I concur not only because the issue is moot but also because I believe it was correctly decided by the trial court. In my opinion Elections Code section 27521 is constitutional.
This section is a limitation on candidacy and only incidentally affects the right to vote. Under the latest cases neither the Supreme Court of the United States (Bullock v. Carter (1972) 405 U.S. 134 [31 L.Ed.2d 92, 92 S.Ct. 849]) nor the Supreme Court of California (Knoll v. Davidson (1974) 12 Cal.3d 335 [116 Cal.Rptr. 97, 525 P.2d 1273]; Thompson v. Mellon (1973) 9 Cal.3d 96 [107 Cal.Rptr. 20, 507 P.2d 628]) has been willing to accede a fundamental status to the right to be a candidate alone. Where the primary infringement is on the right of candidacy and the right to vote is only incidentally concerned, the test to be applied is, is the provision involved reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of legitimate state objectives. (Bullock v. Carter, supra; Smith v. Evans (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 154, 158 [116 Cal.Rptr. 684].)
The prohibition, against a municipal officer who has been recalled again running for the same office within one year after the recall, found in Elections Code section 27521, is only a part of a general scheme regulating recalls. Other provisions prohibit filing a notice of intention to circulate a recall petition within the first six months of the official’s term, nor within six months following the filing of a prior recall petition (Elec. Code, § 27500); a special recall election need not be called if a general election for the office is scheduled within six months of the filing of the recall petition (Elec. Code, § 27513.5).
All of these provisions seek to further the legitimate and substantial state interest in encouraging political stability. (Storer v. Brown (1974) *925415 U.S. 724 [39 L.Ed.2d 714, 94 S.Ct. 1274].) They aim to prevent a diversion of the energies of city officials from the business of governing by unnecessarily frequent and disquieting political campaigns. While reasonable opportunities for the voters to change or at least tb attempt to change their governing bodies are essential, it is not essential that they should be given an immediate opportunity to undo what they have just done. This is particularly true where it could easily be a minority undoing what has very recently been accomplished by a majority. A majority vote is necessary to effectuate a recall, but at a general election which might be held soon thereafter only a plurality is required thereby allowing a minority to upset the recently declared will of the majority. More than 50 percent of the voters having said “we don’t wish to be governed by this man,” thus are forced to bow to a group which may be substantially less than 50 percent who say “but we do.” Appellant suggests that this might be averted by providing for run-off elections. But in Bullock v. Carter, supra, 405 U.S. 134, 144 [31 L.Ed.2d 92, 100] the Supreme Court stated that it was a legitimate end of government to so regulate election ballots as to assure that “the winner is the choice of a majority, or at least a strong plurality of those voting without the expense and burden of run-off elections.”
No suspect classification such as race, wealth, or curtailment of the right to travel is involved in the application of Elections Code section 27521. No substantial class of persons is involved. Only individuals on whose qualifications the voters have recently had an opportunity to express themselves are affected.
Neither the burden on the right to be a candidate nor on the right to vote is as great as were those involved and held constitutional in Storer v. Brown, supra, 415 U.S. 724; Lippitt v. Cipollone (N.D.Ohio 1971) 337 F.Supp. 1405 (affd. without opn.) (1972) 404 U.S. 1032 [30 L.Ed.2d 725, 92 S.Ct. 729] and Maddox v. Fortson (1970) 226 Ga. 71 [172 S.E.2d 595] (cert. den., 397 U.S. 149 [25 L.Ed.2d 183, 90 S.Ct. 999]).
As the ends, encouragement of stability in government and protection of the majority will, are legitimate state objectives and the means, postponement of the opportunity to vote for a particular individual for one year, is a reasonably necessary one I believe that statute is constitutional and should be upheld.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 26, 1975. Clark, J, was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.