Vinkov v. Superior Court CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 8/28/26 Vinkov v. Superior Court CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

SERGEI VINKOV,

Petitioner, E089131 v. (Super.Ct.No. CVRI2604778)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

Respondent;

CHRISTI BARRETT et al., Real Parties in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Daniel A. Ottolia, Judge. Petition granted.

Sergei Vinkov, in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

1 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Aaron M. Rubin, Donald S. Field, and Sarah Y. Shyy, for Real Parties in Interest, Christi Barrett, Hemet Unified School District, and the Governing Board of the Hemet Unified School District.

Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, and Jonathan A. Mango, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest, Art Tinoco.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner challenges the ballot title and ballot question for Measure I, which is to be placed on the ballot for the November 3, 2026 election. His petition for writ of mandate in the superior court was denied, and he now petitions this court for an order overturning the denial. Among other things1, petitioner contends that both the current ballot title, “‘Hemet Unified School District No-Tax-Rate-Increase School Repair, Improvement, Health and Safety Measure’” and the ballot question are impermissibly argumentative and misleading. This court invited respondent and real parties in interest to respond on an expedited time schedule and issued a Palma notice (Palma v. U.S.

Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 180) advising the parties that this court was considering issuing a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance. We also stayed the submission of the ballot title and question to the printer until further order of this court. Real parties in interest filed an opposition, and petitioner filed a reply. Having considered the parties’ positions, we agree with petitioner that the use of the term “no- 1 Petitioner raises several other claims which we find to lack merit. The petition is summarily denied as to those claims. 2 tax-rate-increase,” in the ballot title and question is impermissibly misleading, and therefore we issue a peremptory writ in the first instance.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 28, 2026, the governing board of the Hemet Unified School District (the District) adopted resolution No. 4183 to place on the ballot a question of whether the District should issue and sell bonds for the purpose of raising money. The proposed measure, designated as “Measure I,” would add to the declining debt service payments from Measure X, so that the combined tax rate as projected for old and new bonds together does not exceed the current tax rate.

Citing Elections Code2 sections 9051, 9509, 13119, and 13314, petitioner sought a writ of mandate in superior court, alleging, as relevant here: (1) the term “no-tax-rate- increase” is argumentative and misleading.

On August 19, 2026, respondent court issued a tentative ruling indicating it would grant petitioner’s petition for writ of mandate in part, finding the term “‘no-tax-rate- increase’” misleading. The tentative also indicated the language was not in compliance with Education Code section 15122, which requires “‘that the maximum rate of interest’”

of the bond be identified in the ballot summary, not the “‘expected tax rate.’” On August 24, 2026, after oral argument, respondent court denied the petition in its entirety and signed a statement of decision finding petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof in establishing his claims for relief.

2 All further statutory citations are to the Elections Code unless otherwise noted.

3 STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review questions of statutory interpretation governing the ballot language de novo, and “independently examine the question of whether the ballot title ‘substantially complies’ with [the standard that the measure not be false, misleading, or partial].” (See Osborne v. Logan (2026) 121 Cal.App.5th 1310; McDonough v. Superior Court (2012)

204 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1174 (McDonough).) The drafters of ballot language are afforded “‘considerable latitude’” in composing the ballot title, and “we must presume its language to be accurate.” (McDonough, supra, at p. 1174.) “[I]f reasonable minds may differ as to the sufficiency of the title, the title should be held to be sufficient.”

(Epperson v. Jordan (1938) 12 Cal.2d 61, 66.)

DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, the District argues petitioner is not entitled to relief because the circumstances are not exceptional and there is not unusual urgency requiring writ relief. However, the law is clear that challenges to the sufficiency and impartiality of ballot materials must be raised before an election. (Denny v. Arntz (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 914, 921 (Denny); Owens v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 107, 123.)

Here, petitioner has timely raised this challenge and as such, this court elects to reach the merits. (§ 9509, subd. (b)(1).)

Section 13119, subdivision (c) states, “The statement of the measure shall be a true and impartial synopsis of the purpose of the proposed measure, and shall be in language that is neither argumentative nor likely to create prejudice for or against the measure. (§ 4 13119, subd. (c).) Section 9509, subdivision (b)(2) precludes the issuance of a writ of mandate unless there is “clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with this chapter, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.” (§ 9509, subd. (b)(2).)

Here, petitioner argues there is clear and convincing proof that the term “no-tax- rate-increase” is partial, argumentative, and misleading in violation of section 13119, subdivision (c), thus warranting relief pursuant to section 9509 subdivision (b)(2). The term “‘no-tax-rate-increase’” as used in the title and question suggests to the voter that the funding needed to repair or improve schools will not result in increased taxes or an increased tax rate. In their response, the District seemingly acknowledges the term “no- tax-rate-increase” is included in the title and question to assuage voter concerns that the funding needed to repair or improve schools will result in increased taxes. Specifically, the District argues, “Without this language, voters would likely assume that a new bond measure would increase the aggregate tax rate by adding a new rate on top of the rate being paid for outstanding bonds.”

However, the District does not acknowledge the average voter may be equally misled or influenced in favor of Measure I when reading “‘no-tax-rate-increase’” in the title and question, by erroneously concluding this term to definitively mean that their tax rate will not go up, nor be extended beyond what voters have previously approved. As acknowledged by the District, Measure I does not guarantee the tax rate will not increase, 5 it is simply the hoped for outcome “based on the District’s projections.” In briefing before the superior court, the District reiterated this point writing, “Measure I makes no promises … ‘the dollar amount of taxes’ or ‘tax burden will not increase.’” The District defended their position in the superior court explaining, “The full text explains the District intends to structure the bonds so the combined rate will not exceed the current rate based on the District’s projections, and explains the District’s assumptions underlying that plan.”

While the full text of the measure may accurately explain the true nature of Measure I, the term “no-tax-rate-increase,” on its face, connotes such a conclusive meaning, that voters are likely to find it unnecessary to read the full ballot materials, erroneously believing that “no-tax-rate-increase” has the plain meaning their tax burden will not increase. The impact of such terms in ballot titles and questions has previously been addressed and found impermissible where the terms constitute advocacy or partiality. (See McDonough, supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1174-1175 [ordering reference to “reform” in the title and question replaced with “modification,” finding “reform” argumentative]; Huntington Beach City Council v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1434 [ordering reference to “exemption” in the title replaced with “exclusion,” finding “exemption” partial and “not quite accurate”].)

We recognize that in circumstances where voters are provided the whole text of a proposed measure we ordinarily assume the voters will vote intelligently on the matter, forgiving any discrepancies in the ballot materials. (Denny, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at 6 pp. 923-924.) However, providing the full text does not overcome the statutory prohibition on language that is argumentative or likely to create prejudice for or against the measure. As the District acknowledges, Measure I employs a structure that is commonly known as a “‘rate extension’” measure. Replacing “no-tax-rate-increase” with “rate-extension” would be accurate, neutral, and does not mislead voters into believing their tax burden will not increase.

DISPOSITION

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent court to vacate its August 20, 2026 order and August 24, 2026 statement of decision and judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate, and to enter a new order granting the petition and compelling respondents below to amend the ballot title and ballot question for Measure I, as follows: (1) replace the term “No-Tax-Rate-Increase” in the ballot title with “Rate- Extension”; and (2) replace the term “no-tax-rate-increase” in the text of the ballot question with “rate-extension.”

The temporary stay order issued by this court on August 25, 2026, is vacated, and, in its place, the court issues the following stay order which shall remain in effect until this decision is final for purposes of review: the ballot title and ballot question approved by the Governing Board of the Hemet Unified School District in Resolution No. 4183 shall not be submitted to the printer for the November 3, 2026 election unless the ballot title and ballot question are amended to read as follows:

7 Hemet Unified School District Rate-Extension School Repair, Improvement, Health and Safety Measure. To repair and upgrade aging classrooms, science labs, career technology and school facilities to support college/career readiness in math, science, technology, arts, engineering, skilled trades; fix deteriorating roofs, plumbing, electrical systems; and improve school safety, security, air conditioning systems; shall Hemet Unified School District’s rate-extension measure be adopted authorizing $225,000,000 in bonds at legal rates, levying approximately $50 per $100,000 assessed value ($16,000,000 annually) while bonds are outstanding, with citizen oversight and independent audits?

This opinion is final immediately as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).) Costs are awarded to petitioner.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

LEE J.

I concur:

MILLER Acting P. J 8 [Vinkov v. Superior Court, E089131]

MENETREZ, J., Dissenting.

Measure I is a bond issue ballot measure. Measure I does not raise tax rates.

Some bond issue ballot measures do include a tax rate increase. (See, e.g., Osborne v. Logan (2026) 121 Cal.App.5th 1310, 1313.) This one does not. The phrase “no-tax-rate- increase” in both the title and the ballot question for Measure I is therefore factually correct and nonmisleading. And if that phrase were omitted (as petitioner requests), voters might be misled, because they might assume that Measure I does raise tax rates.

It is theoretically possible that at some point in the future tax rates will be raised in order to fund repayment of the bonds. But real party in interest Hemet Unified School District plans to structure the bond issue in such a way as to avoid that. The record contains no evidence that tax rates will ultimately be raised. And all of this is explained in the full text of the measure.

Our review of the ballot language is highly deferential. Writ relief can be granted “only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or” otherwise inconsistent with applicable code provisions. (Elec. Code, § 9509, subd.

(b)(2).) Moreover, the ballot language “passes muster if it substantially complies with that standard.” (Martinez v. Superior Court (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1248 (Martinez).) It is also true that “we independently review whether [the ballot language]

achieves such compliance.” (Ibid.) But “‘if reasonable minds may differ as to the 1 sufficiency of the’” ballot language, then it “‘should be held sufficient.’” (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 243.)

In my view, the “no-tax-rate-increase” language in the title and ballot question for Measure I is factually accurate and nonmisleading because Measure I does not raise tax rates. But at a minimum, reasonable minds could regard that language as factually accurate and nonmisleading. The deferential standard of review therefore compels denial of the petition.

The majority opinion reasons that “no-tax-rate-increase” is misleading (or perhaps fails to be impartial) because it is possible that in the future tax rates will need to be raised in order to fund repayment of the bonds. Thus, voters might interpret “no-tax-rate- increase” to mean that in the future, no matter what happens with the budget or with economic conditions, Measure I guarantees that their tax rates will not go up—Measure I will somehow lock in current tax rates against all future contingencies. That is not the most plausible or likely interpretation of the phrase “no-tax-rate-increase.” It is not clear that it is even a reasonable interpretation. It is far more likely that voters will understand “no-tax-rate-increase” to mean what it (truthfully) says: Measure I does not increase tax rates. But again, at a minimum, reasonable minds could differ. Under the applicable standard of review, the petition should therefore be denied.

The majority opinion’s remedy—replacing “no-tax-rate-increase” with “rate- extension”—arguably provides more information to voters by flagging the issue that, as a result of Measure I, a future decrease in tax rates that is currently projected to occur more 2 than 20 years from now might be postponed by a few years. But there are still several problems. First, the issue of the postponement of the future tax rate decrease has not been raised by petitioner. Consequently, the remedy ordered by the majority opinion is not one that petitioner has requested or that any party has briefed. Second, the ballot materials “need not be the ‘most accurate,’ ‘most comprehensive,’ or ‘fairest’ that a skilled wordsmith might imagine.” (Martinez, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 1248.) “We think this might be an improvement” is not the standard of review. And third, “rate- extension” is an opaque phrase that many voters are likely not to understand; I might not have understood it before I worked on this case.

Finally, I note that the phrase “no-tax-rate-increase” occurs more than once in the full text of Measure I. The measure begins with the statement, “This measure may be known and referred to as the ‘Hemet Unified School District No-Tax-Rate-Increase School Repair, Improvement, Health and Safety Measure’ or ‘Measure __’.” The majority opinion does not (and, to my knowledge, cannot) modify the full text of the measure itself. Thus, in modifying the title and the ballot question by replacing “no-tax- rate-increase” with “rate-extension,” the majority opinion creates a conflict between the full text of the measure and the title and ballot question.

For all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

MENETREZ J.