WPCLK g8(>&͢j9p&8 ^J{ Ŗ2Z[S[N%B;[Oyk Odw-fUPxd?i^úfʵf*ⓝ2 ʼnU4Ġ%$($h6)5\PDATqzCI6™TI.5ma.ؙǁ{°jjM6N\dRڻb*$*D+7]|IcZ' 0(* #R UN %i Mo ^ s w 4   m N 0U 0 0 0 0} 06 0 0 0= 0g 0  0 0 0T 0 0 0I 0 0y 0 0 0 0F 0 0 02 0 0\ B 00 0<3 0o 0>-! 0vk! 0`! 0`A" 0`" 0.# 0`/# 08# 0# 02$ 0$E% 0:% 0Y% 0_*& 0& 08a' 0( B** D/G* D+v* 0* D/%, 0T, 06"- 0X- 0:.. 0^h. 0<. 1e/U6g/U >/U*/ 1u0 72z00 0\3 0D3 0P74 1s4 724 0,55 0D8U@809M=>BgoG(JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ 0NJ($HP OfficeJet T Series Printer0(,,,,0(0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX}4 r3ct3|xU*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   a, b, c,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 56#,4Quick a.   .0 *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x    d0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5 (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,KS*CODEKL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4NV2Keyboard KL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS <z:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7A(X7  ?N%2A`Arial?  SM\  `&Times New RomanS7B(X7&  d d@)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7D(X7  ?N%2A`Arial?  SM\  `&Times New RomanS7B(X7@)2dxd0KS.SampleKL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8KS6TypewriterKL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Oi)  R0$k7XX      6    _Courtsfollowthisthreeprongtesttodecidewhetherthenewruleshouldbe  appliedretroactivelyorprospectivelywheretheruleisnotappliedtothepartiesinthe  caseinwhichitwasannounced.E.g.,Georgev.Camacho,119F.3dat1399n.4.The ( testapplieshere,asthenewruleannouncedin_Padilla_wasnotappliedtotheparties < thatwerebeforethecourtin_Padilla_itself.(G(20$ !  k7XX      0  (#$  0  ((3P$ !   d 337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)U1)6BB C/4Quotation X X  X X   R0$k7XX      7    _Thisfactoraloneunderscoresthemanifesterrorinaninterpretationofthe  _FVRA_Ԁthatplacestheburdenandexpenseon privateinitiativeproponents totranslate  andprintforeignlanguageversionsofrecall,initiative,andreferendumpetitionswhen , thelanguageofthe_FVRA_Ԁclearlycontemplatesthatitisthe  stateorpolitical @ subdivision thatisresponsibleforsuchcosts.(3$ !  (9 Z(Times New Roman  & R0$k7XX      2    _This languageminorityprovisionofthe_FVRA_Ԁappliesverybroadly,  essentiallycoveringanyjurisdictioninwhichmorethan5%ofvotingagecitizensare  membersofasinglelanguageminorityandtheilliteracyrateforthatgroupishigher ( thanthenationalrate.42U.S.C.1973aa1a(b)(2).AllofCaliforniasmostpopulous < counties"LosAngeles,Alameda,SanDiego,SantaClara,Orange,SanFrancisco"  P aresubjecttoSection203,andinseveralofthesecounties,registrationandvoting  d materialsmustbeprovidedinmultipleforeignlanguages.See28_C.F.R._ԀPart55 ( x [Appendix](listingjurisdictionscoveredunderSection203(c)andtheapplicable <  languageminoritygroups).  R0$k7XX      1    _InLosAngelesCounty,forexample,everylocalinitiativeandreferendum  wouldhavetobetranslatedintoandprintedinSpanish,Chinese,Japanese,Filipino,  andVietnamese.See28_C.F.R._ԀPart55[Appendix](2005).  R0$k7XX      3    _Twootherdistrictcourtshadlikewiseheldthatprivatelycirculatedpetitionsare  notsubjecttothe_FVRA_.SeeHoylev.Priest,59_F.Supp_.2d827,834(W.D.Ark.  1999)( signinganinitiativepetitionisnottantamounttovotinginanelectionand (  doesnotfallwithinthepurviewoftheVotingRightsAct);_Gerena_ԄValentinv.Koch, < 523_F.Supp_.176,177(_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ1981)( Thefailuretoprovidebilingualpetitionsdoes  P notbyitselfdeprivetheHispaniccommunityoftheirrighttovote.).  d   R0$k7XX      4    _Indeed,ifanything,thedutiesimposeduponColoradoandFloridaofficials   exceed thoseofelectionsofficialsinCalifornia.Forinstance,inadditiontopreparing  atitle,submissionclause,andsummaryofaproposedinitiativepriortoitscirculation ( (seeMontero,861F.2dat610n.5),Coloradoofficialsalsoreviewthetextofthe < proposedmeasureandprovidecommentsand suggestededitorialchangestothe  P proponents.SeeColo.Rev.Stat.1-40-105(1).Similarly,everyinitiativepetitionin  d Florida,inadditiontohavingitsformandstylereviewedbyelectionsofficialsfor ( x compliancewithstatutoryrequirements,mustalsobesubmittedtothestateSupreme <  CourtforanadvisoryopiniononwhetheritconformstoFloridalaw.SeeFla.Stat. P  T 16.061(1);Delgado,861F.2dat1491.Californialawhasnoanalogousrequirements. ] R0$k7XX      5    _Inthepresentcase,ofcourse,itwasfartoolatetoissuesuchaninjunction  directedtowardAppellantsInitiativebecause(1)Appellantspetitionshadbeen  printedandcirculatedwellbefore_Padilla_wasevendecided,atatimewhenthecase ( lawuniformlyheldthatinitiativepetitionsdidnotneedtobecirculatedinSpanish;and < (2)theMadrigalplaintiffswaitedfourmonthsfromthedateAppellantsbegan  P circulatingtheirpetition(andthreemonthsfromtheissuanceof_Padilla_)tofiletheir  d complaint.(O$ !  _k7XX  EmergencyMotionUnderCircuitRule273   A*9) dE A  &INTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS  FORTHENINTHCIRCUIT  X   `     h      p     @*A*9) dE A߈   ff  INRECOUNTYOFMONTEREYINITIATIVEMATTER,    ffBWILLIAMMELENDEZ,etal.,@..PlaintiffsAppellants,    @..v.   BOARDOFSUPERVISORSOFTHECOUNTYOFMONTEREY,etal.,   @..DefendantsAppellees; .  ROSARIOMADRIGAL,etal,PlaintiffsAppellees  v. 2 COUNTYOFMONTEREY,etal.,DefendantsAppellees. F ffWA*9) dE A R ffOnAppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt  Y fortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia m ConsolidatedCaseNos.C0601407JWandC0601730JW 1 HonorableJamesWare,Judge E fA*9) dE PA Q f PLAINTIFFSAPPELLANTSEMERGENCYMOTION V FORANINJUNCTIONPENDINGAPPEAL  j  ELECTIONMATTER:DECISIONNEEDEDBYAPRIL6,2006  !  A*9) dE #A # "    FredricD.Woocher(No.96689)* $- $ MichaelJ.Strumwasser(No.58413) %A!% BryceA.Gee(No.222700) 'U"& STRUMWASSER&WOOCHERLLP (i#' 100WilshireBoulevard,Suite1900 -)}$( SantaMonica,California90401 A*%) (310)5761233 U+&* *CounselofRecordonAppeal ,C(, AttorneysforAppellantsMelendez,etal.5   .S)-  X 8WXXdd8CONTENTS  /   Mk7k7TABLEOFAUTHORITIES""I(#.TTii ( CIRCUITRULE273CERTIFICATE|"|"I(#.(iv  P CORPORATEDISCLOSURESTATEMENT|"|"I(#.)ix ( x CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE""J(#.  $x P  INTRODUCTION""J(#. 1 x  ARGUMENT""J(#. 3     8   I.0  AstheTenthandEleventhCircuitCourtsofAppealsHaveHeld,  Section203oftheVotingRightsActDoesNotApplyto , PrivatelyCirculatedInitiativePetitions,andPadillav.Lever @ DoesNotRequireaDifferentResultinThisCircuit#""J(#.hhC  #7 T 8      8   II.0  BecausetheDistrictCourtMisstatedandApparently ,| MisunderstoodtheUnderlyingFacts,ItAppliedaWholly @ InappropriateRemedybyRetroactivelyInvalidatingthe T QualifiedPetitionsandEnjoininganElectionThatWillBeHeld h inFullCompliancewiththeVotingRightsAct#@"@"I(#.hh=  #12 | 8      8   III.0  TheDistrictCourtsDecisionWillandAlreadyIsCreating  ChaosintheCaliforniaInitiativeandReferendumProcess,on   theEveoftheJunePrimaryElection#@"@"I(#.XX4  #17 !  CONCLUSION@"@"I(#. 20 #D   D(#! X  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES     FederalCases  ,   Austinv.CityofBisbee,Arizona,855F.2d1429(9thCir.1988)A(#.((K15,16,17  X Delgadov.Smith,861F.2d1489(11thCir.1988), 0    cert.denied,492U.S.918(1989)=(#.14,5,8,9,10 D  Georgev.Camacho,119F.3d1393(9thCir.1997)@"@"I(#.;15 l  GerenaValentinv.Koch,523F.Supp.176(S.D.N.Y.1981)""J(#.D8   Hoylev.Priest,59F.Supp.2d827(W.D.Ark.1999)""J(#.tt?8    Lopezv.Heckler,713F.2d1432(9thCir.1983) D(#.tt:3,4,5 4 Monterov.Meyer,861F.2d603(10thCir.1988),  \   cert.denied,492U.S.921(1989)<(#.14,8,9,10,15  p Padillav.Lever,429F.3d910(9thCir.2005) E(#.:passim H Reynoldsv.Sims,377U.S.533(1964)@"@"I(#.013 p UnitedStatesv.BerksCounty,Pennsylvania,    250F.Supp.2d525(E.D.Pa.2003)@"@"I(#.313  UnitedStatesv.MetropolitanDadeCounty,Florida, !$   815F.Supp.1475(S.D.Fla.1993) E(#.212,13 "8   StateCases  %`    PalaBandofMissionIndiansv.BoardofSupervisors, 8'"    54Cal.App.4th565(1997)@"@"I(#.+18 L(#!    `)$" FederalStatutes     28C.F.R.Part55[Appendix](2005)""J(#.HH.7 ( 28U.S.C.section1443(2)""J(#.hh$2  P 42U.S.C.1973aa1a(b)(2)""J(#.TT&7 ( x 42U.S.C.1973aa1a(c)""J(#.<<#7 P    StateStatutes  x    Cal.Elec.Code,     #k7Mk7 #Mk7k79105@"@"I(#. #k7Mk7#Mk7k719    9105(c)@"@"I(#. 19 @ #k7Mk7#Mk7k7  9118""J(#. 1 h #k7Mk7#Mk7k7   `     h      p   Colo.Rev.Stat.140105(1)""J(#.)9 @ Fla.Stat.16.061(1)""J(#. !9 h    RulesofCourt      Fed.R.Civ.Proc.,Rule65(a)(2)""J(#.,3   #k7Mk7E#     &l!   CIRCUITRULE273CERTIFICATE   x K     PursuanttoCircuitRule273,subdivision(a)(3),counselformovantsWilliam ( Melendezetal.herebycertifyasfollows: v   (i)0 ` AttorneysfortheParties d` (#` (# FredricD.Woocher(No.96689)   MichaelJ.Strumwasser(No.58413)    BryceA.Gee(No.222700)  *  Strumwasser&WoocherLLP >  100WilshireBoulevard,Suite1900 R  SantaMonica,California90401 f  (310)5761233 *z  AttorneysforAppellantsWilliamMelendez,KenGray,JylLutes,CarolynAnderson, R andLandWatchMontereyCounty b CharlesJ.McKee,CountyCounsel  LeroyW.Blankenship,Asst.CountyCounsel  OfficeoftheMontereyCountyCounsel  168WestAlisalStreet,ThirdFloor  Salinas,CA93901 & (831)755-5045 : StephenN.Roberts b Nossaman,Guthner,Knox&Elliott,LLP & v 50CaliforniaStreet,34thFloor :! SanFrancisco,CA94111-4799 N" (415)398-3600 b# ЀJohnJ.Flynn %  Nossaman,Guthner,Knox&Elliott,LLP &!! 18101VonKarmanAvenue '#" Irvine,CA926120177 ($# (949)8337800 )*%$ AttorneysforAppelleesBoardofSupervisorsofCountyofMonterey,Monterey ,R'& CountyRegistrarofVotersTonyAnchundo,andCountyofMonterey -b(' ЇJoaquinG.Avila  634SouthSpringStreet,11thFloor  LosAngeles,CA90014 ( (206)398-4117 < &  JohnA.Ramirez  d MarkJ.Austin ( x Rutan&Tucker,LLP <  611AntonBoulevard,FourteenthFloor P  CostaMesa,CA92626-1931 d  (714)641-5100 x  ' ^(AttorneysforAppelleesRosarioMadrigal,SabasRangel,andMariaBuell     (ii)0 ` ExistenceandNatureoftheEmergency` (#` (#   Thisisanurgentelectionmatterinvolvingacitizensponsoredinitiativemeasure < (the GeneralPlanAmendmentInitiative)intheCountyofMontereythatwassigned d byover15,000countyresidentsandhadbeencertifiedfortheJune6,2006,statewide < primaryelectionballot.TheMontereyCountyBoardofSupervisors,however,refused d tosubmitthequalifiedinitiativetothevotersonthegroundthattheprivatelycirculated  initiativepetitionsviolatedtheVotingRightsActbecausetheywerenotprintedand   circulatedinbothSpanishandEnglish.OnThursday,March23,2006,U.S.District ", CourtJudgeJamesWaredeniedPlaintiffsMelendezetal.srequestforaninjunction %T  tocompeltheBoardofSupervisorstoincludetheGeneralPlanAmendmentInitiative ,'|"  ontheJuneballotandinsteadissuedaDeclaratoryJudgmentandPermanentInjunction T)$" enjoiningtheMontereyCountyDefendantsfromtakinganyfurtheractiontoplacethe |+&$ Initiativeontheballot.(RelevantPartsofRecordinSupportofPlaintiffsAppellants -(& EmergencyMotionforanInjunctionPendingAppeal( RPR)at297.)    Adecisiononthisemergencymotionisneededby April6,2006 ,becausethat ( isthedatebywhichDefendantMontereyCountyRegistrarofVotersTonyAnchundo  P hasstatedhemusthaveajudicialdecisioninorderfortheGeneralPlanAmendment ( x InitiativetobeincludedontheJune6,2006,ballot.CountyRegistrarAnchundo P  informedtheDistrictCourtthatalloftheballotmaterialsfortheJuneprimaryelection x  "theballots,sampleballots,impartialanalysis,andargumentsforandagainstthe   proposedmeasure"mustbesubmittedtotheprinternolaterthanApril21,2006,in  orderforthemtobepreparedandmailedtothevotersbytheMay16deadlineunder @ statelaw.Mr.AnchundofurtherexplainedthattheCountywouldneedapproximately h 15daystopreparetheGeneralPlanAmendmentInitiativetobesenttotheprinter, @ includingthetimenecessarytosolicitandreceivetheprimaryandrebuttalballot h arguments,aswellasthetimenecessarytotranslatealloftheballotmaterialsinto  Spanish.Mr.Anchundostatedthathisofficewouldthereforeneedtobeginthis   processbyApril6,2006,inorderfortheGeneralPlanAmendmentInitiativetoappear "0 ontheJune6,2006,ballot.(RprAT141,69.) %X    Accordingly,immediateinjunctivereliefisnecessarytopreventtheirreparable 0'"  harmthatAppellantsandthemorethan15,000MontereyCountycitizenswhosigned X)$" theGeneralPlanAmendmentInitiativepetitionwillsufferiftheproposedmeasureis +&$ notsubmittedtothevotersattheupcomingJuneprimaryelection.TheInitiativeisthe -(& culminationofanalmosttwoyearlongcitizensponsoredprocesstoreviseMonterey  CountysoutdatedGeneralPlantoprovidebettermanagementofthefuturegrowthand ( developmentoftheCounty.Appellantsspecificallytimedtheirqualificationeffortin  P orderforthemeasuretoappearontheJuneballot,andtheyhavemetallofthe ( x requirementsunderstatelawtohavetheInitiativesubmittedtothevotersatthat P  election.IftheGeneralPlanAmendmentInitiativedoesnotappearontheJuneballot, x  butisinsteaddelayeduntilafutureelection,allofAppellantseffortswillbewasted   andtheywillhaveeffectivelybeendeniedtheirconstitutionallyreservedrightof  initiative,becausetheBoardofSupervisorsisintheprocessofpreparingitsown @ proposedrevisiontotheCountyGeneralPlanforadoptionthisSummer,bywhichthe h Boardintendstosupersedeand mootAppellantsGeneralPlanAmendment @ Initiative. h   AppellantssoughtsimilarinjunctiverelieffromtheDistrictCourtforthe  NorthernDistrictofCalifornia.OnMarch23,2006,theDistrictCourtenteredanorder   denyingAppellantsrequest. "0   (iii)0 ` Notice%X ` (#` (#   CounselforallpartieswerecontactedbyphonebyAppellantscounsel,Fredric 0'"  D.WoocherandBryceA.Gee,onTuesday,March28,2006,andwereinformedthat X)$" thisemergencymotionwasbeingfiledwiththisCourt.Simultaneouswiththefilingof +&$ thismotiononMarch28,2006,allcounselarealsobeingservedwiththemotionand -(& supportingpapersbyelectronicmailandbyovernightdelivery.    InaccordancewithCircuitRule273,subdivision(a)(1),counselforAppellants ( alsocontactedtheNinthCircuitClerksofficeonMarch27,2006,at(415)5569890  P andnotifiedDutyAttorneyJenniferMatthewsofthenatureoftheemergencyandthat ( x Appellantsintendedtofilethisemergencymotionforinjunctionpendingappeal. P  Becauseofthenatureoftheemergency,Ms.MatthewsgaveAppellantspermissionto x  filetheirmotionviafacsimile.   Dated:March28,20060  0h(#(#0h(#h(#By:____________________________h(#(#    `     h      p FredricD.Woocher ,| A  @    CORPORATEDISCLOSURESTATEMENT   'C  PursuanttoFederalRuleofAppellateProcedure26.1,Appellantssubmitthis ( corporatedisclosurestatementforLandWatchMontereyCounty,anonprofit  P corporation.Therearenoparentcorporationsnoranypubliclyheldcorporationsthat ( x own10%ormoreofthestockofLandWatchMontereyCounty. P  Zk7k7  (A (#(#(DATE:March27,2006  #k7Zk7D#By򀀀  0  0D&#&#FredricD.Woocher ,D&#D&# (A ( T   h   CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE       PursuanttoNinthCircuitRule27(d),IcertifythatthePLAINTIFFS ( APPELLANTSEMERGENCYMOTIONFORANINJUNCTIONPENDING  P APPEALisdoublespacedanddoesnotexceed20pages. ( x FDated:March28,20060  0h(#(#0h(#h(#By:____________________________x (#(#    `     h      p FredricD.Woocher           INTRODUCTION   uI  Appellantsaretheproponentsofaproposedcountywideinitiativeentitled The ( MontereyCountyQualityofLife,AffordableHousing,andVoterControlInitiative  P (the GeneralPlanAmendmentInitiativeorthe Initiative),whichproposestoamend ( x MontereyCountysoutdatedGeneralPlantoprovidebettermanagementofthefuture P  growthanddevelopmentofthecounty.OnOctober19,2005,Appellantscommenced x  theprocessofqualifyingtheirproposedInitiativefortheJune2006ballotbyfilingwith   theRegistrarofVotersaNoticeofIntentiontocirculatethepetition.Shortly  thereafter,uponreceivingthestatutorilyrequiredtitleandsummaryfromCounty @ Counsel,AppellantsbegantocirculatetheInitiativepetitionthroughoutthecounty.On h December12,2005,AppellantssubmittedtheirpetitionstotheRegistrar,signedby @ over15,000countyresidents,nearlytwicethenecessarynumberofsignatures.(RPR h at24.)OnJanuary26,2006,theRegistrarofficiallycertifiedthattheInitiative  containedsufficientsignaturestoqualifyfortheballot.(RPRat24.)     PursuanttoCaliforniaElectionsCodesection9118,uponreceivingthe "0 Registrarscertificateofsufficiency,theMontereyCountyBoardofSupervisorswas %X  obligatedeithertoadopttheGeneralPlanAmendmentInitiativewithoutalterationor 0'"  tosubmittheInitiativetoavoteofthepeopleattheJune6,2006,election.On X)$" February24,2006,however,opponentsoftheInitiativefiledsuitinDistrictCourt +&$ (Madrigalv.CountyofMonterey(N.D.Cal.C0601407)),seekingdeclaratoryrelief -(& andaninjunctiontoprohibittheCountyfromeitheradoptingorplacingtheInitiative  ontheballot,contendingthatundertherationaleofPadillav.Lever,429F.3d910(9th ( Cir.2005)"whichaddressedtheapplicabilityoftheVotingRightsActto recall   P petitionsandwhichwasissuedmorethanamonth after Appellantshadcommenced ( x thecirculationoftheirinitiative"thepetitionsshouldhavebeenprintedinboth P  SpanishandEnglish.(RPRat67.)OnFebruary28,2006,a32majorityoftheBoard x  ofSupervisors"pleasedtohaveanyexcusetorejecttheGeneralPlanAmendment   Initiative"votednottosubmittheInitiativetothevotersattheupcomingJune6,  2006election. @   Theverynextday,onMarch1,2006,Appellantsfiledamandamusactionin h MontereyCountySuperiorCourt(Melendezv.BoardofSupervisors)tocompelthe @ BoardofSupervisorstocomplywithitsministerialdutytoplacetheInitiativeonthe h Juneballot.(RPRat9.)OnMarch7,theCountyremovedtheactiontofederalcourt  pursuantto28U.S.C.section1443(2),contendingthat oneoftheprimaryreasons   ithadrefusedtosubmittheInitiativetothevoterswasbecause themeasure "0 apparentlyviolatesprovisionsofSection203oftheVotingRightsAct.(RPRat36.) %X  Theremovedactionwassubsequentlyrelatedtoandultimatelyconsolidatedwiththe 0'"  Madrigalaction,andbothwereassignedtoDistrictCourtJudgeJamesWare. X)$"   OnMarch14,2006,AppellantsfiledanExParteApplicationforTROandOSC +&$ Re:PreliminaryInjunction,seekinganexpeditedhearingandordercompellingthe -(& BoardofSupervisorstoplacetheGeneralPlanAmendmentInitiativeontheJune  ballot.AtthehearingontheTROapplicationheldonMarch16,JudgeWare ( recognizedtheurgencyofthematterandcontinuedthehearingtoMarch21,requesting  P thepartiestofilecrossmotionsontheircompetingrequestsforinjunctivereliefinthe ( x MelendezandMadrigallawsuits.AttheMarch21hearing,JudgeWareorderedthat P  thetrialonthemeritsbeconsolidatedwithandadvancedtothehearingonthemotions x  forpreliminaryinjunctionspursuanttoRule65(a)(2).     OnMarch23,2006,JudgeWareissuedanorderdenyingAppellantsmotionfor  injunctivereliefandgrantingtheMadigralAppelleescross-motion,permanently @ enjoiningtheCountyofMontereyfromplacingtheInitiativeontheballot basedon h theEnglish-onlymaterialscirculatedbytheproponents.(RPRat286.)TheDistrict @ Courtmemorializeditsorderinafinaljudgmententeredthesameday,permanently h enjoiningtheCounty totakenofurtheraction,toprocess,certify,adopt,orplacethe  InitiativeonaballotforCountyvoters.(RPRat297.)AppellantsNoticeofAppeal   wasfiledonMarch27,2006. "0    ARGUMENT  %X  _  IssuanceofaninjunctionpendingappealisnecessarybecauseAppellantscan 0'"  show aprobabilityofsuccessonthemeritsandthepossibilityofirreparableinjury X)$" withoutsuchrelief.Lopezv.Heckler,713F.2d1432,1435(9thCir.1983).Injunctive +&$ reliefisalsoavailablewherethemovingpartydemonstratesthat seriouslegal -(& questionsareraisedandthatthebalanceofhardshipstipssharplyinitsfavor.Ibid.  Appellantsreadilysatisfyeithertest. (   TheDistrictCourtenjoinedtheCountyfromplacingtheGeneralPlan  P AmendmentInitiativeontheballotbecausethepetitionsthatAppellantscirculated ( x werenottranslatedinSpanish,allegedlyinviolationofthefederalVotingRightsAct P  ( FVRA).Yet CourtsofAppealsintwodifferentcircuitshave expresslyheldthat x  citizensponsoredinitiativepetitionsdonothavetobecirculatedinlanguagesother   thanEnglishundertheFVRA becausetheyarenot registrationorvotingnotices,  forms,instructions,assistance,orothermaterialsorinformationrelatingtotheelectoral 0 processand,morefundamentally,theyarenot providedbythestateorapolitical X subdivision.Monterov.Meyer,861F.2d603(10thCir.1988),cert.denied,492U.S. 0 921(1989);Delgadov.Smith,861F.2d1489(11thCir.1988),cert.denied,492U.S. X 918(1989).Inrelianceuponthissettledlaw,Appellantsandthousandsofotherlocal  andstateinitiativeproponentsthroughouttheStateofCaliforniahaveforyearsbeen   circulating"andcontinuetothisdaytocirculate"initiativepetitionsonlyinEnglish. "    NothingintherecentdecisioninPadillav.Levercompelsadifferentresult.The $H  panelsdivideddecision"whichishighlyquestionableinitsownrightandforwhich  'p"  apetitionforrehearingenbanc(supportedbytheSecretariesofStateofCalifornia, H)$" Nevada,Arizona,andWashington)isstillpendinginthisCourt"addressedwhether p+&$  recall petitionsinCaliforniamustbeprintedandcirculatedinminoritylanguages,not -(&  initiative petitions.Indeed,JudgePregersonsopinionwenttogreatlengthstoexplain  howthedecisionsinMonteroandDelgadowere readilydistinguishablefromthe ( instantcase.429F.3dat917.ByextendingPadillasholdingtocoverprivately  P preparedandcirculatedinitiativepetitions,theDistrictCourtstretchedthatopinions ( x rationaletothebreakingpointandexposedtheunderlyingerrorinitsconclusionthat P  suchpetitionsaresomehow providedbytheCountymerelybecausethestate x  regulatestheirformandcontent.(RPRat294.)     Furthermore,Appellantscirculatedtheirinitiativepetitions wellbefore thepanel  issueditsdecisioninPadilla"acriticalfactthattheDistrictCourtsomehow @ misstatedinitsruling"andnooneseriouslycontendsthattheInitiativewouldhave h beensignedby fewer votersifthepetitionshad also beenprintedinSpanish.Equally @ importantly, allofthematerialsrelatedtotheactualelectionontheInitiativewill h beprintedinbothEnglishandSpanish .NeitherPadillanoranyothercaseunderthe  FVRAholdsthattheappropriateremedyforfailingtocirculatepetitionsinaminority   languageistodenytheelectoratetherighttovoteonaqualifiedballotmeasureinan "0 electionthatwill fullycomply withtheFVRA.Infact,thisCourtinPadillaitself %X   denied theplaintiffsrequestforaninjunctiontoprohibittherecallelectionfromtaking 0'"  place.See429F.3dat914n.4.Underthesecircumstances,evenifPadillawere X)$" correctlydecided,toextenditsnewrulingtoinitiativepetitionsandthenapplyit +&$  retroactively soastoprohibitanelectiononAppellantsInitiativewouldonlypervert -(& thelaudableobjectivesoftheFVRAbydenyingthevotersofMontereyCounty"  includingthemanyLatinoswhosignedtheinitiativepetitions"theirfundamentalright ( tovoteonthequalifiedInitiative.  P   Finally,ifallowedtostandwhilethisappealispending,theDistrictCourts ( x decisionwillcreate utterchaos fortheinitiativeandreferendumprocessinCalifornia. P  TherearedozensofinitiativesandreferendathataresettobevotedonintheJune x  election,includingonestatewideproposition,andscoresmorearecurrentlyin   circulationorareundergoingsignatureverificationfortheNovemberballot,including  morethan50statewideinitiatives. PursuanttoCalifornialaw,notasingleoneof @ thesemeasureswascirculatedinanylanguageotherthanEnglish ,andeveryone h ofthemisnowatriskofbeinginvalidatedundertheDistrictCourtsdecision. @ Already,JudgeWaresrulinghasbeenrelieduponbyaDistrictCourtinLosAngeles h ingrantingaTROtopreventanelectionontworeferendaandaninitiativeintheCity  ofLomaLinda(seeChincayv.Verjil(C.D.Cal.No.CV0601637MRP)),andthe   MontereyCountyBoardofSupervisorsispoisedtoremoveapreviouslycertified "0 referendummeasurefromtheJuneballotbaseduponJudgeWaresdecisioninthis %X  case.Thosewhoareintheprocessofcirculatinginitiativeshavenoideawhatthey 0'"  mustnowdotocomplywiththeDistrictCourtsruling,andmanyindividualsand X)$" grassrootsorganizationswillbeunabletoaffordtheexorbitantcostsofhavingto +&$ translatewhatmightbehundredsofpagesoftechnicalinitiativetextintoasmanyas -(& fivedifferentforeignlanguages.\ S#  1      ׀ItisnoexaggerationtosaythattheDistrictCourts  rulingthreatensthecontinuedviabilityofthepeoplesreservedinitiativeand ( referendumpowersinCalifornia.  P &  I.0  AstheTenthandEleventhCircuitCourtsofAppealsHaveHeld, ( x Section203oftheVotingRightsActDoesNotApplytoPrivately <  CirculatedInitiativePetitions,andPadillav.LeverDoesNot P  RequireaDifferentResultinThisCircuit d (#(# |  Section203,subdivision(c),oftheVotingRightsAct'|Ԁprovides:   WC/ X X   WC/~   ` WheneveranyStateorpoliticalsubdivisionsubjecttothe   prohibitionofsubsection(b)ofthissectionprovidesanyregistrationor  votingnotices,forms,instructions,assistance,orothermaterialsor , informationrelatingtotheelectoralprocess,includingballots,itshall @ providetheminthelanguageoftheapplicableminoritygroupaswellas T intheEnglishlanguage.42U.S.C.1973aa-1a(c)(emphasisadded).[ S#  2      WC/~J݌ h Ќ X X     TheDistrictCourtsrulingthatprivatelycirculatedinitiativepetitionsaresubject @  toSection203is directlyatodds withtheonlytwoappellatedecisionstohave h addressedtheissue.] S#  3      ׀TheTenthandEleventhCircuitshaveindependentlyconcluded   thatinitiativepetitionsare notcovered bySection203andtherefore donot havetobe ( printedandcirculatedinminoritylanguages,bothbecausethepetitionsarenot  P  materialsrelatingtotheelectoralprocessandbecausetheyarenot providedbythe ( x state.InbothMonterov.MeyerandDelgadov.Smith,theCourtsofAppeals P  emphasizedthatinreviewinginitiativepetitionsforcompliancewithcertainstatutory x  requirementsregardingthepermissibleformandcontentofthepetitions,theelections   officialswereperformingaministerialfunctionthatdidnotconverttheprivateactions  oftheinitiativeproponentsintostateaction.SeeMontero,861F.2datp.610( The @ actsperformedbythoseofficersaredesignedprimarilytomaketheinitiativeprocess h fairandimpartial,anddonotconstituteprovidingthepetitionstotheelectorate.); @ Delgado,861F.2dat1496( theFloridaSecretaryofStateischargedwithlimited h ministerialdutiesregardingtheinitiativeprocess....[T]hesedutiesdonotconstitute  stateformulationoftheinitiativepetition.)AstheCourtofAppealssummarized   FloridasinitiativeprocessinDelgado: "0 WC/ X X   WC/   NostateactionlinkexistsbetweentheproponentsoftheEnglish  languagepetitionandthestatestatutoryscheme.Thestatedoesnot  initiatethepetition,doesnotdraftthelanguageofthepetition,doesnot ( addressthemeritsoftheproposalanddoesnotparticipateinanywayin < thecirculationofthepetitionorinthecollectionofsignatures.Rather,all  P ofthisactionistakenbyprivatecitizens.Thestatesresponsibilityisto  d ensurethatthepetitionmeetstherequirementsoflawandwillfairly ( x presentthepropositionthatmayormaynotbeplacedbeforethe <  electorate.Suchregulationisnotsufficienttotransposesuchprivate P  conductintostateaction.Id.at1497.WC/ }݌ d  Ќ X X     CaliforniasinitiativeprocessisvirtuallyidenticaltotheColoradoandFlorida   statutoryschemesatissueinMonteroandDelgado.Californiaelectionsofficialsdo   notinitiatethepetitionprocess,donotdraftthelanguageofaninitiativepetition,and , donotplayanyroleinprintingandcirculatinganinitiativepetitiontothevoters. T Furthermore,althoughCalifornia"likeColoradoandFlorida"imposescertain ,| proceduralrequirementsontheformatofinitiativepetitionsinordertoensuretheir T accuracyandimpartiality,Californiaelectionsofficialshavenoauthoritytodictateor | approvethecontentsofaninitiativeortorequirethatanychangesbemadeinthe  petitionspriortotheircirculation.^ S#  4       !   DespitethesemanifestsimilaritiesintheCalifornia,Colorado,andFlorida  initiativeprocesses,theDistrictCourtmadenoefforttoaddressthe directconflict (  createdbetweenitsrulingandtheCourtofAppealsdecisionsinMonteroorDelgado.  P Instead,JudgeWarereliedentirelyonthefactthatthePadillacourt hadan ( x opportunitytostatethattheVotingRightsActdidnotapplyatalltoinitiatives,but P   didnotdoso.(RPRat294.)TheDistrictCourtsnegativeimplicationignoresthe x  fundamentalprinciplethatcourtsdonotdecidecasesandissuesthatarenotbefore   them.ThepanelinPadillaaddressedonlythelimitedquestionof whetherrecall  petitionsfallunderthe[FVRAs]translationrequirements.429F.3dat915.There @ wasnoneedforthecourttoreachoutandopineonwhether initiativepetitions were h alsosubjecttotheAct,anditwouldhavebeenimproperforittodoso. @   Indeed,itissignificantthatthePadillaopinionexplicitly distinguished the h holdingsinMonteroandDelgadoonthegroundthat,unlikeinitiativeproponentsin  ColoradoandFlorida, Californiarecallproponentsarestatutorilyrequiredtoaltertheir   recallpetitionasdirectedbyelectionsofficialsuntilelectionsofficialsaresatisfiedthat "0 nofurtheralterationsarerequired.Id.at918.Yetthisisalsooneofthecritical %X  differencesbetweentherecallprocessandtheinitiativeprocessinCalifornia,aswell: 0'"  WhereasCaliforniaelectionsofficialsmust approve theformandcontentofarecall X)$" petition priorto itscirculation,theyhaveneithertheauthoritynortheopportunityto  alterthetextofaninitiativepetitionbeforeitiscirculatedorsubmitted.Liketheir ( counterpartsinColoradoandFlorida,Californiaelectionsarelimitedtothepurely  P ministerialfunctionofdeterminingasubmittedpetitionscompliancewiththe ( x proceduralrequirementsoftheCode. P    Atbottom,theDistrictCourtsconclusionthat thePadillacourtsrationalewith x  respecttorecallpetitionsappliesequallyandperhapsmorestronglytoCalifornia   initiativepetitionsbecauseoftheextensiveCountysinvolvementintheinitiative  process(RPRat9),neitheradequatelydistinguishesinitiativepetitionsinCalifornia @ fromthoseinColoradoandFloridanorsquareswiththeunambiguousstatutory h languageoftheFVRA.Byitsplainterms,section203appliesonlywhenthestate @ actually provideselectionmaterials,notwhenthestatehas extensiveinvolvement h intheprocess.Asitis,thepanelopinioninPadillastretchedthestatutorylanguage  beyondreasonablerecognitionbyholdingthatelectionsofficialsapprovalofarecall   petitionscontentandformatpriortoitscirculationconstitutes sufficientstate "0 involvement...toconcludethatthestateprovidedtheRecallPetitionwithinthe %X  meaningoftheVotingRightsAct.429F.3dat924.TheDistrictCourtbelow, 0'"  however,untetheredthatlanguagecompletelybyrulingthatinitiativepetitionsare X)$" somehow providedbythecountymerelybecausestatelawcontrolstheformatofthe +&$ petitionsandrequiresthattheyincludeanimpartialtitleandsummarydraftedbycounty -(& officials.JudgeWaresorderutterlyfailstoexplainhowthestatutorylanguagecanbe  interpretedtoimposeonaninitiatives proponents theobligationtotranslateandprint ( theirprivatelycirculatedpetitionsintomultiplelanguageswhenSection203expressly  X declaresthatwheneveranyStateorpoliticalsubdivisionprovidesanyregistrationor 0  votingnotices, it" thestateorpoliticalsubdivision " shallprovidetheminthe X  languageoftheapplicableminoritygroup.    &  II.0  BecausetheDistrictCourtMisstatedandApparently   MisunderstoodtheUnderlyingFacts,ItAppliedaWholly    InappropriateRemedybyRetroactivelyInvalidatingthe   QualifiedPetitionsandEnjoininganElectionThatWillBeHeld 4 inFullComplianceWiththeVotingRightsActH(#(#    EveniftheDistrictCou'rtwerecorrectthatPadillaandtheFVRAshouldbe  p interpretedtorequireprivatelycirculatedinitiativepetitionstobeprintedinmultiple H languages,theremedythatthecourtadopted"enjoininganelectionontheInitiative p thatwillcomplyfullywiththeFVRA"waswhollyinappropriate.Evenwhenfaced  withclearviolationsoftheFVRA,courtsareloathetoenjoinimpendingelections.   Instead,courtsprefertofashionequitableremediesthatseektocountertheeffectsof "8 suchFVRAviolationswhilestillprotectingthepreciousvotingrightsofthepeople. %`    Forinstance,inUnitedStatesv.MetropolitanDadeCounty,Florida,815F. 8'"  Supp.1475(S.D.Fla.1993),thecourtfoundthatthecountyhadviolatedSection203 `)$" bynotprovidingthevoterinformationpamphletinmultiplelanguages,butitrefused +&$ toenjoinorpostponetheupcomingelection,holdingthatsuch drasticstepsareneither -)& requirednorappropriateatthisjuncture.Id.at147879.Reasoningthat [w]herean  impendingelectionisimminentandtheelectionmachineryisalreadyinprogress,a ( Courtmaytakeintoaccountequitableconsiderationswhenprescribingimmediate  P relief,thecourtinsteadrequiredthecountyeithertoprintanddistributea ( x Spanish-languageversionofthepamphlettoallvotersortodisplayposter-sized P  enlargementsoftheSpanish-languagepamphletateachprecinct.Id.at1478-79; x  accord,UnitedStatesv.BerksCounty,Pennsylvania,250F.Supp.2d525,54142   (E.D.Pa.2003)(refusingtoenjoinanimminentelectionorinvalidatetheresultsof  priorelectionseventhoughdefendantcountyhadrepeatedlyviolatednumerous @ provisionsoftheFVRA);seealsoReynoldsv.Sims,377U.S.533,585(1964)(in h fashioningreliefforvotingrightsviolations, acourtisentitledtoandshouldconsider @ theproximityofaforthcomingelectionandthemechanicsandcomplexitiesofstate h electionlaws,andshouldactandrelyupongeneralequitableprinciples).    Insteadofapplyingtheseequitableprinciples,theDistrictCourtoptedtoimpose   thedrasticremedyofenjoininganelectionontheInitiativecompletely,thereby "0 preventingavoteonameasureforwhichover15,000MontereyCountyvotershad %X  freelyandunambiguouslyindicatedtheirsupport.Moreover,theremedyimposedby 0'"  thecourtborenorelationtotheallegedviolationoftheFVRAinthiscase:Theclaim X)$" herewasthattheinitiativepetitionsshouldhavebeenprintedandcirculatedinSpanish. +&$ Anyinjunctivereliefshouldthereforehavebeendirectedtothatassertedviolation,by -(& "forexample"orderingtheCountytoprovideinitiativetitleandsummariesinboth  EnglishandSpanishinthefuture,orbydirectingtheCountytoprovideSpanish ( languagetranslationsofallinitiativessubmittedtothem._ S#  5      ׀Instead,theDistrictCourt  P erroneouslyenjoinedtheimminentelectionontheInitiativefromgoingforward,even ( x thoughallofthevotingmaterialsforthatelectionwillbeprintedanddistributedin P  bothSpanishandEnglish.ThatisaremedythateventheCourtinPadillaitselfdidnot x  seefittoimpose.See429F.3dat914n.4.     Inaddition,theDistrictCourterredby retroactively applyingPadillaandthe  courtsownnewlypromulgatedextensionofthatdecisiontoinvalidateaninitiative @ petitionthat,asshownabove,wascirculatedinfullcompliancewiththelawasit h existed priorto theissuanceofthePadilladecisiononNovember23,2005.The @ DistrictCourtapparentlymisunderstoodtheunderlyingfactsofthiscase,mistakenly h statingthatAppellantsdidnotbegintocirculatetheinitiativeuntilJanuary2006, after   thedecisioninPadillawasissuedandevenaftertheMadrigallawsuithadbeenfiled.   (RPRat287.)Itisundisputed,however,thatAppellantsactuallybeganthecirculation "0 processin October2005 "morethanamonthbeforePadillawasdecidedandfour  monthsbeforetheMadrigalplaintiffsfirstassertedthatthepetitionsshouldhavebeen ( circulatedinSpanish.(E.g.,RPRat14,13;at71,11.)  P   HadtheDistrictCourtbeenfullycognizantofthistiming,itshouldnothave ( x invalidatedtheinitiativepetitionsbaseduponitsextensionofPadilla,forcourtswill P  properlyrefusetoapplyanewrulingretroactivelywhere,ashere,(1)thedecision x  establishesanewprincipleoflaw;(2)theretroactiveapplicationofthedecisionwill   retard,notfurther,thepurposesoftheruleinquestion;and(3)theretroactive  applicationofthedecisionwillproducesubstantiallyinequitableresults.Georgev. @ Camacho,119F.3d1393,1401(9thCir.1997);accord,Austinv.CityofBisbee, h Arizona,855F.2d1429,143243(9thCir.1988).Q S#  6       @   Here,allthreefactorsmandatethatneitherPadillanortheDistrictCourts h decisionshould  beappliedretroactivelytoAppellantsInitiative.First,thedecisions  notonlyestablishedanewrule,theyactuallyreversedthepriorone;Monteroand   Delgadohadexpresslyrejectedclaimsthatcitizensponsoredpetitionsmustcomply "0 withtheminoritylanguagerequirementsoftheFVRA,andeventhedistrictcourtin %X  PadillahadlikewiseruledalmostthreeyearsagothatrecallpetitionsinCaliforniado  nothavetobeprintedinmultiplelanguages.See,e.g.,Austin,855F.2dat1433 ( (refusingtoapplynewdecisionretroactivelywhereit overruledclearpastprecedent).  P   Similarly,theassertedpurposeoftherulinginquestion"topromote full ( x participationintheelectoralprocess(seePadilla,429F.3dat924)"wouldbe P  retarded,notfurthered,byprohibitinganelectionontheInitiative.Everyoneofthe x  morethan15,000personswhosignedthatpetition"includingmanyLatinovoters,   likeAppellantMelendez"didsopreciselybecausetheywantedtoparticipateinthe  politicalprocessbyexercisingtheirconstitutionallyprotectedrightofinitiative.Even @ ifitwerethecasethatmorecitizens(i.e.,languageminorityspeakers)wouldbeable h tofullyparticipateinthatprocessif,inthefuture,petitionswereprintedinmultiple @ languages,thatisnoreasontonullifythepetitionsthathavealreadybeencirculatedand h qualifiedfortheballotevenwithouttheseadditionalindividualsfullparticipation.The  retroactiveapplicationofPadillasnewruletothisInitiativewouldserveonlytodeny   thosewhohavealreadysignedthepetitionstheirfundamentalconstitutionalrightsand "0 topreventanelectionfrombeingheldinwhichallcitizens"EnglishandSpanish %X  speakingalike"willbefullyabletoparticipateintheelectoralprocess. 0'"    Finally,applyingtheDistrictCourtsandthePadillarulingsretroactivelywould X)$" producesubstantiallyinequitableresults.Appellantsreasonablyrelieduponthe +&$ CaliforniaElectionsCode,theappellatedecisionsinMonteroandDelgado,andthe -(& districtcourtsdecisioninPadillaitselfwhentheyprintedandcirculatedtheirinitiative  petitionsinEnglishonly.Countlessinitiativepetitionshavecirculatedandqualifiedfor ( theballotthroughouttheStateofCaliforniathatwereprintedonlyinEnglish,and  P  neverbeforehadasingleoneofthembeendeclaredunlawfulundertheFVRA .To ( x suddenlychangethe rulesofthegamenow,afterAppellantshadcompletedthe P  processandhaddoneexactlywhathadbeenrequiredofthemtoqualifytheirinitiative x  fortheballot,would penaliz[e][those]partieswhoorderedtheiraffairsinreasonable   relianceonaruleoflawthatwaslaterinvalidated.Austin,855F.2dat1432.   III.0  TheDistrictCourtsDecisionWillandAlreadyIsCreatingChaos @ intheCaliforniaInitiativeandReferendumProcess,ontheEveof T theJunePrimaryElection h(#(#   TheDistrictCourtsdecision,wereittostand,willthrowtheinitiativeprocess @ intoutterchaosthroughoutthestateofCalifornia.UndertheDistrictCourtsruling, h literallyhundredsofpendingstatewideandlocalinitiativesarenowatriskofbeing  thrownofftheballotbecausetheirproponents,relyinguponthelawatthetime,   circulatedpetitionsinEnglishonly.Additionally,morethan50statewideinitiative "0 petitionsandcountlesslocalinitiativepetitionsthathavebeensubmittedorare %X  currentlyincirculationfortheNovembergeneralelectionwouldalsobeinvalidbased 0'"  upontheDistrictCourtsdecision.JudgeWaremaysoonbeaverybusyman. X)$"   Moreover,thiswidescaledisruptionoftheinitiativeprocessnowappearsto +&$ haveexpandedtoreferendumpetitions,aswell.Justlastweek,anotherdistrictcourt -(& inLosAngelesissuedatemporaryrestrainingorderremovingtworeferendainLoma  LindafromtheJuneballotfornothavingbeencirculatedinSpanish.Chincayv.Verjil ( (C.D.Cal.No.CV0601637MRP).UnlessthisCourtintervenesimmediately,there  P isthusaseriousriskthatCaliforniasentireinitiativeandreferendumprocesswillbe ( x crippledfortheforeseeablefuture.ThisCourtcannotallowthistooccur,asthe P  peoplesrighttopetitionthroughinitiativeandreferendumis oneofthemostprecious x  rightsofourdemocraticprocess.PalaBandofMissionIndiansv.Boardof   Supervisors,54Cal.App.4th565,573-74(1997).    Evenworse,theDistrictCourtsdecisionwouldrenderthisvitalgrassrootstool @ ofdemocracypermanentlyunavailabletotheverysegmentofsocietythatneedsitthe h most,forthosewithlimitedfinancialresourceswillbeunabletoaffordtheexorbitant @ costsoftranslatingandprintinglengthyinitiatives"suchastheonehere,whichran h approximately60pages(seeRPRat20179)"intoasmanyasfivedifferent  languages.X S#  7      ׀Furtherunsettlingishowelectionsofficials,andcourts,willensurethat   thesetranslationsareaccurate;sincethereisneveraonetoonecorrespondencein "0 foreigntranslations,itislikelythattheDistrictCourtsdecisionwillspawnawhole %X  newsetofhurdles(andlitigation)forinitiativeproponentstoovercome.    Morefundamentally,itisentirelyunclearhowthisnewtranslationrequirement ( willevenfitintoCaliforniasstatutoryscheme,andhowinitiativeproponentsare  P supposedtocomplywiththeFVRAundertheDistrictCourtsnewinterpretation.For ( x example,willcounties,cities,andthestatebeprovidingtranslatedtitlesandsummaries P  toinitiativeproponents?Willtheybeprovidingtranslationsoftheentiretextofeach x  proposedinitiative?Ifitisthestatethatmustprovidethetranslations,willelections   officialsbeabletocompletethosetranslationswithinthe15dayperiodmandatedby  statute,particularlywhereaninitiativemayrunhundredsofpagesinlength. @   Similarly,doinitiativeproponentsneedtopublishtheNoticeofIntentionin h multiplelanguages,aswellasprinttheactualpetitionsinthoselanguages?California @ ElectionsCodesection9105requiresthattheNoticeofIntentionbepublished ina h newspaperofgeneralcirculation.Virtuallyallofthosenewspaperspublishonlyin  English.DoesitmakeanysensetorequirepublicationofthisnoticeinSpanishor   VietnamesewhenthenewspaperispublishedonlyinEnglish? "0   Itisalsounclearjusthowinitiativepetitionsmustnowbecraftedunderthe %X  DistrictCourtsruling.TheElectionsCoderequiresthetitleandsummarytoappear 0'"   uponeachsectionofthepetition,abovethetextoftheproposedmeasureand across X)$" thetopofeachpageofthepetitiononwhichsignaturesaretoappear.Cal.Elec. +&$ Code9105(c).Itwillliterallybeimpossibletocomplywiththisrequirementby -(& includingboththeEnglishandeachforeignlanguageversionofthetitleandsummary  onthesamepageofthepetition.DoestheDistrictCourtsdecisionthereforerequire ( insteadthatentireseparatepetitionsbeprintedineachlanguage,andifso,thenwhat  P compelsacirculatortoshowtheforeignlanguagepetitiontoanyparticularprospective ( x signer?Perhapsthiswillspawnanothersetoflawsuitsinwhichvoterscomplainthat P  theywerenotshownapetitionintheirlanguage. x     CONCLUSION        Theseseriousproblemsarebynomeansexhaustive,andtheymerelyillustrate  howunworkabletheDistrictCourtsdecisionis.Therootoftheproblem,ofcourse, @ isthatthecourterredinthefirstinstancebystretchingthelanguageofSection203of h theFVRA"whichwasintendedtoapplyonlytoelectionmaterials providedbythe @ state"tocoverprivatelycreatedanddistributedpetitions. h   Topreservethepeoplesrightofpetition,thisCourtmustreversetheDistrict  Courtsunprecedentedandunsupportedruling,and"pendingthehearingand   decisiononappeal"grantAppellantsmotiontostaytheeffectofthatrulingby "0 issuingtherequestedinjunctionorderingAppellantsInitiativetobesubmittedtothe %X  votersofMontereyCountyattheJune6,2006,election. 0'"  Zk7k7(  h(#(#(DATE:March28,2006 X)$" STRUMWASSER&WOOCHERLLP X)$" FredricD.Woocher l*%# MichaelJ.Strumwasser +&$ BryceGee ,'%   #k7Zk7(# -(& By򀀀  Ѐ0 ` 0 ` ` FredricD.  Woocher(   AttorneysforPlaintiffs  P AppellantsWilliamMelendez,  ` KenGray,JylLutes,Carolyn  p Anderson,andLandwatch 0  Monterey