West v. Cenarrusa
This text of 520 P.2d 1088 (West v. Cenarrusa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This case arises from the refusal of Pete T. Cenarrusa, in his capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Idaho, to accept and file a series of petitions seeking a recall election of Patricia L. McDermott, the duly elected state representative from legislative district no. 34. The respondent, Paula B. West, and her associates on March 6, 1973, filed with the defendant secretary of state and initiating petition prepared pursuant to I.C. § 34 — 1703(2)1 [823]*823containing thirty-six signatures seeking an election to recall Representative Mc-Dermott. This initiating petition contained headings which provided for the following information, required by I.C. § 34-1703(2) : name, residence, post office, county, legislative district, election precinct, and date. None of the signers of the intitiating petition included the city of their residence, Pocatello, under the heading “post office.” Although seven items of information were required, the initiating petition provided only six spaces for the signers to supply this information.
The Attorney General of the State of Idaho, in an advisory opinion to the defendant concerning the sufficiency of the initiating petition stated:
“We find that the petition is substanitally in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 17, Title 34, Idaho Code, as to form and sufficiency * * * ”
“The scope of this opinion goes only to the form of the recall petition as submitted which, as noted above, is substantially correct.”
The defendant reviewed the initiating petition’s form according to the prerequisites of I.C. § 34-1703(2) as required by I.C. § 34 — 1704 and approved it by writing on it “FORM APROVED BY Pete T. Cenarrusa Secretary of State 3-6-73.”
Then the respondent and her associates circulated forms of petitions similar to the initiating petition and collected 2,525 signatures requesting a recall election of Representative McDermott. The respondent on May 29, 1973, submitted these petitions and the initiating petition to the defendant as required by I.C. § 34 — 1706 for “cursory examination * * * to determine whether the petitions apparently contain the necessary number of signatures.” Two thousand two hundred thirty signatories of these petitions failed to insert the word “Pocatello” after their signatures. The defendant rejected all the signatures which were unaccompanied by the word “Pocatello” on the grounds that I.C. § 34-1703(2) required the inclusion of Pocatello” in reference to information pertaining to “post office” as set forth in the headings of the petitions. The defendant’s rejection of the signatures also included all appearing on the initiating petition previously approved by the defendant. The respondent and her associates attempted to cure this defect by interlining the word “Pocatello” in the appropriate place with each signature.
On June 4, 1973, the respondent again submitted all petitions along with an additional petition containing eleven signatures. The defendant, on June 7, 1973, refused to accept and file these petitions and returned them to the respondent’s counsel without rejecting any signatures. In this case 2,336 signatures were required in order for the defendant to accept and file the petitions under I.C. § 34 — 1702.
The respondent filed on June 8, 1973, an application for an alternative writ of mandate requiring the defendant to accept and file pursuant to I.C. § 34 — 1706(2) (a) either the recall petitions submitted on May 29 or those as corrected on June 4, 1973. The district court then granted intervention by McDermott, Cobley, Berg, Groom, and Jones as interested parties under I.R.C.P. 24(b). The defendant and the intervenors answered denying grounds for the issuance of a writ of mandate. The district court filed a memorandum decision on June 27, 1973, ordering that the recall petitions were legally sufficient and that the defendant should have accepted and filed them. The district court adopted the memorandum decision as findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered a judgment on June 28 holding the recall petitions legally sufficient. The intervenors then timely appealed from that judgment.
This appeal focuses on the omission of the word “Pocatello” by 2,230 signers of the recall petitions after their signatures. The appellants, intervenors-defendants contend that without the word “Pocatello” which designates the signer’s post office address the respondent’s recall petitions are [824]*824not legally sufficient. Each of the 2,230 signers supplied their name, residence, i. e., street address, county, legislative district, election precinct, and date of signing. In this case all 2,230 of the rejected signatories listed themselves as residents of the 34th Legislative District of the State of Idaho. I.C. § 67-202(34) expressly defines Legislative District 34 as being composed entirely of precincts in the City of Pocatello. This court takes notice of the acts of the legislature. Knight v. Employment Security Agency, 88 Idaho 262, 398 P.2d 643 (1965). The omission of the word “Pocatello” in this case has no effect on the duty of the county clerk in certifying the signatures on the petitions under the provisions of I.C. § 34-1706(2) (a) ; and the signatures were properly identified with sufficient information under the facts of this case for the defendant to accept and file them under I.C. § 34-1706(2).2
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Costs allowed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
520 P.2d 1088, 95 Idaho 822, 1974 Ida. LEXIS 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-v-cenarrusa-idaho-1974.