¶1 I dissent. The duty of the election board is to examine the petition and to determine whether or not each petitioner was qualified as a registered voter at the time he affixed his signature. How can such a duty be performed unless the date of signature be established? The opportunities for fraud in the inauguration of a recall are so numerous that every precaution should be taken to guard against improper practices. It may be that the law does not in terms command the dating of the signatures. It does, however, require the election commissioners solemnly to certify to the status of each signer as a registered voter at the moment when he affixed his name to the petition. They can *345 not possibly perform that duty without evidence upon this subject, and surely the law does not contemplate the calling of all of the signers as witnesses before the board. Therefore, it seems to me, there is a clear implication that the date of signing must be indicated by each of the petitioners or by the person who circulates and verifies the petition.
172 Cal. 338
155 P 1084
Scheafer v. Herman
Decided March 18, 1916
California Supreme Court · decided 1916-03-18
<p>Municipal Corporation—Recall op Officer—Municipal Affair.—The subject of the removal of officers of a city and county, by means of a recall, when provided for in a special charter, is a municipal affair, within the meaning of that phrase as used in section 6, article XI, of the constitution, and, consequently, it is not subject to or controlled, as regards the mode of removal provided therein, by general laws inconsistent therewith.</p> <p>Id.—San Francisco—Charter Scheme for Recall is Complete—Date of Signature to Petition not Required.—The freeholders’ charter of the city and county of San Francisco contains a complete scheme for the recall of municipal officers, (Stats. 1911, art. XI, chap. V, p. 1661) and does not require the voter, in signing a petition for recall, to add to his signature the date upon which he writes it.</p> <p>Id.—Section 1083a of Political Code not Fart of Charter.—Section 1083a of the Political Code', as amended in 1915, requiring the signer of a recall petition to affix thereto the date of such signing, did not become, by adoption, a, part of such charter, under the provisions of section 7 of chapter V of article XI, and of section 5 of chapter I of article XI of the charter.</p> <p>Id.—Inconsistency Between General Law and Charter.—The provisions of the general law requiring the voter to add the date of his signature to a recall petition are inconsistent with the provisions of the charter allowing him to make a petition without such date, and consequently such provisions of the general law do not apply to or affect proceedings for recall under the charter.</p> <p>Id.—Time .for Election Commissioners to Act on Petition.—The refusal of the board of election commissioners to examine the petition, within the time prescribed by the charter, to ascertain whether or not it is signed by the requisite number of electors entitled to vote, does not destroy the rights of the signers, nor terminate the proceeding.</p> <p>Id.—Directory Provision.—The provision of section 3, chapter V, article XT, of the San Francisco charter requiring the election board to examine a recall petition and, if found sufficient, to make an order within ten days after the petition is filed, calling an election thereon, is directory only. Such order may be made after ten days if good cause exists for the delay.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1916-03-18
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 1973
18 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →