People ex rel. Dougherty v. Board of Election Commissioners
PEOPLE ex rel. DOUGHERTY v. BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS, etc.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Milton H. Myrick (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Myrick
MYRICK, J.
The petitioner, at a general election held in the city and county of San Francisco, November 7, 1882, received votes for supervisor, first board, and he claims that under the clause of section 7, article 11, of the constitution of 1879, which reads as follows: “In consolidated city and county governments of more than one hundred thousand population, there shall be two boards of supervisors or houses of legislation,” etc., he was elected a member of the first board of supervisors, and is entitled to a certificate of election; that the clause above quoted is self-executing and requires no legislation. The court below held that the office for which the votes were cast does not exist in said city and county. This court had occasion to consider this question in Desmond v. Dunn, 55 Cal., and its views thereon will be found on pages 248, 249. The consolidation act of the city and county of San Francisco will (so far as the present question is concerned) remain in *288force until changed or superseded by proceedings under article 11 of the constitution.
Judgment affirmed.
We conc.ur: Thornton, J.; Sharpstein, J.; Ross, J.; Mc-Kinstry, J.; Morrison, C. J.
Cited by
- People ex rel. Menzies v. Gunst S. F. No. 56 · 1895-12-16