 Following a rescheduled recall election held on 

September 19, which was unsuccessful, Judge Klausner accepted, on October 

24, a stipulation of dismissal.26

On June 19, Judge Collins granted intervenors’ motion for reconsideration 

pending the court of appeals’ rehearing the Santa Ana case.27 On October 4, 

Judge Collins granted a stipulated dismissal of the Loma Linda case.28

Monterey County: Initiative and Referendum 

Before the en banc decision, three Monterey County voters filed a federal complaint in the Northern District of California’s San Jose courthouse on February 

24, 2006, seeking to keep a Monterey County initiative opposing a golf-andresidential development off of the June 6 ballot, because the ballot petition had 

not been circulated in Spanish as well as English.29 Four days later, the county’s 

board of supervisors voted to keep the initiative off of the ballot.30 On the day 

after that, supporters of the initiative filed a mandamus action in state court to 

overturn the board’s decision.31 The county removed the action to federal 

court on March 7.32 Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg determined that the two 

24. Padilla v. Lever, 463 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc); see Larry Parsons, Court Says 

Spanish Not Necessary for Petitions, Monterey Herald, Sept. 20, 2006; H.G. Reza, Ruling on 

O.C. Petitions Reversed, L.A. Times, Sept. 20, 2006, Cal. Metro, at 1. 

En banc panels in the Ninth Circuit usually include eleven judges, but at the time of this 

case the court was experimenting with en banc panels of fifteen judges. See Pamela Ann 

Rymer, The “Limited” En Banc: Half Full, or Half Empty?, 48 Ariz. L. Rev. 317, 319 n.18 (2006). 

25. Order, Imperial v. Castruita, No. 2:05-cv-8940 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2006), D.E. 51. 

26. Stipulation, id. (Oct. 24, 2006), D.E. 66; see Christina L. Esparza, Council Recall Election 

Vote Today to Be Monitored by Department of Justice, San Gabriel Valley Trib., Sept. 19, 2006; 

Esparza, supra note 8. 

27. Opinion, Chinchay v. Verjil, No. 2:06-cv-1637 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2006), D.E. 57; see

Padilla v. Lever, 446 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2006) (granting rehearing en banc); see also Stephen 

Wall, Ruling Delights Loma Linda Slow-Growth Group, San Bernardino Cty. Sun, June 21, 

2006; Juliet Chung, Court Will Rehear O.C. Petition Case, L.A. Times, Apr. 21, 2006, Cal. 

Metro, at 3. 

28. Stipulated Dismissal, Chinchay, No. 2:06-cv-1637 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2006), D.E. 61. 

29. Complaint, Madrigal v. County of Monterey, No. 5:06-cv-1407 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 

2006), D.E. 1; In re Cty. of Monterey Initiative Matter, 427 F. Supp. 2d 958, 959 (N.D. Cal. 

2006); see Larry Parsons, Defeat for General Plan Initiative, Monterey Herald, Apr. 6, 2006. 

30. In re Initiative Matter, 427 F. Supp. 2d at 959. 

31. Id.

32. Docket Sheet, Melendez v. Board of Supervisors, No. 5:06-cv-1730 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 

2006); In re Initiative Matter, 427 F. Supp. 2d at 959–60. 
Ballot Petitions Do Not Have to Be Multilingual 

Federal Judicial Center 11/12/2023 5

cases were related,33 and the court assigned them to Judge James Ware.34 On 

March 23, in light of the court of appeals’ first ruling in the Santa Ana case, 

Judge Ware issued a permanent injunction against the development initiative.35 The initiative supporters filed a notice of appeal on March 27.36

Also on March 27, two of the three voters opposing the initiative filed a 

new federal action seeking to enjoin a related referendum planned for the June 

6 ballot, again because the ballot petitions were not circulated in Spanish.37 On 

April 6, the county removed an April 3 action filed in state court seeking mandamus reversal of the board of supervisor’s March 28 decision to take the referendum off of the ballot.38 These cases were both assigned to Judge Ware as 

related to the first two Monterey cases.39

In light of its ultimate holding in the Santa Ana case, the court of appeals 

vacated Judge Ware’s March 23 decision.40 On March 29, 2007, Judge Ware 

ruled that the Monterey initiative and the Monterey referendum should be 

placed on the June 5 ballot.41 The development proposal was defeated by the 

voters.42 On November 9, Judge Ware determined that supporters of the initiative and supporters of the referendum were entitled to attorney fees.43 In 

2008, the parties settled the amount of the fee recovery.44

Santa Clara County: Initiative 

On September 1, 2006, Judge Ronald M. Whyte, another judge in the Northern 

District’s San Jose courthouse, denied preliminary injunctive relief to opponents of a ballot initiative while the court of appeals’ en banc decision was 

33. Order, Melendez, No. 5:06-cv-1730 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006), D.E. 5. 

Judge Seeborg became a district judge on January 4, 2010. FJC Biographical Directory, 

supra note 2. 

34. Order, Melendez, No. 5:06-cv-1730 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2006), D.E. 9; Order, Madrigal, 

No. 5:06-cv-1407 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2006), D.E. 5; In re Initiative Matter, 427 F. Supp. 2d at 

960. 

Judge Ware retired on August 31, 2012. FJC Biographical Directory, supra note 2.

35. In re Initiative Matter, 427 F. Supp. 2d 958; see Larry Parsons, Measure C Ballot Bump 

Possible, Monterey Herald, Mar. 25, 2006. 

36. Notice of Appeal, Madrigal, No. 5:06-cv-1407 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2006), D.E. 31. 

37. Complaint, Rangel v. County of Monterey, No. 5:06-cv-2202 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2006), 

D.E. 1. 

38. Notice of Removal, Rancho San Juan Opposition Coal. v. Bd. of Supervisors, No. 5:06-

cv-2369 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2006), D.E. 1. 

39. Order, id. (May 9, 2006), D.E. 9; Order, Rangel, No. 5:06-cv-2202 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 

2006), D.E. 4. 

40. Order, In re Cty. of Monterey Initiative Matter, No. 06-15531 (9th Cir. Nov. 20, 2006), 

filed as Order, Madrigal, No. 5:06-cv-1407 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2006), D.E. 35. 

41. Summary-Judgment Opinion, Madrigal, No. 5:06-cv-1407 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2007), 

D.E. 66. 

42. See Jim Johnson, Developer Plans Legal Challenge, Monterey Herald, June 6, 2007, at 

A1. 

43. Order, Melendez v. Board of Supervisors, No. 5:06-cv-1730 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2007), 

D.E. 87. 

44. Order, Madrigal, No. 5:06-cv-1407 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2008), D.E. 85; Order, Melendez, No. 5:06-cv-1730 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2008), D.E. 94. 
Ballot Petitions Do Not Have to Be Multilingual 

6 Federal Judicial Center 11/12/2023 

pending.45 Four voters filed a federal action on August 3 to enjoin a Santa Clara 

County ballot measure promoting conservation and opposing development in 

parts of the county unless petitions were offered in English, Chinese, Spanish, 

Tagalog, and Vietnamese.46 On August 18, Judge Whyte approved stipulated 

intervention of the initiative’s proponents.47 After the court of appeals’ en banc 

decision, Judge Whyte granted a stipulated dismissal on October 13.48 In November, the initiative failed.49

45. Opinion, Heredia v. Santa Clara County, No. 5:06-cv-4718 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2006), 

D.E. 32, 2006 WL 2547816; Minutes, id. (Sept. 1, 2006), D.E. 33; see Judge Rejects Challenge 

Based on Civil Rights, San Jose Mercury News, Sept. 3, 2006, at A1. 

46. Complaint, Heredia, No. 5:06-cv-4718 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2006), D.E. 1; see Preliminary-Injunction Motion, id. (Aug. 4, 2006), D.E. 3; see also Mary Anne Ostrom, Suit Filed 

Over Land Petition, San Jose Mercury News, Aug. 12, 2006, at B1. 

47. Order, Heredia, No. 5:06-cv-4718 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2006), D.E. 27. 

48. Stipulated Dismissal, id. (Oct. 13, 2006), D.E. 37. 

49. See Paul Rogers & Leigh Poitinger, Complexity Likely Killed Green Measure, Contra 

Costa Times, Dec. 31, 2006, at F4.