G o v ^ l J ^ e § 6103]

I MONA G. EBRAHIMI, State BarNo. 236550

mebrahimi(^kmtg. com Case I4t<mber: :
2 KEVIN A. FLAUTT, State BarNo. 257892
kflauttt^kmtg. com
3 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARE
1331 Garden Hwy, 2"''Floor
4 Sacramento, Califomia 95833
Telephone: (916) 321-4500
5 Facsimile: (916) 321-4555

6 Attomeys for CITY OF FOLSOM

7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11 CITY OF FOLSOM, Case No.
12 Petitioner, PRIORITY ELECTION MATTER
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 35 AND
13 V. ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 13000 ET
SEQ. EMERGENCY REVIEW
14 CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM, REQUESTED
in her official capacity.
15 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Respondent, AND COMPLAINT FOR
16 DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
KERRI HOWELL and DOES 1-10, inclusive, TEMPORARY/PERMANENT
17 INJUNCTION
Real Parties in Interest.
18
19 The City of Folsom, by and through its City Council (the "City"), brings this pre-election
20 Petition for Writ ofMandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Temporary and Permanent
21 Injimction on behalf of itself and its citizens to seek a judicial determination on the candidacy of
22 City Council candidate Kerri Howell, and to direct that the City certify or not certify ballots cast in
23 her favor in this election.
24 On or around August 11, 2022, Folsom City Clerk, Christa Freemantle, received a single
25 nomination paper from Kerri Howell in support ofher candidacy for Folsom City Council in the
26 November 2022 General Municipal Election (the "Nomination Paper," a tme and correct copy of
27
which is attached as Exhibit A to the_Declaration of Christa Freemantle in Support of Petition for
28
Writ ofMandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief (hereafter "Freemantle Decl.").) Elections
2301408.9 2
PETITION FOR WRIT OF, MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION
 Code sections 10222 and 10226 state that nomination papers must be signed by the circulator under
2 penalty of perjury that he or she saw the signatures been written and knows that the signatures are
3 those of the persons who signed. Ms. Howell was the sole signatory of the affidavit on her
4 Nomination Paper.
5 The City remained unaware of any irregularity until October 3, 2022, when the Sacramento
6 Bee published an article quoting Ms. Howell's claim that a third party helped collect the signatures
7 on her Nomination Paper. (Declaration of Elaine Andersen in support of City of Folsom's Petition
8 for Writ ofMandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief (hereafter "Andersen Decl."), 12.) Upon
9 diligent inquiry, and in conversations with the City Manager on October 3rd and 6th, Ms. Howell
10 confirmed that she did not personally collect all ofthe signatures on her Nomination Paper, and that
11 she did not personally collect 20 signatures, the amount necessary under Elections Code section
12 10220. (Andersen Decl. tH 3-8.)
13 Upon leaming that the Nomination Paper did not comply with statutory requirements, the
14 City sought guidance from the Sacramento County Registrar of Voter's Office. The City is informed
15 and believes that Sacramento County then contacted the Califomia Attomey General's Office, which
16 advised the City via email on October 7, 2022, that the City should seek a court order to mle that
17 either Ms. Howell should stay on the ballot, or that votes cast for her should be nullified. (Andersen
18 Decl. 12, Exh. B.) Having been informed by Ms. Howell that she did not collect signatures from
19 20 voters in the City as required by Elections Code section 10220, the City is concemed that Ms.
20 Howell may not be qualified, as a matter of law, to mn in the November 2022 City Council election.
21 Maintaining the status quo without a Court determination on this issue until after the election will
22 severely undermine the public's tmst in their govemment and the integrity of the elections process,
23 and is a dereliction of the City's duties to uphold the integrity of its elections.
24 For all the reasons contained herein, the City respectfully seeks a judicial determination on
25 Ms. Howell's candidacy, as well as a court mling directing the City to certify or not certify the
26 ballots cast in her favor in this election.
27
28
2301408.9

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION
 I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
2 1. Petitioner, City of Folsom, is a charter city operating pursuant to the laws of the State
3 of Califomia within the County of Sacramento.
4 2. Respondent Christa Freemantle is the City Clerk of the City of Folsom. She is the
5 elections official for the City of Folsom and is charged with performing all duties required of a city
6 clerk by state law. (See Folsom Municipal Code section 2.11.050(H); see also, Folsom City Charter
7 section 4.02.)
8 3. Petitioner is informed and believes that Real Party in Interest Kerri Howell is a
9 candidate for city council within the City of Folsom and resides in the City of Folsom, County of
10 Sacramento.
11 4. The tme names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of
12 Respondents DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Petitioner at this time, who therefore
13 sues these Respondents by such fictitious names. Petitioner will seek leave of court to amend this
14 Petition to reflect the tme names and capacities of thesefictitiouslynamed Respondents when they
15 have been ascertained. Petitioner is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of
16 the respondents named herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, is legally responsible in some
17 manner for the actions challenged herein, and therefore should be bound by the relief sought herein.
18 5. Jurisdiction is proper in the Superior Court of Sacramento County, pursuant to Code
19 of Civil Procedure sections 393(b) and 1085(a) and Elections Code section 13314(a).
20 6. Venue is proper under Code of Civil Procedure sections 393(b) and 394 because the
21 events and actions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in Sacramento County.
22 II. STANDING
23 7. Petitioner has standing in this matter in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure
24 sections 35, 526(a), 527(a), 1060, and 1085(a). Petitioner further has standing pursuant to Elections
25 Code section 16100.
26 8. Respondent has standing as the elections official for the City of Folsom and is
27 charged with performing all duties required of a city clerk by state law. (See Folsom Municipal
28 Code section 2.11.050(H); see also, Folsom City Charter section 4.02.)
2301408.9 3
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COIVLPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION
 1 III. PRIORITY MATTER
2 9. Code of Civil Procedure Section 35(a) states that "Proceedings in cases involving the
3 registration or denial of registration of voters, the certification or denial of certification of
4 candidates, the certification or denial of certification of ballot measures, election contests, and
5 actions under Section 20010 of the Elections Code shall be placed on the calendar in the order of
6 their date of filing and shall be given precedence." (Emphasis added.)
7 10. Elections Code section 13314(a)(3) states that this matter "shall have priority over
8 all other civil matters."
9 IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
10 11. Election integrity, forever fundamental, is of special concem for the 2022 election
11 cycle. (See, e.g., Sameea Kamal, What You Need to Know About Voter Fraud in California,
12 CalMatters (Oct. 10, 2022), https://calmatters.org/explainers/califomia-voter-fraud/.') The
13 requirements set forth in the Califomia Constitution and Elections Code ensure election faimess and
14 protect citizens' "constitutional right to a free and untrammeled choice." (Elec. Code § 20440; see
15 Cal. Const, art II.)
16 12. The City is particularly attuned to voters' concems for the November 2022 election
17 cycle, as the City Council recently adopted a by-district system to replace the previous at-Iarge
18 system. (Folsom City Ordinance No. 1324, adopted Mar. 22, 2022,
19 https://www.folsom.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/9995/637837237594800000.') Districts
20 1, 3, and 5 will be elected in November 2022; Districts 2 and 4 in November 2024. (Folsom Muni.
21 Code § 2.06.100 (A-B); see also By-District Elections Overview, City of Folsom,
22 https://www.folsom.ca.us/govemment/city-clerk-s-office/by-district-elections-overview.)
23 13. On July 19, 2022, the City Clerk provided a blank nomination paper to Ms. Howell
24 for her candidacy in the upcoming election for the District 5 seat. (Freemantle Decl. T| 2.)
25 14. On August 11, 2022, Ms. Howell filed her Nomination Paper at the City Clerk's
26 office. (Freemantle Decl. | 3.) The City Clerk advised Ms. Howell that Ms. Howell would be
27 affirming that "she circulated the Nomination Paper and saw each person signing the Nomination
28
2301408.9
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION
 Paper." (Ibid.) The City Clerk also advised Ms. Howell that she would be signing her Nomination

2 Paper under penalty of perjury. (Ibid.)

3 15. At no time during the filing of the Nomination Paper did Ms. Howell mention to the

4 City Clerk that anyone else had collected any of the signatures. (Freemantle Decl. 4.)
5 16. The Nomination Paper contained 24 voters' signatures, exceeding the 20 signature

6 requirement. (Exh. A to Freemantle Decl.; Elections Code § 10220.) The Sacramento County Voter
7 Registration and Elections Department informed the City Clerk on August 11, 2022, that two ofthe
8 signatures were invalid, leaving 22 valid signatures. (Freemantle Decl. ^ 5.) Because only a
9 minimum of 20 valid signatures is needed for each candidate, Ms. Howell's candidacy appeared to
10 comply with the statutory requirements at that time, and she was placed on the ballot for the
11 November 2022 election. (See Elec. Code § 10220.)
12 17. The only Nomination Paper filed for Ms. Howell's candidacy was the Nomination

13 Paper filed by Ms. Howell on August 11, 2022. No other nomination papers were filed for Ms.
14 Howell's candidacy, either by Ms. Howell or anyone else. (Freemantle Decl. ^ 6.)
15 18. Nomination papers must be filed 88 days before the date of the election. (Elec. Code

16 §§ 10220, 10224.) For the election on November 8, 2022, the last day to file was August 12, 2022.
17 (See Freemantle Decl. T| 7.)
18 19. On October 3, 2022, the Sacramento Bee published an article about the November

19 2022 City Council election. (Andersen Decl. 2 and Exh. A thereto.) The article reports that

20 Councilmember Michael Kozlowski "collected signatures for Howell's re-election campaign" and
21 that Ms. Howell "confirmed Kozlowski helped her get signatures." (Ibid.) Further, the article
22 reported that when questioned about the signature collection by a third party, Ms. Howell said,
23 "Yeah but that happens all the time." (Ibid.)
24 20. The City Manager read the article on October 3, 2022. (Andersen Decl. | 2.) The
25 City Manager then asked the City Clerk if Mr. Kozlowski had filed a separate nomination paper for
26 Ms. Howell's candidacy. (Andersen Decl. Tf 3.)
27 21. The City Clerk verified that the only nomination paper filed in support of Ms.
28 Howell's candidacy was the one Ms. Howell filed herself. (Andersen Decl. Tf 3; see Freemantle Decl.
2301408.9 5
PETITION FOR WRIT OF IVIANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION
 1 Tl 6.) The City Clerk stated that she personally saw Ms. Howell sign her Nomination Paper, including
2 the Affidavit of the Circulator, and that Ms. Howell was informed she was signing under penalty of
3 perjury. (Andersen Decl. Tf 4; Freemantle Decl. Tf 3.)
4 22. The City Manager and City Attomey then called Ms. Howell on October 3, 2022.
5 Ms. Howell confirmed that Mr. Kozlowski had collected "a couple" of the signatures on Ms.
6 Howell's Nomination Paper. (Andersen Decl. Tf 5.)
7 23. The City Manager and City Attomey then called Mr. Kozlowski on October 3, 2022.
8 Mr. Kozlowski confirmed that he collected "no more than a handful" of signatures for Ms. Howell.
9 (Andersen Decl. T| 6.)
10 24. On October 6, 2022, the City Manager and City Attomey again spoke with Ms.
11 Howell, who advised that she collected 16 signatures on her Nomination Paper. (Andersen Decl.
12 TITl 7-8.) Ms. Howell confirmed the remaining signatures were collected by Mr. Kozlowski.
13 (Andersen Decl. Tl 8.) Ms. Howell stated that she signed the Affidavit of Circulator to "save
14 [Kozlowski] the paperwork." (Andersen Decl. Tl 9.)
15 25. Of the valid signatures on her Nomination Paper, Ms. Howell personally collected
16 16, four signatures shy ofthe requisite number. (Andersen Decl. Tf 8.) Stated differently, the City
17 considered that if Ms. Howell had personally collected 20 signatures, her candidacy could have been
18 valid, and that the inaccurate signing of the form under penalty of perjury could be investigated
19 independently by the District Attomey's Office.
20 26. The City Attomey sought clarification from the Sacramento County Counsel's
21 Office. The City is informed and believes that Sacramento County then contacted the Califomia
22 Attomey General's Office, which advised the City via email on October 7,2022, that the City should
23 seek a court order to mle that either Ms. Howell should stay on the ballot, or that votes cast for her
24 should be nullified. (Andersen Decl. Tf 12 and Exh. B thereto.)
25 27. The City brings this action to seek: (a) a judicial determination on Ms. Howell's
26 candidacy, i.e., whether Ms. Howell should be disqualified as a candidate for City Council in the
27 November 2022 election because she did not meet the clear and unambiguous legal requirements
28
2301408.9
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION
 and preconditions ofthe Elections Code for City Council candidates; and (b) a court mling directing
2 that the City certify or not certify ballots cast in favor of Ms. Howell in the November 2022 election
3 V. L E G A L ARGUMENT
4 28. Elections Code section 10220 requires every city council candidate be proposed by
5 at least 20 voters in the City, and Elections Code sections 10222 and 10226 require nomination
6 forms be signed by the circulator under penalty of perjury that he or she saw the signatures being
7 written and knows that the signatures are those ofthe persons who signed. Where the Elections Cod
8 is "clear and unambiguous on its face," the court has determined that "[i]t is not subject to special
9 interpretation or constmction[;] therefore it means exactly what it says." (Albert v. Jamieson (1954)
10 124 Cal.App.2d 298, 300 [in rejecting nomination papers that were circulated one day before they
11 were allowed, the Court stated that "Appellants have not complied with the clear language of the
12 section. To permit them to be certified as the nominees for public office would be giving them an
13 unfair advantage over candidates who complied with the section."].)
14 29. Here, Ms. Howell had someone else obtain some of the signatures on her Nomination

15 Paper, yet signed under penalty of perjury that she obtained them all herself. Since she did not obtain
16 all 20 signatures, she did not comply with the mandatory legal requirements of Election Code
17 sections 10220 (requiring candidates to obtain "not less than 20" signatures), 10222 (requiring
18 circulators to affirm they saw all the signatures personally), and 10226 (requiring circulators to sign
19 nomination petitions under penalty of perjury). Therefore, it is doubtfxil that Ms. Howell legally
20 qualifies as a candidate.
21 30. The Elections Code requires circulators to affirm under penalty of perjury that the

22 circulator personally witnessed the signing of the petition or paper. (See Elec. Code §§ 104 ("any
23 petition or paper...submitted to the elections official"), 10226 (nomination papers); see also Elec.
24 Code § 9022 (requiring circulators of petitions to certify the signatures under penalty of perjury).)
25 31. "Only one person may circulate each nomination paper." (Elec. Code § 10220.) That
26 person must affirm that they saw all of the signatories sign the nomination paper. (Elec. Code
27 § 10222.) The circulator's certification that they personally saw the signatures being written is made
28 under penalty of perjury. (Elec. Code § 10226.)
2301408.9 y
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION
 1 32. Ultimately, the statutory power to ensure fair municipal elections originates in the
2 Califomia Constitution. (See Cal. Const, art II, § 4 ("The Legislature shall prohibit improper
3 practices that affect elections.").) The City is bringing this Petition to ensure the November 2022
4 election complies with constitutional and statutory law.
5 33. The City is obligated to take all possible action to preserve public tmst in the election
6 process. Ensuring that the voters believe the election is fair and transparent, and that all candidates
7 comply with the basic mles, is a bedrock principle of our democracy. (See Agua Caliente Band of
8 Cahuilla Indians v. Superior COurt (2006) 40 Cal.4th 239, 261 [affirming "the constitutionally
9 significant importance of the state's ability to provide a transparent election process with mles that
10 apply equally to all parties who enter the electoral fray"].)
11 34. Fair elections are so essential that they are a priority regardless of political party.

12 Even in our hyper-partisan political environment, both the Democrats and Republicans have
13 declared that election faimess and integrity is a pressing matter. (See, e.g.. Voter Protection Team,
14 Cal. Democratic Party, https://cadem.org/voter-protection-team/: Election Integrity, Cal. GOP,
15 https://www.cagop.Org/s/caelectionintegritv.)
16 35. The minimum legal requirements set forth in the Elections Code underpin

17 CaHfomia's commitment to fair elections by putting all candidates on a level playing field. Every
18 candidate must collect the proper number of signatures, from the proper voting district, within the
19 proper time. (See Elections Code §§ 10220, 10224.) Compliance with these statutory requirements
20 protects voters' rights by preventing unfair advantage by a candidate who did not follow the
21 requirements. Because Ms. Howell did not comply with the Elections Code, there is a risk that she
22 was conferred an unfair advantage over other candidates who did obtain 20 valid signatures and
23 faithfully complied with all of the mles and requirements.
24 36. The Califomia Supreme Court has previously held thai "A fundamental precept of
25 this nation's democratic electoral process is that government may not 'take sides' in election
26 contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions. A principal danger
27 feared by our country's founders lay in the possibility that the holders of the govemmental authority
28 would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office." (Stanson v.
2301408.9 8
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION
 Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206,217 [emphasis added].) Inthe case of Ms. Howell mnning for re-election
2 as a sitting councilmember, the City would inherently be providing her with an unfair advantage by
3 looking the other way and ignoring her failure to comply with statutory pre-requisites.
4 37. A public entity's rights or obligations can be decided by a declaratory relief cause of
5 action. (See, e.g., San Diego Police Officers' Assn. v. City of San Diego Civil Service Commission
6 (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 275, 278 [trial court sustained a demurrer to a declaratory relief action
7 brought against public entities related to privacy rights; Court of Appeal reversed].)
8 38. A writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 is appropriate

9 to compel the performance of a legal, ministerial duty. (Pomona Police Officers' Assn. v. City of
10 Pomona (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 578, 583-584.) Mandamus lies "when there is no plain, speedy, and
11 adequate altemative remedy; the respondent has a duty to perform; and the petitioner has a clear and
12 beneficialrightto performance." (Id. at 584.)
13 39. While Elections Code section 16100 enumerates post-election contests, in certain

14 circumstances, such as to determine the eligibility of a candidate, courts urge a pre-election

15 determination. In McKlnney v. Superior Court, Thomas McKinney filed a complaint seeking
16 declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the qualification ofa write-in candidate. (McKinney v.
17 Superior Court (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 951.) The Court of Appeal mled that McKinney was
18 precluded from seeking judicial relief to challenge that write in candidate preciselv because he had
19 failed to challenge the action before the election with a petition for mandamus pursuant to Elections
20 Code section 13314, dealing with ballot defects. (Id. at 957.) In other words, a post-election
2,1 challenge would not only be untimely, but could negatively impact the election. (See id. at 960 ["To
22 adopt McKinney's [post-election] position would seriously destabilize California election law,
23 which has the advantage of specifically encouraging preelection challenges precisely in order to
24 avoid this sort of instability."] (Emphasis added).)
25 40. Here, Ms. Howell's own statement that she wanted to "save" Mr. Kozlowski from
26 "the paperwork" evidences her understanding of the advantage to herself by skirting the
27 requirements of the Elections Code related to getting on the ballot. (Andersen Decl. Tf 9.) It is
28
2301408.9
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION
 1 admittedly cumbersome to have two separate circulators file two separate nomination papers with
2 the City Clerk's office. But it is also the only lawful option where there were, in fact, two circulators.
3 41. Further, requiring statutory compliance by candidates for elective office holds them
4 to the high standard that is essential in preserving the integrity of the office and local govemment
5 overall.
6 42. It is with these goals in mind that the City sought immediate intervention as quickly
7 as possible once the impropriety of Ms. Howell's Nomination Paper was brought to light. Because
8 the Nomination Paper appeared facially valid on August I I , 2022, the City submitted Ms. Howell's
9 information to the County so that she would be placed on the ballot for the November 2022 election.
10 The City only became aware of the circumstances surrounding Ms. Howell's Nomination Paper on
11 or around October 3,2022. By that time, it was too late for Ms. Howell to submit another nomination
12 paper. (See Elections Code § 10224 (requiring nomination papers be filed no later than 88 days
13 before the election).) It was also too late for the City to withdraw Ms. Howell's candidacy from the
14 official ballots. (See Voter Registration and Elections, Sacramento County,

15 https://elections.saccountv.net/VotebvMail/Pages/default.aspx (indicating that ballots are mailed to

16 voters so that they arrive approximately 29 days before the election date).)
17 43. Nevertheless, the City expeditiously took steps to ascertain if the quotes attributed to

18 Ms. Howell and Mr. Kozlowski in the Bee article were accurate, making separate calls to both
19 parties on the same day of the Bee article. (Andersen Decl. Tfl 5-6.)
20 44. Once Ms. Howell confirmed that her Nomination Paper did not contain a minimum

21 of 20 valid signatures that she personally collected, the City contacted Sacramento County for
22 guidance. (Andersen Decl. Tf 12.)
23 45. Ms. Howell initially implied that she would withdraw from the election but

24 ultimately did not do so. (Andersen Decl. TfTf 10-11.) She is currently still campaigning and has an
25 active Facebook account for this purpose. (See https://www.facebook.com/VoteKerriHowell/.)
26 46. Having exhausted all of its efforts and attempting to preserve judicial resources by
27 seeking to (unsuccessfully) resolve this matter with Ms. Howell, the City now tums to the Court for
28 relief and asks that the Court preserve the integrity of this election by making a judicial
2301408.9 10
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION
 1 determination on Ms. Howell's candidacy, i.e., whether she is qualified or not qualified to run as a
2 candidate under elections law for City Coimcil in the November 2022 election.
3 47. The City needs immediate judicial resolution because if Ms. Howell is elected and
4 judicial relief is not authorized until after the election, the city would face a prolonged vacancy and
5 uncertainty on the City Council pending the Court's order as to who is the rightful councilperson.
6 Such vacancy and uncertainty would significantly impede the City's ability to make important policy
7 decisions pertaining to city projects and operations, again at voters and taxpayers' expense.
8 (Andersen Decl. Tf 13.) To avoid this prolonged vacancy and uncertainty, the City is also seeking a
9 Court mling directing that the City certify or not certify ballots cast in favor of Ms. Howell in the
10 November 2022 election.
11 48. The City has an important, direct, and beneficial interest in bringing this Writ Petition

12 to preserve the integrity of the election process and secure its rights and obligations pertaining to
13 Ms. Howell's candidacy and the after-election certification of ballots cast in Ms. Howell's favor.
14 VI. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—DECLARATORY R E L I E F

15 49. Petitioner incorporates by this reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

16 through 48 above as though fully set forth herein.

17 50. Before the election, but after the names had already been published on the ballot, the

18 City determined that Ms. Howell did not personally collect the minimum of 20 signatures on her
19 Nomination Paper; a fact that Ms. Howell does not dispute. (Andersen Decl. TfTf 5-8.)
20 51. Ms. Howell has not withdrawn her candidacy so there exists a current, actual

21 controversy regarding the foregoing, for which the City requests a judicial declaration regarding the
22 parties' respective rights and obligations, specifically, whether the City has a duty to certify any
23 ballots cast in her favor. (See Andersen Decl. TfTf 10-ll;Mac^>'v. Whitaker (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d
24 504, 510.) To state a cause of action for declaratory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section
25 1060, plaintiffs must allege facts that show that there is either an actual present, or probable future,
26 controversy that relates to the legal rights and duties of the parties, and request that the court adjudge
27 those rights and duties. (Maguire v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society (1944) 23 Cal.2d 719, 728;
28
2301408.9 J1
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION
 1 Sherwyn & Handel v. Department of Social Services (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 52, 58. See also City
2 of Tiburonv Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 160, 170.)
3 52. Pre-election review "is appropriate where the validity of a proposal is in serious
4 question, and where the matter can be resolved as a matter of law before unnecessary expenditures
5 of time and effort have been placed into a futile election campaign." (City of San Diego v. Dunld
6 (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 384, 389.) Because the fundamental qualification of Ms. Howell's candidacy
7 is in question, and time is of the essence due to election-related deadlines, pre-election review is not
8 only appropriate, but also necessary.
9 53. The City has a legal obligation, and mandatory duty, to ensure a transparent and fair

10 election that conforms with the requirements set forth in the Elections Code. In fulfilling its
II obligations, the City respectfully seeks the Court's intervention.

12 54. A pre-election writ is proper where an error occurred in placing the name of a

13 candidate on a ballot and the error stems from a violation of the Elections Code. (Elec. Code §
14 13314(a).) Here, there is a question as to whether Ms. Howell's name on the ballot complies with
15 the Elections Code.
16 55. The City acted with all haste and diligence upon discovery of the improper

17 Nomination Paper, immediately consulting with Sacramento County and the Secretary of State's
18 Office, and promptly requesting that the Court review Ms. Howell's candidacy to determine her
19 qualification as a candidate in the November 2022 election.
20 VII. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION—WRIT OF MANDATE
21 56. Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 55 above as if fully

22 set forth herein.

23 57. A writ of mandate is proper if the court's discretion can be exercised in only one
24 way and a trial court is under a legal duty to apply the proper law, and it may be directed to
25 perform that duty by writ of mandate. (Hurtado v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 574, 579;
26 Flores v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 208.)
27 58. A writ is further appropriate when "an error or omission has occurred, or is about to
28 occur, in the placing of a name on, or in the printing of, a ballot, county voter information guide,
2301408.9 12
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION
 1 state voter information guide, or other official matter, or that any neglect of duty has occurred, or is
2 about to occur." (Elections Code § 13314(a)(1).) A writ shall issue upon proof that 1) "the error,
3 omission, or neglect is in violation of this code or the Constitution," and 2) "[t]hat issuance of the
4 writ will not substantially interfere with the conduct of the election." (Elections Code
5 §§ 13314(a)(2)(A)-(B).)
6 59. While the petitioner must establish a beneficial interest, that is, "the petitioner must
7 show he or she has some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or
8 protected through issuance of the writ[,]" there is an exception for public duties. (Waste
9 Management of Alameda County, Inc. v. County of Alameda (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1232;
10 accord. Brown v. Crandall (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) Specifically, the exception to this
11 requirement arises when "the question is one of public right and the object...is to procure the
12 enforcement of a public duty." (Green v. Obledo (1981) 29 Cal.3d 126, 144; see Hector F. v. El
13 Centro Elementary School District (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 331, 339.)
14 60. In this case, the placement of Ms. Howell's name on the ballot is at serious risk of
15 being legally invalid because she may not be qualified to mn for office based on her failure to meet
16 and conform to the requirements of the Elections Code. Ms. Howell failed to conform her
17 Nomination Paper to the requirements of the Elections Code, namely, by not obtaining 20 signatures
18 herself and/or altematively, securing the minimum number of signatures but not following the
19 requirements for the affidavit. As such, this Petition addresses a matter of public interest and right.
20 61. The issuance of a writ will not substantially interfere with the conduct of the election
21 because the ballots have already been printed, but voters can still be informed of this error. A pre-
22 election writ could also save taxpayers money in connection with the resources necessary to count
23 votes for this council seat. Since only one other candidate is mnning against Ms. Howell, the County
24 Registrar's Office and the City can simply not certify any votes cast for Ms. Howell if the Court
25 issues such a ruling in the writ.
26 62. A writ should be issued because the election is on November 8, 2022, with mail-in
27 ballots already distributed—time is of the essence to address this issue before the cascading effects
28 of a defective candidacy work to substantially prejudice the City and its taxpayers who rely upon
2301408.9 13
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION
 1 the City to uphold fair and even-handed mles goveming candidates mnning for public office. A writ
2 should be issued for the orderly and fair administration of the election and because this is declared
3 by the legislature to have priority over all other civil matters.
4 63. The City does not have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
5 of the law. If the Court does not act immediately, and prior to the November 8,2022, election, voters
6 will not have tmst in the election process and the City will face uncertainty as to the lawfulness of
7 potentially certifying a councilmember who ran without complying with election laws. The
8 Sacramento County Registrar's Office will also waste resources counting ballots for an unqualified
9 candidate. In no uncertain terms, the issuance of a writ is necessary in this case to ensure a lawful
10 election guaranteed by the State Constitution to all eligible voters.
11 64. No damages or other legal remedy could compensate for the harm if the lawfulness
12 of Ms. Howell's candidacy is not resolved by the Court under the facts presented in this case as she
13 remains on the ballot and continues to campaign as a candidate mnning for the November 8, 2022,
14 election.
15 65. As an altemative and independent basis. Elections Code section 16100(b) allows for
16 the contest of an election if "the person who has been declared elected to an office was not, at the
17 time of the election, eligible to that office." As described above, the City is concemed that Ms.
18 Howell may not be eligible for office and therefore, is disqualified from being considered in the
19 Disti-ict 5 seat election. (Bradley v. Perrodin (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1153.)
20 VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
21 Petitioner prays for judgment as follows:
22 1. That this Court issue a mling declaring whether Real Party in Interest Kerri Howell
23 is qualified or not to mn as a candidate for the Folsom City Council during the November 2022
24 election; and
25 2. That this Court issue a writ of mandate, and/or appropriate preliminary and
26 permanent injunctions, directing that the Respondent certify or not certify ballots cast in favor of
27 Real Party in Interest Kerri Howell; and,
28
2301408.9 14
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION
 3. Any fiirther relief the Court deems just and proper.
2
3 DATED: October 21, 2022 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN &. GIRARD
A Professional Corporation
4
5
6
Mona G. Ebrahimi
7 Attomeys for CITY OF FOLSOM
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2301408.9 15
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
TEMPORARY/PERMANENT INJUNCTION