Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />26 <br />27' <br />28 <br />Cm nimxHErsrnvxE <br />YAW Mww SlM.i <br />Rla(951) aa- 1, <br />(9515 81s.Y,6: <br />exercise a power which the electorate does not possess." (Mission Springs, supra, 218 <br />Cal.AppAth at p. 919, citing City of San Diego v. Dunkl (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 384, 400.) <br />FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION <br />(For Declaratory Relief Against Defendants Rebecca A. Spencer and Does 1 -10, Inclusive) <br />29. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 28, <br />above as though set forth in full herein verbatim. <br />30. Plaintiff brings this declaratory relief action under Code of Civil Procedure section <br />1060, which is a proper avenue of relief for a party who seeks to demonstrate that a proposed <br />ballot measure is beyond the powers of the voters to adopt. (See Mission Springs Water Dist. v. <br />Verjil (2013) 218 Cal.AppAth 892, 910'. Cite gfSari Diego v. Dunk-1, supra, 86 Ca1.App.4th at p. <br />398 1 samel.) <br />31. As a result of the Initiative's language, an actual controversy has arisen and now <br />exists between Plaintiff and the Proponents, as real parties in interest, concerning the propriety, <br />legality and constitutionality of the Initiative and the propriety of Plaintiff taking any further <br />action with respect to the Initiative. Plaintiff contends, among other things, the following: <br />a. The Initiative exceeds the initiative authority of the electorate by enacting laws <br />that would contravene the federal constitution, state law, and local law that bar the <br />electorate from enacting any laws that contravene federal laws. <br />b. The Initiative violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. <br />c. The hnitiative is subject to pre - election review. <br />d. The Initiative and any resulting measure must be excluded from the hallot. <br />e. Any further processing of the Initiative by the Registrar of Voters and subsequent <br />consideration of the Initiative at an election would be an inappropriate, <br />unnecessary and wasteful expenditure of public funds, and <br />f. Plaintiff and the Registrar of Voters should be relieved and prohibited from taking <br />any further actions with respect to inclusion of the Initiative in any election or on <br />any ballot as would otherwise be required by the pertinent provisions of the <br />Elections Code. <br />_g_ <br />COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF <br />