At your request, I spoke with Greg Murphy, an attorney hired by you to research this issue.

He stated he was researching the issue, but he thinks it may be possible the Elections Official has "discretion" whbther to follow Elections Code Section 104. There is no case folding an elections
official can waive mandatory requirements like this.
Rattfer, the case law is clear that when an Elections Code requirement is designed integrity of the process, strict compliance with the provisions are mandatory.

to protect the

"[W]here petition deficiencies threaten the proper operation of the election process, refusal to file the petition has been judicially upheld j' lChase v. Brooks {1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 657,663.) "[S]tatutes designed to protect the elector from confusing or misleading inforrnation should be enforced so as to guarantee the integrity of the process." (ld.; see Hebard v. Bybee (L998) 65 Cal. App.4th 1331, L338.) It is critical that voters and elections officials know {and have a record of} who cil'culates a petition, and there are legal repercussions for misstating information in the affidavit. For example, the circulator must declare he/she is 18 years of age. The person must be a resident of the City. The person must personally witness the signature to avoid, for example, one roommate signing for another, or a husband signing for his wife. The circulator must list the date the signature was obtained because any person signing a petition can withdraw the signature after he/she signs. All of this must be written in the circulato/s "dwn hand" and signed under penalty of perjury. None of thot was done here.
Ni v. Slocum (2011) 196 Cal.App. +th f Ogg is on point. ln that case, the court ,held a petition signed by electronic signature may not be accepted by the elections official, in part, because there was no declaration of circulator:

'The contents of the declaration required from the circulator suggest the Legislature viewed the participation of the circulator as a protection against fraud in the collection of signatures. By requiring the circulator to certify that he or she witnessed each signing and believes the signatures to be genuine to the best of his or her information, the Legislature installed the circulator as a partial guqrantor that the signatures were not the result of fraud. Although a circulator is not required to take active measures to prevent fraud, the circulator's declaration effectively certifies there was no obvious fraud and no nonobvious fraud of which the circulator was aware. Criminal prosecutions have been brought against circulators alleged to have certified falsely. {1d., citing People v. Guevora (2004) 727 Cal.App.4th 77, 23 and People v. white (1954) 722 Cal.App.2d 557,552.|
ln this case, we don't even know who circulated Ms. Chavez' petition. Or that thg person personally witnessed the signature. Or that the signature is genuine, to the best of the circ;rlator's knowledge. Again, all other nominating papers included such a declaration.

Page 4

coNcrusroN