Case: Sangiacomo v. Padilla

This case concerned California ballot initiative proponents seeking suspension of the deadline for signature collection due to the imposition of Covid-19 restrictions during the summer of 2020.

On June 23, 2020, a ballot measure committee and a proponent state elector filed suit in Sacramento County Superior Court seeking a writ of mandate commanding California Secretary of State Alex Padilla to direct county officials to extend the deadline for collection of signatures to qualify the petition for the November 2022 election. The deadline for submitting the requisite number of signatures for qualification was 180 days after the Attorney General gives title and summary for the initiative, but that stay-at-home orders and other Covid-19 restrictions beginning in March 2020 interfered with petitioners' ability to gather the signatures they began to collect in January due to physical distancing requirements imposed by the state.

Petitioners first alleged that the 180-day deadline (California Elections Code section 9014(b)) was unconstitutional and unenforceable as applied in light of the state and county stay-at-home orders given that petitioners were allegedly deprived of their right to propose legislation by initiative as provided in Article II, Section 8 of the state constitution. They sought a peremptory writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 and Elections Code section 13314 to compel the state to refrain from enforcing the deadline.

Petitioners next alleged that the deadline provision was unconstitutional in light of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as applied to the state of California through the Fourteenth Amendment, and sought a peremptory writ of mandate to compel the state to refrain from enforcing the deadline.

In support of the petition, on June 30, 2020 the petitioners filed a memorandum pointing to a related case, Macarro v. Padilla (Case #34-2020-80003404-CU-WM-GDS). The memorandum argued that California's courts had historically liberally applied procedural requirements to bolster ballot initiatives. They also pointed to precedent for applying strict scrutiny where proponents acted reasonably diligently in the face of burdensome Covid-19 restrictions, and it argued that California's 180-day deadline combined with Covid-19 restrictions posed a severe burden on the petitioners' ability to execute ballot initiatives under the state constitution. They sought an extension to provide more time to collect the signatures necessary, at least until Covid-19 mitigation measures were relaxed.

On June 30, 2020, the respondent California Secretary of State filed a response notifying the court that he would not be filing an opposition brief and that his primary concern, namely the impact on administration of the November 2020 election, was not necessarily in conflict with petitioners' goals. He noted that he was in communication with petitioners' counsel regarding a stipulation to resolve the matter.

After the parties submitted a proposed judgment, the court issued a judgment granting the petition for writ of mandate on July 16, 2020. The judgment was entered in favor of the petitioners and against the state, extending the 180-day deadline expiration from July 6 to September 28, 2020.

On October 2, 2020, petitioners in another case, Heatlie v. Padilla (case no. 34-2020-80003499) provided notice that that case was related because it involved the same respondent and was based on similar claims and arose from substantially identical events that required determination of substantially identical questions of law and fact. On October 7, 2020, the court found that the cases, including Macarro, were all related and transferred the case.