Home/California Supreme Court/Camara v. Mellon

Camara v. Mellon

484 P.2d 577, 4 Cal. 3d 714, 94 Cal. Rptr. 601, 1971 Cal. LEXIS 353
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 5, 1971
DocketS.F. 22796
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 484 P.2d 577 (Camara v. Mellon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Camara v. Mellon, 484 P.2d 577, 4 Cal. 3d 714, 94 Cal. Rptr. 601, 1971 Cal. LEXIS 353 (Cal. 1971).

Opinion

Opinion

THE COURT.

Petitioner Edward Camara, in an original proceeding before this court, seeks a writ of mandate to compel respondent Angele Mellon, City Clerk of the City of Santa Cruz, to file his nomination papers and place his name on the ballot as a candidate for the Santa Cruz City Council in the election to take place on April 13, 1971. Petitioner has been a state resident since September 1962, and a Santa Cruz resident since July 1, 1968.

Respondent contends that he does not have a duty to accept petitioner’s nomination papers because petitioner has not complied with section 602 of the Santa Cruz City Charter.

Section 602 in pertinent part provides: “No person shall be eligible to be ... a member of the Council unless he . . . shall have been for at least three (3) years preceding his election or appointment, a resident of the City of Santa Cruz. . . .”

For reasons to be further elucidated in Zeilenga v. Nelson, post, p. 716 [94 Cal.Rptr. 602, 484 P.2d 578], we have concluded that the challenged Santa Cruz Charter provision violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution.

Respondent City Clerk of the City of Santa Cruz is hereby directed, if petitioner complies with all other requirements for becoming a candidate for city councilman of the City of Santa Cruz on or before March 5, 1971, to place petitioner’s name upon the ballot prepared for the municipal election of April 13, 1971. This order is final forthwith.

Wright, C. J., McComb, J., and Burke, J., dissented.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Peloza v. Freas
871 P.2d 687 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1994)
Castner v. City of Homer
598 P.2d 953 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1979)
Johnson v. Hamilton
541 P.2d 881 (California Supreme Court, 1975)
Smith v. Evans
42 Cal. App. 3d 154 (California Court of Appeal, 1974)
Cowan v. City of Aspen
509 P.2d 1269 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1973)
Ramirez v. Brown
507 P.2d 1345 (California Supreme Court, 1973)
Thompson v. Mellon
507 P.2d 628 (California Supreme Court, 1973)
Martinez v. Newton
505 P.2d 529 (California Supreme Court, 1973)
Jolicoeur v. Mihaly
488 P.2d 1 (California Supreme Court, 1971)
Zeilenga v. Nelson
484 P.2d 578 (California Supreme Court, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
484 P.2d 577, 4 Cal. 3d 714, 94 Cal. Rptr. 601, 1971 Cal. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camara-v-mellon-cal-1971.