1 Lance H.

Olson [SBN 077634]

Deborah B. Caplan [SBN 196606]
2 Benjamin N. Gevercer [SBN 322079]
OLSON REMCHO LLP
3 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
4 Telephone: (916) 442-2952
Facsimile: (916) 442-1280
5 Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
6 [email protected]

7 Attorneys for Petitioners Rick Callender and

California – Hawaii State Conference National Association
8 for the Advancement of Colored People

9 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11 (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION)
12
RICK CALLENDER and CALIFORNIA – No.: _______________
13 HAWAII STATE CONFERENCE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF Action Filed: August 2, 2022
14 COLORED PEOPLE
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT
15 Petitioners, OF MANDATE

16 vs. PRIORITY ELECTION MATTER

RE: NOV. 8, 2022 ELECTION
17 SHIRLEY WEBER, in her official capacity as (Cal. Elec. Code § 13314)
Secretary of State of the State of California,
18 ACTION NEEDED BY AUG. 15, 2022
Respondent.
19 Hearing:

20 PAUL G. DIXON, in his official capacity as State Date: TBD

Printer of the State of California, MADELINE Time: TBD
21 BERNSTEIN, JAY KING, and FLOYD Dept.: TBD
MESHAD, Judge: TBD
22
Real Parties in Interest.
23

24

25

26

27

28

1
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 Petitioners Rick Callender and the California – Hawaii State Conference National

2 Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”) (Petitioners) seek a writ of mandate

3 to prevent a false and/or misleading statement in the Argument Against Proposition 26 from being

4 printed in the ballot pamphlet for the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election. Petitioners allege

5 as follows:

6 INTRODUCTION

7 1. This action is filed by Petitioners Rick Callender, a registered voter in the State

8 of California and the California – Hawaii State Conference NAACP. This action challenges a

9 statement included in the Argument Against Proposition 26.

10 2. Proposition 26 is a statewide initiative that will appear on the November 8, 2022

11 ballot. Proposition 26 would expand the types of gaming activities permitted under California law and

12 allow those activities to be conducted in-person only at highly regulated facilities on tribal lands and

13 certain horse racing tracks. While authorizing expanded gaming, Proposition 26 adds new safeguards

14 to protect minors and public health and to stop illegal gaming. These safeguards include age-

15 verification requirements for all sports wagering, restrictions on advertising, and private civil actions to

16 enforce California gaming laws and prevent illegal gambling.

17 STATUTORY DEADLINES

18 3. Elections Code section 9092 provides for a 20-day period in which voters are

19 entitled to review the ballot materials and file any legal challenges. The Secretary of State has

20 indicated that all legal challenges to ballot materials for the November 8, 2022 Statewide General

21 Election must be completed by August 15, 2022.

22 4. Petitioners have no other adequate remedy at law and will suffer immediate and

23 irreparable injury unless this Court issues a writ of mandate deleting the false and/or misleading

24 statement as described below.

25 5. Petitioners are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that issuance of a

26 writ requiring the deletion set forth below will not interfere with the printing and distribution of the

27 ballot pamphlet. With respect to the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election, the period for

28 filing actions such as this runs from July 26, 2022 to August 15, 2022.

2
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 PARTIES

2 6. Petitioner Rick Callender is a citizen of the State of California, a registered

3 California voter, and President of the California – Hawaii State Conference NAACP.

4 7. Petitioner California – Hawaii State Conference NAACP is the branch of the

5 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People for California and Hawaii.

6 8. Respondent Shirley Weber is the Secretary of State of California as well as the

7 State’s chief elections officer. She is charged with the duty of preparing a ballot pamphlet with respect

8 to statewide initiative measures as well as ballots, ballot materials, sample ballots, and other voting

9 materials. (Elec. Code, §§ 9081-9086.) Elections Code sections 9092 and 13314 require that the

10 Secretary of State be named as a respondent in this proceeding. She is sued in her official capacity

11 only.

12 9. Real Party in Interest Paul G. Dixon is the State Printer of the State of

13 California. He is charged with printing the ballot pamphlet prepared by the Secretary of State.

14 Elections Code section 9092 requires that the State Printer be named as a real party in interest in this

15 proceeding. He is sued in his official capacity only.

16 10. Real Parties in Interest Madeline Bernstein, Jay King, and Floyd Meshad

17 authored the Argument Against Proposition 26. Elections Code section 9092 requires these individuals

18 be named as real parties in interest in this proceeding.

19 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

20 11. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under sections 9092 and 13314 of the

21 Elections Code. This action “shall have priority over all other civil matters” pending before the court.

22 (See Elec. Code, § 13314(a)(3).)

23 12. The Elections Code mandates exclusive venue for this action in Sacramento

24 County. (Elec. Code, §§ 9092, 13314(b).)

25 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

26 13. Elections Code section 9092 provides that this Court may issue a writ of

27 mandate to prevent the publication of material in the ballot pamphlet that is “false, misleading or

28 inconsistent with the requirements of this code or Chapter 8 (commencing with § 88000) of Title 9 of

3
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 the Government Code[.]” Elections Code section 13314 also provides that a voter may seek a writ of

2 mandate alleging that an error is about to occur in the printing of a ballot or voter information guide

3 where it is shown that the alleged error violates state law or the Constitution and the issuance of the

4 writ will not substantially interfere with the conduct of the election.

5 14. On July 26, 2022, Respondent Secretary of State Shirley Weber, pursuant to

6 Elections Code section 9092, made available for public inspection the proposed ballot pamphlet

7 materials for statewide initiatives that have qualified for presentation to voters at the November 8,

8 2022 election.

9 15. The ballot materials for Proposition 26 contain several documents (provided

10 separately in Petitioners’ Request for Judicial Notice):

11 EXHIBIT A TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW

12 EXHIBIT B BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY Prepared by the Attorney General

13 EXHIBIT C BALLOT LABEL Prepared by the Attorney General

14 EXHIBIT D YES/NO STATEMENT Prepared by the Legislative Analyst

15 EXHIBIT E SUMMARY INFORMATION

16 EXHIBIT F ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

17 EXHIBIT G ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

18 EXHIBIT H ARGUMENT AGAINST (attached)

19 EXHIBIT I REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

20 EXHIBIT J REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST

21 Only Exhibit H is challenged in this action. For ease of reference, a copy of that document is attached

22 to this Petition with Petitioners’ proposed deletions.

23 16. The Argument Against Proposition 26 contains the following statement:

24 “We oppose Prop 26 to protect young people from developing lifelong gambling
25 addictions that often lead to ruined finances, relationships, even homelessness
and crime.”
26
Minnie Hadley-Hempstead
27 Retired teacher and President Emeritus of the Los Angeles NAACP Branch
28

4
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 17. The statement in Paragraph 16 is false and/or misleading for several reasons.

2 First, the quotation gives the false and misleading impression that the California – Hawaii State

3 Conference NAACP has endorsed the No On Proposition 26 campaign and opposes Proposition 26.

4 This is incorrect. The California – Hawaii State Conference NAACP publicly endorsed in favor of the

5 now-titled Proposition 26 on February 18, 2022. Nor has the Los Angeles Branch of the NAACP

6 endorsed the No On Proposition 26 campaign. The NAACP Bylaws prohibit local NAACP Branches

7 such as the Los Angeles Branch from taking positions contrary to that of the State Branch.

8 18. The NAACP owns several trademarks, among them “NAACP,” and the NAACP

9 never gave permission to the No On Proposition 26 campaign to use its intellectual property. The No

10 On Proposition 26 campaign’s misuse of the NAACP trademark without the NAACP’s permission

11 misleads voters into believing that the NAACP opposes Proposition 26, when in fact the NAACP has

12 publicly endorsed and supports Proposition 26.

13 19. In addition, the Los Angeles NAACP Branch does not have the position of

14 “President Emeritus.” Using this made-up office furthers the impression that the statement is made on

15 behalf of the NAACP. As stated above, this is false and misleading – the NAACP publicly supports

16 Proposition 26.

17 20. Finally, Ms. Hadley-Hempstead – who has been a member of the NAACP for

18 over forty years – only allowed her name to be used in this statement because she mistakenly believed

19 that the NAACP leadership was requesting her to do so, under her assumption that the NAACP

20 opposed Proposition 26. Ms. Hadley-Hempstead was asked to contribute a statement to the Argument

21 Against by the President of the Sacramento NAACP branch, who was also a paid campaign consultant

22 for the No On Proposition 26 campaign. At the time, Ms. Hadley-Hempstead was not aware that the

23 NAACP supported Proposition 26 and the consultant never informed Ms. Hadley-Hempstead that she

24 worked for the No On Proposition 26 campaign. If Ms. Hadley-Hempstead had known that the

25 NAACP supported Proposition 26, she would have never agreed to provide her statement in the

26 Argument Against Proposition 26 in violation of the NAACP Bylaws. Once Ms. Hadley-Hempstead

27 learned the truth, she immediately asked the No On 26 campaign to remove her statement. However,

28 ///

5
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 her request was too late. Only pursuant to a court order will the Secretary of State remove this false

2 and misleading statement from the ballot argument.

3 21. Because the foregoing statement in the Argument Against Proposition 26 is false

4 and/or misleading, it must be stricken from the ballot materials and Petitioners are entitled to a writ of

5 mandate directing that this quotation be stricken.

6 FIRST CLAIM

7 (Writ of Mandate)

8 22. Petitioners incorporate paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Petition.

9 23. The ballot materials in opposition to Proposition 26 contain a false and/or

10 misleading assertion that the NAACP opposes Proposition 26 which should be stricken in accordance

11 with sections 9092 and 13314 of the Elections Code. Respondent has a legal duty not to include any

12 false and/or misleading statements in the ballot materials. Petitioners are beneficially interested in a

13 writ of mandate to strike those statements and have no other adequate remedy at law.

14 RELIEF

15 WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that this Court:

16 1. Issue an alternative writ of mandate compelling Respondent to amend the

17 Argument Against Proposition 26 as set forth above and in the attachment showing strike-throughs, or,

18 in the alternative, to show cause before this Court at a specified time why Respondent has not done so;

19 2. Issue a preemptory writ of mandate commanding Respondent to amend the

20 Argument Against Proposition 26 as directed by the Court and to conform any translations of these

21 materials to the changes ordered by this Court;

22 3. Award Petitioners attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with this

23 matter; and

24 4. Grant other such and further relief as the Court may deem necessary.

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

6
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 Dated: August 2, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

2 OLSON REMCHO, LLP

4 By:
Deborah B. Caplan
5
Attorneys for Petitioners Rick Callender and California
6 – Hawaii State Conference NAACP

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 VERIFICATION

2 I, Deborah B. Caplan, declare as follows:

3 I am counsel for the Petitioners in the above-captioned case. Petitioners do not reside in

4 the County of Sacramento so I make this verification on their behalf as provided in Code of Civil

5 Procedure Section 446. I have read the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandate and knows its contents.

6 The facts stated therein are true and within my personal knowledge, except those matters which are

7 alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

8 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

9 Executed on August 2, 2022, at Sacramento, California.

10

11 ________________________________________
Deborah B. Caplan
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8
VERIFICATION
ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 26
 A RGUMENT AGAINST
PROPOSITION�

PROP 26 IS A MASSIVE EXPANSION OF GAMBLING IN CALIFORNIA that will

legalize betting on professional, college and amateur sports. Five wealthy tribal casinos

are sponsoring Prop 26 to expand their monopoly over gambling in California - so they

can make billions more in profits and continue to pay virtually NOTHING in state taxes.

PROP 26: MORE UNDERAGE GAMBLING AND ADDICTION

Despite state laws that make it illegal for anyone under 21 to gamble, one of the

sponsors of Prop 26 regularly allows 18-year-olds to gamble, and NOTHING in their

measure stops underage gamblers from betting on college and professional sports in a

tribal casino.

"We oppose Prop 26 to protect young people from developing lifelong

gambling addictions that often lead to ruined finances, relationships, even

homelessness and crime."

Minnie Hadley-Hempstead

Retired teacher and President Emeritus of the Los Angeles

NAACP Branch

PROP 26: LEAVES WORKERS UNPROTECTED

Prop 26's sponsors have refused to allow their workers to join unions or engage in

collective bargaining and claimed they are not required to pay the state's minimum

SUBJECT TO COURT
ORDERED CHANGES