The following is an excerpt that appeared this morning on the Superior Court website:
"This Tentative Ruling is issued by Judge Frank Roesch The Petition of Jennifer Lin and Frederic Lin ("Petitioners") For Writ of Mandate And Verified Complaint For Declaratory Relief (the "Petition"), is GRANTED IN PART, as set forth below. The Petition is GRANTED as to the First Cause of Action, which alleges non compliance with California Elections Code section 9238(b)'s requirement that the "full text" of any ordinance sought to be repealed by referendum petition be attached to the referendum petition (the "RP") itself."
The judge denied Lin's Second and Third Cause of Action, but these are secondary. The referendum cannot go forward since it is non-compliant with Election Code.
The tentative ruling further states:
"The requirements of section 9238(b) are construed strictly, and when in doubt, ambiguities should be resolved with an eye to protecting the electorate from confusing or misleading information and to guarantee the integrity of the electoral process. (Hebard v. Bybee, 65 Cal. App. 4th 1331, 1344 (1988). See also v. Reyes, 69 Cal. App. 4th 93 (1998) ("substantial compliance" doctrine also applied strictly).) There is no exception for voluminous ordinances. (Mervyn's, 69 Cal. App. 4th 93.)"