Filed 8/28/26 Vinkov v. Superior Court CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
SERGEI VINKOV,
Petitioner, E089131
v. (Super.Ct.No. CVRI2604778)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION
RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
Respondent;
CHRISTI BARRETT et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Daniel A. Ottolia,
Judge. Petition granted.
Sergei Vinkov, in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
1
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Aaron M. Rubin, Donald S. Field, and Sarah
Y. Shyy, for Real Parties in Interest, Christi Barrett, Hemet Unified School District, and
the Governing Board of the Hemet Unified School District.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, and Jonathan A. Mango, Deputy County Counsel,
for Real Party in Interest, Art Tinoco.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner challenges the ballot title and ballot question for Measure I, which is to
be placed on the ballot for the November 3, 2026 election. His petition for writ of
mandate in the superior court was denied, and he now petitions this court for an order
overturning the denial. Among other things1, petitioner contends that both the current
ballot title, “‘Hemet Unified School District No-Tax-Rate-Increase School Repair,
Improvement, Health and Safety Measure’” and the ballot question are impermissibly
argumentative and misleading. This court invited respondent and real parties in interest
to respond on an expedited time schedule and issued a Palma notice (Palma v. U.S.
Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 180) advising the parties that this court
was considering issuing a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance. We also
stayed the submission of the ballot title and question to the printer until further order of
this court. Real parties in interest filed an opposition, and petitioner filed a reply. Having
considered the parties’ positions, we agree with petitioner that the use of the term “no-
1 Petitioner raises several other claims which we find to lack merit. The petition
is summarily denied as to those claims.
2
tax-rate-increase,” in the ballot title and question is impermissibly misleading, and
therefore we issue a peremptory writ in the first instance.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 28, 2026, the governing board of the Hemet Unified School District (the
District) adopted resolution No. 4183 to place on the ballot a question of whether the
District should issue and sell bonds for the purpose of raising money. The proposed
measure, designated as “Measure I,” would add to the declining debt service payments
from Measure X, so that the combined tax rate as projected for old and new bonds
together does not exceed the current tax rate.
Citing Elections Code2 sections 9051, 9509, 13119, and 13314, petitioner sought a
writ of mandate in superior court, alleging, as relevant here: (1) the term “no-tax-rate-
increase” is argumentative and misleading.
On August 19, 2026, respondent court issued a tentative ruling indicating it would
grant petitioner’s petition for writ of mandate in part, finding the term “‘no-tax-rate-
increase’” misleading. The tentative also indicated the language was not in compliance
with Education Code section 15122, which requires “‘that the maximum rate of interest’”
of the bond be identified in the ballot summary, not the “‘expected tax rate.’” On August
24, 2026, after oral argument, respondent court denied the petition in its entirety and
signed a statement of decision finding petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof in
establishing his claims for relief.
2 All further statutory citations are to the Elections Code unless otherwise noted.
3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review questions of statutory interpretation governing the ballot language de
novo, and “independently examine the question of whether the ballot title ‘substantially
complies’ with [the standard that the measure not be false, misleading, or partial].” (See
Osborne v. Logan (2026) 121 Cal.App.5th 1310; McDonough v. Superior Court (2012)
204 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1174 (McDonough).) The drafters of ballot language are afforded
“‘considerable latitude’” in composing the ballot title, and “we must presume its
language to be accurate.” (McDonough, supra, at p. 1174.) “[I]f reasonable minds may
differ as to the sufficiency of the title, the title should be held to be sufficient.”
(Epperson v. Jordan (1938) 12 Cal.2d 61, 66.)
DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, the District argues petitioner is not entitled to relief
because the circumstances are not exceptional and there is not unusual urgency requiring
writ relief. However, the law is clear that challenges to the sufficiency and impartiality of
ballot materials must be raised before an election. (Denny v. Arntz (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th
914, 921 (Denny); Owens v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 107, 123.)
Here, petitioner has timely raised this challenge and as such, this court elects to reach the
merits. (§ 9509, subd. (b)(1).)
Section 13119, subdivision (c) states, “The statement of the measure shall be a true
and impartial synopsis of the purpose of the proposed measure, and shall be in language
that is neither argumentative nor likely to create prejudice for or against the measure. (§
4
13119, subd. (c).) Section 9509, subdivision (b)(2) precludes the issuance of a writ of
mandate unless there is “clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false,
misleading, or inconsistent with this chapter, and that issuance of the writ or injunction
will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election
materials as provided by law.” (§ 9509, subd. (b)(2).)
Here, petitioner argues there is clear and convincing proof that the term “no-tax-
rate-increase” is partial, argumentative, and misleading in violation of section 13119,
subdivision (c), thus warranting relief pursuant to section 9509 subdivision (b)(2). The
term “‘no-tax-rate-increase’” as used in the title and question suggests to the voter that
the funding needed to repair or improve schools will not result in increased taxes or an
increased tax rate. In their response, the District seemingly acknowledges the term “no-
tax-rate-increase” is included in the title and question to assuage voter concerns that the
funding needed to repair or improve schools will result in increased taxes. Specifically,
the District argues, “Without this language, voters would likely assume that a new bond
measure would increase the aggregate tax rate by adding a new rate on top of the rate
being paid for outstanding bonds.”
However, the District does not acknowledge the average voter may be equally
misled or influenced in favor of Measure I when reading “‘no-tax-rate-increase’” in the
title and question, by erroneously concluding this term to definitively mean that their tax
rate will not go up, nor be extended beyond what voters have previously approved. As
acknowledged by the District, Measure I does not guarantee the tax rate will not increase,
5
it is simply the hoped for outcome “based on the District’s projections.” In briefing
before the superior court, the District reiterated this point writing, “Measure I makes no
promises … ‘the dollar amount of taxes’ or ‘tax burden will not increase.’” The District
defended their position in the superior court explaining, “The full text explains the
District intends to structure the bonds so the combined rate will not exceed the current
rate based on the District’s projections, and explains the District’s assumptions
underlying that plan.”
While the full text of the measure may accurately explain the true nature of
Measure I, the term “no-tax-rate-increase,” on its face, connotes such a conclusive
meaning, that voters are likely to find it unnecessary to read the full ballot materials,
erroneously believing that “no-tax-rate-increase” has the plain meaning their tax burden
will not increase. The impact of such terms in ballot titles and questions has previously
been addressed and found impermissible where the terms constitute advocacy or
partiality. (See McDonough, supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1174-1175 [ordering
reference to “reform” in the title and question replaced with “modification,” finding
“reform” argumentative]; Huntington Beach City Council v. Superior Court (2002) 94
Cal.App.4th 1417, 1434 [ordering reference to “exemption” in the title replaced with
“exclusion,” finding “exemption” partial and “not quite accurate”].)
We recognize that in circumstances where voters are provided the whole text of a
proposed measure we ordinarily assume the voters will vote intelligently on the matter,
forgiving any discrepancies in the ballot materials. (Denny, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at
6
pp. 923-924.) However, providing the full text does not overcome the statutory
prohibition on language that is argumentative or likely to create prejudice for or against
the measure. As the District acknowledges, Measure I employs a structure that is
commonly known as a “‘rate extension’” measure. Replacing “no-tax-rate-increase” with
“rate-extension” would be accurate, neutral, and does not mislead voters into believing
their tax burden will not increase.
DISPOSITION
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent court to vacate its
August 20, 2026 order and August 24, 2026 statement of decision and judgment denying
the petition for writ of mandate, and to enter a new order granting the petition and
compelling respondents below to amend the ballot title and ballot question for Measure I,
as follows: (1) replace the term “No-Tax-Rate-Increase” in the ballot title with “Rate-
Extension”; and (2) replace the term “no-tax-rate-increase” in the text of the ballot
question with “rate-extension.”
The temporary stay order issued by this court on August 25, 2026, is vacated, and,
in its place, the court issues the following stay order which shall remain in effect until
this decision is final for purposes of review: the ballot title and ballot question approved
by the Governing Board of the Hemet Unified School District in Resolution No. 4183
shall not be submitted to the printer for the November 3, 2026 election unless the ballot
title and ballot question are amended to read as follows:
7
Hemet Unified School District Rate-Extension School Repair,
Improvement, Health and Safety Measure. To repair and
upgrade aging classrooms, science labs, career technology
and school facilities to support college/career readiness in
math, science, technology, arts, engineering, skilled trades; fix
deteriorating roofs, plumbing, electrical systems; and improve
school safety, security, air conditioning systems; shall Hemet
Unified School District’s rate-extension measure be adopted
authorizing $225,000,000 in bonds at legal rates, levying
approximately $50 per $100,000 assessed value ($16,000,000
annually) while bonds are outstanding, with citizen oversight
and independent audits?
This opinion is final immediately as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.490(b)(2)(A).) Costs are awarded to petitioner.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
LEE
J.
I concur:
MILLER
Acting P. J
8
[Vinkov v. Superior Court, E089131]
MENETREZ, J., Dissenting.
Measure I is a bond issue ballot measure. Measure I does not raise tax rates.
Some bond issue ballot measures do include a tax rate increase. (See, e.g., Osborne v.
Logan (2026) 121 Cal.App.5th 1310, 1313.) This one does not. The phrase “no-tax-rate-
increase” in both the title and the ballot question for Measure I is therefore factually
correct and nonmisleading. And if that phrase were omitted (as petitioner requests),
voters might be misled, because they might assume that Measure I does raise tax rates.
It is theoretically possible that at some point in the future tax rates will be raised in
order to fund repayment of the bonds. But real party in interest Hemet Unified School
District plans to structure the bond issue in such a way as to avoid that. The record
contains no evidence that tax rates will ultimately be raised. And all of this is explained
in the full text of the measure.
Our review of the ballot language is highly deferential. Writ relief can be granted
“only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading,
or” otherwise inconsistent with applicable code provisions. (Elec. Code, § 9509, subd.
(b)(2).) Moreover, the ballot language “passes muster if it substantially complies with
that standard.” (Martinez v. Superior Court (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1248
(Martinez).) It is also true that “we independently review whether [the ballot language]
achieves such compliance.” (Ibid.) But “‘if reasonable minds may differ as to the
1
sufficiency of the’” ballot language, then it “‘should be held sufficient.’” (Amador Valley
Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 243.)
In my view, the “no-tax-rate-increase” language in the title and ballot question for
Measure I is factually accurate and nonmisleading because Measure I does not raise tax
rates. But at a minimum, reasonable minds could regard that language as factually
accurate and nonmisleading. The deferential standard of review therefore compels denial
of the petition.
The majority opinion reasons that “no-tax-rate-increase” is misleading (or perhaps
fails to be impartial) because it is possible that in the future tax rates will need to be
raised in order to fund repayment of the bonds. Thus, voters might interpret “no-tax-rate-
increase” to mean that in the future, no matter what happens with the budget or with
economic conditions, Measure I guarantees that their tax rates will not go up—Measure I
will somehow lock in current tax rates against all future contingencies. That is not the
most plausible or likely interpretation of the phrase “no-tax-rate-increase.” It is not clear
that it is even a reasonable interpretation. It is far more likely that voters will understand
“no-tax-rate-increase” to mean what it (truthfully) says: Measure I does not increase tax
rates. But again, at a minimum, reasonable minds could differ. Under the applicable
standard of review, the petition should therefore be denied.
The majority opinion’s remedy—replacing “no-tax-rate-increase” with “rate-
extension”—arguably provides more information to voters by flagging the issue that, as a
result of Measure I, a future decrease in tax rates that is currently projected to occur more
2
than 20 years from now might be postponed by a few years. But there are still several
problems. First, the issue of the postponement of the future tax rate decrease has not
been raised by petitioner. Consequently, the remedy ordered by the majority opinion is
not one that petitioner has requested or that any party has briefed. Second, the ballot
materials “need not be the ‘most accurate,’ ‘most comprehensive,’ or ‘fairest’ that a
skilled wordsmith might imagine.” (Martinez, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 1248.) “We
think this might be an improvement” is not the standard of review. And third, “rate-
extension” is an opaque phrase that many voters are likely not to understand; I might not
have understood it before I worked on this case.
Finally, I note that the phrase “no-tax-rate-increase” occurs more than once in the
full text of Measure I. The measure begins with the statement, “This measure may be
known and referred to as the ‘Hemet Unified School District No-Tax-Rate-Increase
School Repair, Improvement, Health and Safety Measure’ or ‘Measure __’.” The
majority opinion does not (and, to my knowledge, cannot) modify the full text of the
measure itself. Thus, in modifying the title and the ballot question by replacing “no-tax-
rate-increase” with “rate-extension,” the majority opinion creates a conflict between the
full text of the measure and the title and ballot question.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
MENETREZ
J.
3