City elector filed mandamus action seeking writ ordering city council clerk to determine that recall petitions for mayor and two councilmembers did not contain sufficient number of signatures required under city charter, after clerk certified recall petitions as containing sufficient signatures.
The Supreme Court held that:
- Elector lacked adequate remedy in ordinary course of law, as element for writ of mandamus;
- Mandamus was appropriate mechanism to compel city clerk to perform duty of determining that recall petitions were insufficient; and
- Clerk’s certification of recall petitions as having sufficient number of signatures was abuse of discretion and was in disregard of clearly applicable law, and, thus, elector was entitled to writ of mandamus.
City clerk’s certification of recall petitions for mayor and city councilmembers as having sufficient number of signatures was abuse of discretion and was in disregard of clearly applicable law, and, thus, elector was entitled to writ of mandamus to compel clerk to determine that recall petitions did not meet signature requirements under city charter; city charter required that recall petitions include number of signatures equal to at least 15% of electors who voted at last regular municipal election at which office of mayor was on ballot and not 15% of electors who cast vote for office of mayor, based on most recent election, required number of signatures was 587, and no petitions contained at least 587 signatures.