Filed Date: June 9, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
NOTE: This case is being tracked in close to real time by the Stanford/MIT Healthy Elections Project. So for information, see their tracker.
According to their summary as of 09/01/2020,
Proponents of ballot initiative seek a suspension or extension of the usual 180-day deadline for collecting petition signatures for such an initiative. They allege that COVID restrictions have impeded their ability to collect signatures, and that a failure to relax the deadline would, among other things, constitute a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs sought a peremptory writ of mandamus extending the 180 day deadline until all counties had been authorized to move to stage 3 of the re-opening guidelines.
Summary Authors
(2/4/2025)
Sangiacomo v. Padilla, California state trial court (2020)
Arguelles, James P (California)
Andrews, Emily A (California)
Caplan, Deborah B. (California)
Boutin, Gabrielle D. (California)
Benbrook, Bradley A. (California)
Last updated Dec. 16, 2024, 9:02 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Healthy Elections COVID litigation tracker
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 9, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Four electors in California, who are proponents of a proposed ballot initiative, and a ballot measure committee registered with the California Secretary of State to support the Initiative.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State of California (Secretary of State of the State of California), State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
COVID-19:
Voting: