Opinion ID: 1452978
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: illegal votes

Text: (2) Review of judgments entered with findings of fact on a motion for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 is governed by the same rules which apply on appeal following any other findings. ( U.S. Industries, Inc. v. Vadnais, 270 Cal. App.2d 520, 524 [76 Cal. Rptr. 44].) (3) Under section 20024 of the Elections Code, the contestants must make it appear not only that illegal votes were sufficient in number to account for the result but also that illegal votes were cast in such a manner as in fact to determine the result. (4) We are satisfied that contestants met their burden as to the crucial nine votes and that in the absence of any contrary evidence, the trial court erred in refusing to so find. The only evidence in the record as to how the nine illegal votes were cast is the signatures of all nine voters on the petition by virtue of which the election was held. Although circumstantial, such evidence is admissible. ( Robinson v. McAbee, 64 Cal. App. 709, 718 [222 P. 871].) (5) Respondents made no effort to show that these votes were cast inconsistently with the wording of the petition, which asked that the City of Alviso be consolidated with the City of San Jose ... that [the Alviso City Council] call a special election without delay and submit the question of such consolidation to the electors of the City of Alviso, and that [the city council] do all other things within [its] power necessary to consolidate the City of Alviso with the City of San Jose.... Accordingly, the record leads reasonably only to the conclusion that all nine illegal votes were cast in favor of consolidation. In defending the trial court's allocation of the nine votes, respondents invoke the policy in favor of upholding elections ( Simpson v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.2d 271, 277 [253 P.2d 464]; Davis v. County of Los Angeles, 12 Cal.2d 412, 426-427 [84 P.2d 1034]; Rideout v. City of Los Angeles, 185 Cal. 426, 430 [197 P. 74]; People v. Prewett, 124 Cal. 7, 10 [56 P. 619]), and argue that the fact illegal voters signed the petition for consolidation is insufficient proof of how they voted  at least in view of other methods of proof allegedly open to petitioners. We have concluded that the trial court's disposition of the illegal vote contention cannot be upheld on either of these grounds. The policy in favor of upholding elections appears in the cases in conjunction with the rule that [t]echnical errors or irregularities arising in carrying out directory provisions which do not affect the result will not avoid the election. ( Davis v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 12 Cal.2d at p. 426 (italics added); Rideout v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 185 Cal. at p. 430; People v. Prewett, supra, 124 Cal. at p. 10.) (6) Both the policy and the rule manifest the fact that [c]ourts are reluctant to defeat the fair expression of popular will in elections.... ( Simpson v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 40 Cal.2d at p. 277); neither has been invoked to uphold an election in the face of illegalities which affected the result  a situation in which the will of the people may be thwarted by upholding an election. Hence, respondents' invocation of the policy in favor of upholding elections begs the question whether irregularities were merely incidental to the result or in fact prevented the fair expression of popular will. On the merits, respondents contend that the signatures of illegal voters on the petition [1] does not prove that they voted in favor of consolidation some three months later, and that petitioners should have asked directly how each witness voted. On this theory, respondents conclude that there was no substantial evidence tending to show how illegal votes were cast, and hence that the trial court was correct in dividing the illegal votes equally under the rule of Russell v. McDowell, 83 Cal. 70, 72-74 [23 P. 183], as applied in Singletary v. Kelley, 242 Cal. App.2d 611, 612 [51 Cal. Rptr. 682]. Those cases clearly call for a division of illegal votes in proportion to legal votes when there is no evidence of how those votes were cast. [2] There can be no doubt, however, that a voter's signature on a petition urging that an issue be put on the ballot so that a certain result may be obtained is circumstantial evidence which is admissible to show that he in fact voted in favor of that result. ( Robinson v. McAbee, supra, 64 Cal. App. at p. 718.) Accordingly, the Russell rule is of no avail to respondents. (Cf. Garrison v. Rourke, 32 Cal.2d 430, 441 [196 P.2d 884].) Contestants are not required to ask voters how they voted. If petitioners made a tactical decision based upon fears either that a witness changed his mind after signing the petition or that a strong proponent of consolidation who voted illegally would lie to preserve the result of the election, such a decision would not relieve respondents of their obligation to counter the substantial evidence in fact introduced by petitioners to show that the nine illegal votes were cast in favor of consolidation. [3] Respondents had the same problematical opportunity to ask voters how they voted, but did not cross-examine the witnesses who testified that they signed the petition or favored consolidation to attempt to rebut petitioners' circumstantial showing that the witnesses voted in accord with their signatures on the petition. [4] Although an elector who signed the petition may subsequently have changed his mind, respondents made no effort to show that this ever occurred in fact. As a result the record clearly contains substantial evidence tending to show that all nine illegal votes were cast in favor of consolidation, and absolutely no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, this judgment must be reversed for lack of any evidentiary support. ( Haines v. Bechdolt, 231 Cal. App.2d 659, 665 [42 Cal. Rptr. 53].) Since settled rules of review require reversal here, it is unnecessary to pass on the suggestion of amicus American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California that because of the fundamental nature of the rights at stake ( Otsuka v. Hite, 64 Cal.2d 596, 601 [51 Cal. Rptr. 284, 414 P.2d 412], and cases cited), appellate courts must undertake an independent review of the evidence (cf., e.g., Los Angeles Teachers Union v. Los Angeles Board of Education, 71 Cal.2d 551, 556 [78 Cal. Rptr. 723, 455 P.2d 827]) and void elections whenever the evidence reveals a reasonable likelihood that the contestants' votes have been unconstitutionally diluted and the result of the election has thereby been determined (cf. Maine v. Superior Court, 68 Cal.2d 375, 383-384 [66 Cal. Rptr. 724, 438 P.2d 372]). Since questions involving alleged illegal job offers and board misconduct may arise on retrial, we proceed to consider those issues.