Page 1
Court of Appeal:
District Attorney Candidates’ Names Were Properly Placed on Ballot in Primary
Panel Holds That San Bernardino County Charter Does Not Restrict D.A. Elections to November
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The charter of a home-rule county supersedes statutory provisions on the election of district attorneys, Div. Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held, but rebuffed the contention of a write-in candidate for the office of chief prosecutor for San Bernardino County that a charter provision was ignored in holding an election for the position on June 7, 2022, the day of the statewide primary.
Attorney Robert D. Conaway—an unsuccessful candidate in six congressional races and one state Assembly contest—maintains that San Bernardino did not lawfully place the names of district attorney candidates on the June 7, 2022 ballot in light of a charter provision reading:
“All elective County officers shall be elected at the general election at which the Governor is elected.”
That means, he contends, that names of district attorney candidates had to be placed on the November general election ballot.
Miller’s Opinion
Rejection of that view came Tuesday in an unpublished opinion by Acting Presiding Justice Douglas P. Miller.
He started with the proposition that although, by statute, candidates for district attorney and other county offices are nominated in primaries and, if none receives a majority of votes, elected in the primary, “county charters supersede general laws on the topics delineated by our state Constitution, such as the election of district attorneys.”
Miller pointed out that after the language relied upon by Conaway, the charter provides that “[a]ll elective County officers shall be nominated and elected in the manner provided by general laws for the nomination and election of such officers.”
He wrote:
“The plain language of the Charter contemplates a ‘nomination and election.’ ”
The justice pointed out that “nominations occur at the primary election.”
Charter Interpreted
Miller declared:
“[W]e interpret the Charter as follows: Candidates for nonpartisan county offices are to appear on the primary election ballot. If a candidate receives a majority of the votes, then the candidate wins the office and need not appear on the general election ballot. In regard to the portion of the Charter that reads, ‘All elective County officers shall be elected at the general election at which the Governor is elected’…, we interpret that as referring to the particular four-year interval at which the County’s elections must take place.”
Miler did not allude to the mootness of the matter given that 2022 balloting was concluded with the reelection of Jason Anderson, let alone did he set forth why the panel saw fit to decide the issue notwithstanding mootness. Courts of appeal sometimes decide issues despite mootness to provide future guidance as to issues that might arise in the future but the opinion was unpublished, precluding reliance on it by litigants in disputes yet-to-come who were not parties to the proceeding brought by Conaway.
The case is Conaway v. Jiminez, E079535.
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company