Opinion ID: 1572689
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: adequacy of valid signatures

Text: In contending that the district court incorrectly concluded that an inadequate number of valid signatures had been submitted, the relator argues that the random statistical sampling provided by the committee to the secretary should have been considered as credible evidence sufficient to rebut the determinations of invalidity made by the county clerks and election commissioners. This is a legal determination that must be made independently of the factual question of whether the evidence submitted is valid. The relator points out that the use of random statistical sampling has been specifically upheld by the California Supreme Court in Brosnahan v. March Fong Eu, 31 Cal.3d 1, 641 P.2d 200, 181 Cal.Rptr. 100 (1982). However, Brosnahan is not applicable because the California Elections Code mandates random sampling for the verification of signatures on petitions. Our statute contains no such provision, but, rather, leaves the determination of what constitutes credible evidence to the discretion of the secretary. Section 32-1409(1) requires that the signature and address be examined by the county election officials. Since it is the findings as to the invalidity of individual signatures which may be rebutted to the secretary, the finding of invalidity could not be rebutted by the use of random statistical sampling.