Office of the Attorney General
State of California
Proposed relator THOMAS J. FOX has requested leave to sue proposed defendant JUDY MORRIS in quo warranto to oust Morris from the public office of Trinity County Supervisor, on the ground that, in her election documents, she used her married name, ?Morris,? rather than her birth name, ?Yzquierdo,? in alleged violation of Elections Code section 18200.
CONCLUSION
Proposed relator does not raise a substantial question of law or fact that warrants initiating a judicial proceeding, and allowing the proposed quo warranto action to proceed would not serve the public interest. Proposed relator’s application for leave to sue in quo warranto is, therefore, DENIED.
ANALYSIS
Proposed relator Thomas J. Fox (Fox) was one of two candidates on the ballot for Trinity County Supervisor, Electoral District 2, in an election held on July 7, 2016. The other candidate, who won the election, was proposed defendant Judy Morris (Morris).1?Morris was sworn into office on January 2, 2017. Fox alleges that Morris ?has usurped the office of Trinity County Supervisor … in that she appeared on the ballot under a name which is not legally her name,?2?in asserted violation of Elections Code section 18200 (hereafter, Section 18200).3Fox alleges that Morris’s legal name is ?Judy Yzquierdo,? the name under which she is compensated by Trinity County, not ?Morris,? which is her married name. Fox seeks leave to file a complaint in quo warranto ousting Morris from office and installing him instead.
The gravamen of Fox’s complaint is that, once she was divorced, Morris was not legally permitted to continue to use her married name unless she stopped using her birth name ?Yzquierdo? for all purposes, or alternatively, obtained a court order changing her name from ?Yzquierdo? to ?Morris.? Fox argues that, since Morris continues to use ?Yzquierdo? for some purposes and has not obtained a court order changing her name, her use of her married name ?Morris? for purposes of the 2016 election amounts to use of a ?fictitious name? within the meaning of Section 18200. As discussed in further detail below, we disagree and therefore deny Fox’s application.
?Quo warranto,? literally meaning ?by what authority,? was a writ at common law, by which the crown instituted a formal inquiry into whether a subject had the right to hold public office.4?The remedy is currently codified in section 803 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides in relevant part:
An action may be brought by the attorney-general, in the name of the people of this state, upon his own information, or upon a complaint of a private party, against any person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any public office …5
A private party seeking to bring such an action must obtain the consent of the Attorney General.6?In deciding whether to grant leave to sue, we do not resolve the merits of the dispute, but only ?decide whether the application presents substantial issues of fact or law that warrant judicial resolution, and whether granting the application will serve the public interest.?7?Morris declined to file a response,8?so we reach our conclusion based on our analysis of the present application, the undisputed material facts, and the applicable law.
The undisputed material facts are as follows: Since early childhood, Morris’s name was Judy Marie Yzquierdo,9?a name that she continues to use for some purposes.10?Although Fox alleges that he could find no California record of her marriage, he acknowledges having been introduced to ?Jeff and Judy Morris? in May 2009, at which time Jeffrey Morris was the Trinity County Supervisor for Electoral District 2.11Judy Morris succeeded to her husband’s supervisorial seat in 2010,12?and was thereafter elected to a full term in 2012. ?Shortly after this election, it became public knowledge in the County that Jeffrey Morris and Defendant [Judy Morris] were divorced.?13?Judy Morris ran for election in 2016 using her married name, but she receives compensation from Trinity County under the name ?Yzquierdo.? Morris has not obtained a court order for a name change.
?Name changes may arise from personal or parental preference, adoption, and other circumstances. Indeed, in California and elsewhere the right of a competent person to choose and change her or his surname cannot lightly be overcome.?14?The common law recognizes the right of any adult person to change his or her name by general usage or habit without the necessity of legal proceedings.15?Code of Civil Procedure section 1286, which embodies a statutory procedure for change of name, merely provides a public record of the change.16
The undisputed facts establish that Morris has been publicly known by her married name, ?Judy Morris,? for some substantial period of time. Indeed, Fox acknowledges that Morris was elected under that name in 2012. The name, therefore, cannot be said to be ?fictitious.? Webster’s defines ?fictitious? as ?of, relating to, or characteristic of fiction,? and further defines ??fiction? as ?something invented by the imagination or feigned.?17?One court has defined the term as ?that which is not real, but imaginary.?18?In the context of the crime of passing a ?fictitious bank bill,? the court defined the term as meaning ?feigned; imaginary; not real; counterfeit; false; not genuine.?19?Under the facts here and the commonly understood meaning of the term ?fictitious,? Morris cannot reasonably be said to have used a fictitious name in the 2016 election.
It is of no legal consequence that Morris uses her married name for some but not all purposes,20?or that she continues to use her married name though she may no longer be married to Jeffrey Morris. It is not uncommon, for example, that women will continue to use their maiden name in their professional status.21?So, too, many women continue to use their married name even after divorce.22
In light of the undisputed facts, proposed defendant’s use of her married name ?Judy Morris? for election in 2016 cannot reasonably be said to have constituted the use of a ?fictitious name? for that purpose, even if she continues to use her birth name ?Judy Yzquierdo? for other purposes. There being no substantial issues of fact or law that warrant judicial resolution, it would not serve the public interest to expend scarce judicial resources on pursuing the inquiry.23?The application for leave to sue in quo warranto is, accordingly, DENIED.24