2026 Initiatives

1. Oct 23, 2026

   City announces the Special Election will not take place on November 3

   In a news release, the City said "The Special Election to consider three citizen-initiated ballot measures will not take place on November 3, 2026." It said its ballot printing vendor "has not received the required authorization, watermark, and ballot tint from the California Secretary of State," and that it "has not received information and assistance needed from the Orange County Registrar of Voters" for "voters with legally protected addresses." The City said the County-run election "will proceed as scheduled, including Measure H." STATED[74] REPORTED[75]
2. Oct 20, 2026

   Court of Appeal denies City's petition and stay request

   The Court of Appeal (No. G067591) ruled: "The petition for writ of mandate and request for immediate stay are DENIED." CONFIRMED[70] REPORTED[71]
3. Oct 19, 2026

   City asks Court of Appeal to pause the November 3 election order

   The City filed an emergency petition in the Court of Appeal (No. G067591). It asked for "an immediate stay of the Superior Court's order requiring that Petitioners conduct an election for the three initiative measures on November 3, 2026," and for an order directing the Superior Court to "vacate its writ of mandate and conduct further proceedings to determine the earliest date at which an election can be legally conducted." The City said it was "unable to obtain the information and authorizations from the Secretary of State and the Orange County Registrar of Voters that are necessary in order for the City to administer a lawful election." STATED[72] REPORTED[71] Case number: CONFIRMED[70]
4. Oct 14, 2026

   Court denies City's request to lift or modify the writ; October 19 conference vacated.

   At a case management conference, the court's minute order says the City asked the court 'to lift or modify the Writ of Mandate previously filed.' The court denied the request and vacated the October 19 case management conference.

   CONFIRMED[60] Independent coverage of this has not yet been located.
5. Oct 12, 2026

   Court schedules case management conference for October 14

   The court scheduled a case management conference for October 14 at 9:00 a.m. in Department N14.

   CONFIRMED[59] Independent coverage of this has not yet been located.
6. Oct 9, 2026

   City asks for an earlier case management conference

   The City asked the court to hold a case management conference before October 15. CONFIRMED[58] The City says its printer needs Secretary of State approval of a ballot tint and watermark by October 15, and that the Registrar has not provided confidential voters' names and addresses or the most current voter rolls with very recent registration and address changes. STATED[58] Independent coverage of this has not yet been located.
7. Oct 7, 2026

   Court of Appeal consolidates the City's two appeals

   The Court of Appeal granted the parties' stipulated motion to consolidate Case Nos. G067367 and G067387 for all purposes, including record preparation, briefing, argument, and decision. G067367 is the lead case number. The City's consolidated appendix and opening brief are due within 40 days after the court reporter's transcript is filed. The order does not address whether the appeals will be expedited.

   CONFIRMED[36]
8. Oct 5, 2026

   Stipulation to consolidate the City's two appeals

   A stipulation (an agreement between the parties) to consolidate the City's two appeals, Nos. G067367 and G067387, was filed in both cases. The Court of Appeal had asked for letter briefs by October 5 on whether to combine the appeals. The court granted consolidation on October 7, 2026.

   CONFIRMED[11] [36]
9. Sept 30, 2026

   California Supreme Court denies City's petition

   The California Supreme Court denied the City's petition for review and application for stay (Case No. S298609), filed September 17. The Supreme Court docket lists the lower court case as Court of Appeal No. G067403, in which the Court of Appeal denied the City's petition for writ of mandate and request for immediate stay on September 9. The docket lists two Orange County Superior Court cases under that petition: Nos. 30-2026-01559183 and 30-2026-01580961.

   CONFIRMED[49] Independent coverage of this has not yet been located.
10. Sept 29, 2026

    City files record designations in both appeals

    In both of the City's appeals (Nos. G067367 and G067387), the City filed its notice designating the record on appeal, and notices went to the court reporters to prepare transcripts. The Court of Appeal docket lists the record in G067367 as due November 25, 2026.

    CONFIRMED[11] [36]
11. Sept 23, 2026

    Court of Appeal asks whether to combine the City's two appeals

    On September 23, 2026, the Court of Appeal asked the parties to file letter briefs addressing whether Case Nos. G067367 and G067387 should be consolidated for all purposes, including record preparation, briefing, argument, and decision, and whether the appeals should be expedited and given calendar preference. The court's scheduled actions list letter briefs due October 5, 2026.

    CONFIRMED[11] [36]
12. Sept 18, 2026

    Council meets in closed session; motion not to send ballots fails 3 to 4

    On September 18, 2026, the City Council held a special meeting beginning at 6:16 p.m. The agenda listed closed session on three matters: one matter of anticipated litigation and two existing cases (Case Nos. 30-2026-01559183 and 30-2026-01580961). It also listed a status update on the standalone election, with possible direction to staff on “continued performance, modification, or cessation of agreements, consultant and vendor services, ballot production and mailing, and other activities.” The City Clerk's staff report, prepared with the City Attorney, recommended that the City continue to comply with the September 2 writ for as long as it remains in effect. After the closed session, the City Attorney reported there was no closed session report. No Councilmember requested a staff report on the item. Councilmember Erik Weigand moved to request that the City Clerk not send out ballots the following day. The motion failed 3 to 4, with Mayor Pro Tem Noah Blom and Councilmembers Sara Weber and Erik Weigand voting yes, and Mayor Lauren Kleiman and Councilmembers Robyn Grant, Joe Stapleton and Michelle Barto voting no. No other motions were made. The supplemental staff report identified September 19, 2026 as the 45-day deadline for transmitting ballots to qualifying military and overseas voters. Earlier that day, in an email to the City Clerk, Registrar of Voters Bob Page wrote that the County's position on the City's request for election services was unchanged and that the Registrar could not provide confidential voter registration information, including signature images. The email also states that none of the confidential voters eligible to vote in Newport Beach are enrolled in the military and overseas voting program, and that the County could reconsider the City's request if the City held an election either timely consolidated with a statewide election or as a court-ordered standalone special election on a date at least 88 days after the court order that would not interfere with the County's administration of the November 3 General Election.

    CONFIRMED[33] [34] (agenda pp. 3–4; staff report pp. 5–10; supplemental staff report pp. 21–23; Registrar email pp. 19–20). Independent coverage of this has not yet been located.
13. Sept 17, 2026

    Secretary of State's office says it cannot provide voter signatures; printing vendor withdraws

    On September 17, 2026, Steve Reyes, Chief Counsel of the California Secretary of State, emailed City Attorney Aaron Harp to confirm a conversation the previous day in which, the email states, Harp asked whether the Secretary of State's office could provide the City with voter signatures for the November 3, 2026 municipal election. The email states: “We cannot.” CONFIRMEDExhibit C, packet p. 18 — [34] The City Clerk's staff report also states that the Chief Counsel advised that consolidation is mandatory when a municipal measure election is held on the same date as a statewide election. STATEDstaff report, packet p. 9 — [34]; the written email in the packet does not address that point. According to the City Clerk's supplemental staff report, on September 17 the ballot printing vendor, ProVote Solutions, told the City and its election consultant it could no longer provide printing services, citing four outstanding matters: ballot tint and watermark, a business reply mail permit, language requirements, and voter pamphlet content. The same report states that the City had not yet secured State official ballot cards or ballot-card releases, which California election regulations require for producing official ballots. CONFIRMEDsupplemental staff report, packet p. 22, [34] The report states that a replacement vendor was identified and election preparations are continuing. CONFIRMEDpacket p. 22, [34] Independent coverage of this has not yet been located.

    CONFIRMED[34]
14. Sept 17, 2026

    City petitions California Supreme Court for review and a stay

    On September 17, 2026, the City of Newport Beach, City Attorney Aaron Harp, City Clerk Lena Shumway, and the Newport Beach City Council filed a petition for review with a request for stay in the California Supreme Court, Case No. S298609, captioned Newport Beach, City of v. S.C. (Newport Beach Stewardship Association). The court's Lower Court page lists Court of Appeal Case No. G067403 (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three; disposition “Petition summarily denied by order,” September 9, 2026) and both trial court case numbers, 30-2026-01559183 (Measures P, Q, and R) and 30-2026-01580961 (Measure H). The docket lists William Heath Ihrke as attorney for all four petitioners and shows the Court of Appeal record was received on September 17. The Supreme Court denied the petition and the stay request on September 30, 2026 (see below).

    CONFIRMED[35] [20] Independent coverage of this has not yet been located.
15. Sept 14, 2026

    Court denies City's ex parte application on standalone-election administration

    On September 11, 2026, the City filed an ex parte application in the charter-initiatives case seeking an order or other affirmative relief regarding its administration of the standalone election in furtherance of compliance with the writ of mandate. On September 14, 2026, Judge Julianne Bancroft denied the application. The order states the City failed to make the factual showing of irreparable harm or immediate danger required for ex parte relief under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1202, and that the application appeared to be based on the City's concerns about the expense of complying with the court's orders rather than irreparable harm. The order notes the Court has worked cooperatively with the parties since April 13, 2026 to hear all matters the City contended needed resolution before the election, and states that the City's current difficulties, whether from intentional actions, poor management and planning, or negligence, were caused by the City rather than the Court. This ruling denies the City's specific request for emergency relief; it does not resolve the broader questions Council members raised at the September 11 meeting CONFIRMED[22] about whether the standalone election plan conflicts with the Elections Code or the City Charter STATED[30].

    CONFIRMED[23]
16. Sept 11, 2026

    Council votes to proceed with a standalone, mail-only special election

    On September 11, 2026, following the Court of Appeal's denial of a stay, the City Council held a special meeting to determine how to comply with the writ of mandate. On August 28, the County, through County Counsel Leon Page, had declined to consolidate the election, citing the missed statutory deadline. Three votes were taken. A motion to delay the decision to the following Tuesday failed 2–5. The main motion — to proceed with a standalone, mail-only special election administered directly by the City through a third-party vendor (the Stellara Group, represented by Jessica Blair) rather than the County — passed 4–3, with Mayor Pro Tem Noah Blom and Councilmembers Sara Weber and Erik Weigand voting no, and Mayor Lauren Kleiman and Councilmembers Michelle Barto, Robyn Grant, and Joe Stapleton voting yes. A third motion to include arguments against the initiatives (using arguments previously drafted by Blom) and an impartial analysis, with Blom, Weber, and Weigand as the three signing authors, passed 7–0. The City's election consultant said the scheduled mailing date for Newport Beach ballots was October 19. STATED[22] Military and overseas ballots were targeted for September 18. Three other consulting firms had declined to take on the election before the Stellara Group agreed. Later that day, in a letter responding to the City's request for County election services (Resolution No. 2026-83), Registrar of Voters Bob Page wrote that he would not recommend that the Board of Supervisors authorize the broad range of services requested, stating that providing them would interfere with the Registrar's ability to conduct the November 3 General Election and create risks including misdirected ballots and voter confusion. The letter also states that on September 9 his office gave the City a Newport Beach voter file identifying military and overseas voters. CONFIRMEDRegistrar's September 11 letter, packet pp. 15 to 17, [34]

    CONFIRMED[22] Independent coverage: [30]
17. Sept 9, 2026

    Court of Appeal denies City's stay requests in two cases

    On September 8, 2026, the City made two separate requests to the Court of Appeal to halt enforcement of the September 2 writ of mandate. In its pending appeal, Case No. G067387, the City filed a petition for a writ of supersedeas and a request for an immediate stay. In a separate writ proceeding, Case No. G067403 (City of Newport Beach et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County), the City, City Attorney Aaron Harp, City Clerk Lena Shumway, and the City Council filed a petition for writ of mandate, prohibition, and certiorari with a request for an immediate stay; that proceeding covered both the charter-initiatives case (30-2026-01559183) and the Responsible Housing Initiative case (30-2026-01580961). On September 9, 2026, the same three-justice panel (Presiding Justice Motoike, Justice Delaney, Justice Scott) denied both. The G067387 order states: ‘The petition and request are DENIED.’ The G067403 order states: ‘The petition for writ of mandate and request for immediate stay are DENIED.’ Both appeals, G067367 and G067387, remain open on the Court of Appeal docket.

    CONFIRMED[20] [36]
18. Sept 2, 2026

    Court enters writ of mandate; City files second appeal

    Following its August 27 ruling, the Court entered a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the City to take all steps necessary to hold a general municipal election for the three initiatives on November 3, 2026, whether run directly by the City or through a consolidated election process. The writ set a September 30, 2026 deadline for the City to file an Initial Return detailing its compliance steps, and a Final Return due 15 days after a November 3, 2026 election on the initiatives. The Court found that any stay of the writ pending appeal would cause irreparable harm to Petitioners, so the City's appeal does not operate as a stay of the writ absent further court order. The City filed a second notice of appeal the same day (Case No. G067387), specifically from the September 2 order and entry of the writ.

    CONFIRMED[18][19][37]
19. Aug 28, 2026

    County Counsel rejects City's compliance filing

    The City emailed the three initiatives to the Orange County Registrar of Voters the evening of August 27 and hand-delivered copies the following morning, complying with Judge Bancroft's order. That afternoon, County Counsel Leon Page rejected the filing on the Registrar's behalf, citing the August 7, 2026 deadline as the state law's 88-day pre-election filing requirement and stating that adding the measures now “would substantially interfere with the printing and distribution of election materials.” City spokesperson Georgia Rios said the City was “analyzing the steps necessary to comply with the judge's order and will likely seek further direction from the court next week.”

    REPORTED[12]
20. Aug 27, 2026

    Court orders initiatives onto the 2026 ballot; City files a new appeal

    Ruling on an NBSA ex parte application, Judge Julianne Bancroft found that the Council's selection of a 2028 date was an abuse of discretion, and ordered the City to immediately take the steps necessary to place all three initiatives on the November 3, 2026 ballot. The City filed a notice of appeal the same day, opening a new case, G067367, from the August 19 and August 27, 2026 orders. Separately, Orange County Counsel Leon Page sent a letter to the initiative proponents' attorneys stating the City had missed an August 7, 2026 deadline to request ballot consolidation with the November election, and that no such request had been received. Registrar Bob Page declined to comment.

    CONFIRMED[5] [11] (order and appeal filing); reported detail on the ruling and the County Counsel letter: [10]
21. Aug 25, 2026

    Council votes 5 to 2 for a 2028 ballot; appellate court denies emergency relief

    Following staff recommendation, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-73, selecting November 7, 2028 as the election date for the three remaining charter initiatives, covering government transparency, council term limits, and district-only voting. Michelle Barto and Robyn Grant dissented. The same day, the California Court of Appeal denied the City's request for emergency relief in Case No. G067335 (Trial Court Case No. 30-2026-01559183, the case covering the three charter initiatives). Case No. G067333, filed August 21 alongside G067335 and denied the same day, August 25, is a separate writ petition arising from a different trial court case (30-2026-01580961) concerning the Responsible Housing Initiative specifically — see the Housing & the Greenlight Initiative page.

    CONFIRMED[2] [3] [4] (Council vote); appellate denial: [13] [14]
22. Aug 19, 2026

    Court finds notice and signatures sufficient, and denies removal of the housing measure

    In a combined hearing on both cases, Judge Julianne Bancroft found that NBSA's notices for all four initiatives were properly published in the Orange County Reporter, an adjudicated newspaper of general circulation, before signatures were collected, and noted that the Registrar of Voters had confirmed sufficient signatures for all four. In the housing case, the City's petition was denied. In the charter-initiatives case, the court granted NBSA's petition and ordered the City Council to decide at which election the three initiatives would be placed, and, if not November 2026, to explain why in its return to the writ. The court also found that the 88-day requirement in Elections Code section 9255 does not apply to these three initiatives 'because the City's actions in this case caused the matters to be delayed beyond the normal time period,' and that the 10-day public examination period could run after the paperwork was sent to the Registrar.

    CONFIRMED[40] [2]; reported detail: [8]
23. Aug 12, 2026

    Court sets expectations ahead of the August 19 hearing

    At a status conference, the court stated that if it determined at the August 19 hearing that notice was proper, it would order the City to submit the ballot questions and any arguments to the Registrar of Voters immediately. The minute order states: 'The Court indicates that failure to comply with the Court's orders may result in a finding of contempt of Court.'

    CONFIRMED[45]
24. Aug 18, 2026

    Council approves proposed ballot question language

    The City Council approved the official ballot questions for the three initiatives, but did not yet call an election.

    CONFIRMED[1]
25. Aug 5, 2026

    Reporting on the City's suit and the Registrar's role

    Voice of OC reported that the City's lawsuit specifically targeted the Responsible Housing Initiative, funded almost entirely (nearly $1 million) by developer Ken Picerne. Registrar Bob Page stated publicly that certifying signatures was his only role, and that determining a petition's sufficiency is the City Clerk's responsibility, not his.

    REPORTED[7]
26. Aug 3, 2026

    Court denies the City's motion for reconsideration

    At the City's request, the court moved the City's motion for reconsideration, which had been set for November 9, up to August 3, and denied it. The court ordered that its previous order 'shall remain in full force and effect' and that it includes the City acting through the City Council, and ordered that arguments for and against the proposed ballot questions be ready by August 25 for the Council's review. A status conference was set for August 12.

    CONFIRMED[44] [2]
27. Jul 17, 2026

    Court orders signature transmission to the Registrar of Voters

    The Court ordered the City to transmit the initiative signatures to the Orange County Registrar of Voters for verification and to work with NBSA on ballot question wording.

    CONFIRMED[2]
28. Jun 24, 2026

    Court rules the Sunshine Initiative does not violate the single-subject rule

    Judge Julianne Bancroft ruled that the City had failed to establish that the initiative violates the single-subject rule, finding that 'although the initiative addresses different aspects of the City's governance, all of its provisions are reasonably germane and functionally related to the common theme or purpose of governmental transparency and accountability.' The court denied the City's request for declaratory relief. The order notes that it was undisputed that the initiative's text contains 16,826 words, would add 15,229 words to the City Charter, which currently has 16,296 words, and would add 38 new sections.

    CONFIRMED[43]
29. Jul 7, 2026

    NBSA presents signatures to the City Clerk

    NBSA presented signatures for the Sunshine, Term Limits, and District-Only Voting initiatives to the City Clerk on July 7, 2026. According to the court's August 19 order, the signatures were not sent to the Registrar of Voters until the court ordered the City to do so on July 17.

    CONFIRMED[40]
30. Apr 17, 2026

    NBSA submits Term Limits and District-Only Voting petitions

    The Newport Beach Stewardship Association submitted two additional Charter amendment initiative petitions.

    CONFIRMED[2]
31. Mar 26, 2026

    City sues the Newport Beach Stewardship Association

    The City filed suit against the Newport Beach Stewardship Association, the sponsor of the charter initiatives, seeking to block one or more of them from the ballot (Case No. 30-2026-01559183). The complaint asked the court to declare that the Sunshine Initiative 'constitutes an impermissible use of the initiative power and, if adopted, would be unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable,' on the ground that it violated the single-subject rule. According to the court's August 19 order, the City raised the notice and publication issue later in the case. A separate City suit naming Orange County Registrar of Voters Robert Page (Case No. 30-2026-01580961) concerns the Responsible Housing Initiative and is covered on the Housing & the Greenlight Initiative page.

    CONFIRMED[43] [40] [6]
32. Dec 23, 2025

    NBSA submits Public Meetings, Records, Oversight and Enforcement petition

    The City Clerk received NBSA's Notice of Intention to Circulate Petition and a copy of the proposed Sunshine and Governmental Transparency Initiative.

    CONFIRMED[43] [2]

In two September 8, 2026 petitions to the Court of Appeal, the City argued:

• The trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify its August 27 order once the City had appealed it. STATED[41] [42]
• The court's failure to provide a statement of decision is reversible error. STATED[41]
• Choosing which ballot the initiatives go on is a legislative act for the City Council, and the court could not find that the Council abused its discretion. STATED[41]
• The court could not order the City Council to hold an illegal election. STATED[41]
• Enforcing the September 2 writ while the appeal is pending would cause irreparable harm and could make the appeal moot. STATED[42]

The Court of Appeal denied both petitions and their stay requests on September 9, 2026. The City's two appeals remain pending. CONFIRMED[20] [36]

The official ballot questions for Measures P, Q, and R, as approved by the City Council on August 18, 2026: CONFIRMED[1] [21]

As of September 14, 2026, the City is under a court order to place all three charter initiatives on the November 3, 2026 ballot, and the Court of Appeal has denied the City's request to stay that order. On September 11, 2026, the City Council voted 4–3 to proceed with a standalone, mail-only special election administered directly by the City through a third-party vendor rather than the County. On September 14, 2026, Judge Julianne Bancroft denied the City's ex parte application seeking relief related to its administration of the standalone election. That ruling resolves the specific emergency request but does not address the broader questions Council members raised at the September 11 meeting about whether the standalone election plan conflicts with the Elections Code or the City Charter.

Update, September 18, 2026: At a special meeting on September 18, 2026, the City Council voted 3 to 4 against a motion to request that the City Clerk not send out ballots the following day. The City Clerk's and City Attorney's staff recommendation for that meeting was to continue complying with the September 2 writ for as long as it remains in effect. CONFIRMED [33] [34]

Update, October 23, 2026: No order staying the September 2 writ appears in our sources as of October 23, 2026. On October 20, the Court of Appeal denied the City's most recent petition and request for an immediate stay (No. G067591). CONFIRMED [70] [73] REPORTED [71] Later that day, the City announced that the Special Election "will not take place on November 3, 2026." STATED [74] REPORTED [75] The City says it has not received approvals it needs from the California Secretary of State or information it has requested from the Orange County Registrar of Voters. STATED [58] [72] NBSA says the Secretary of State “has a ministerial duty” to provide the ballot watermark and that “the Secretary of State cannot block a local vote.” STATED [63] For the latest, see Where do things stand today? in Quick answers.

The three initiatives have been assigned official ballot designations — Measure P (Term Limits), Measure Q (District Voting), and Measure R (Public Meetings, Records, Oversight and Enforcement) — and are formally designated a November 3, 2026 Special Municipal Election, distinct from the General Municipal Election held the same day for the four City Council seats and Measure H.

On August 27, 2026, the Superior Court ordered the City to place all three initiatives on the ballot; the City appealed the same day, opening Case No. G067367, from the August 19 and August 27, 2026 orders. On August 28, 2026, County Counsel Leon Page rejected the City's compliance filing with the Registrar of Voters, citing an August 7, 2026 consolidation deadline. On September 2, 2026, the Court entered a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the City to take all steps necessary to hold the election, whether run directly by the City or through a consolidated election process, and found that the City's appeal does not stay the writ absent further court order. The City filed a second notice of appeal the same day (Case No. G067387). On September 9, 2026, a three-justice panel of the Court of Appeal denied the City's writ petition and stay request in Case No. G067403, and denied a separate petition for writ of supersedeas and stay request in appeal Case No. G067387, so absent further court order the writ remains in effect. The City's Initial Return on its compliance steps was due September 30, 2026.

CONFIRMED [5] [11] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [36]

REPORTED [10] (County Counsel letter); [12] (Aug. 28 filing rejection)

The Newport Beach Stewardship Association (“NBSA”) submitted the Public Meetings, Records, Oversight, and Enforcement Initiative petition on December 23, 2025, and the Term Limits and District-Only Voting petitions on April 17, 2026. Under a July 17, 2026 court order, the City transmitted signatures for all three to the Orange County Registrar of Voters for verification. The Registrar completed that process and certified the results to the City ahead of the August 25, 2026 meeting.

CONFIRMED [2]

City staff recommended the Council select November 7, 2028 as the election date — reasoning that the Charter changes are significant and long-lasting, that a statewide general election draws broader turnout, and that November 2028 is already Newport Beach's regularly scheduled municipal election. The Council adopted the staff-recommended actions, including calling the election for November 7, 2028 and adopting Resolution No. 2026-73, by a single motion. The motion passed 5–2, with Michelle Barto and Robyn Grant dissenting.

CONFIRMED [2] [3] [4]

Ruling on an NBSA ex parte application, the Court found that the Council's selection of a 2028 date was an abuse of discretion, and ordered the City to immediately take the steps necessary to place all three initiatives on the November 3, 2026 ballot, including forwarding materials to the Orange County Registrar of Voters. The Court reserved a decision on NBSA's separate request for sanctions.

CONFIRMED [5]

This litigation involves two separate but related court cases, decided together on August 19, 2026 by the same judge. Case No. 30-2026-01580961 concerns the Responsible Housing Initiative and is covered on the Housing & the Greenlight Initiative page. Case No. 30-2026-01559183 concerns the three charter initiatives (Sunshine, Term Limits, District Voting) and is covered on this page. The City has filed two appeals, both in the charter-initiatives case: G067367, from the August 19 and August 27, 2026 orders, and G067387, from the September 2, 2026 writ of mandate. Both remain open. The City has also filed four writ petitions in the Court of Appeal, all denied: G067333 (housing case; filed August 21, denied August 25), G067335 (charter-initiatives case; filed August 21, denied August 25), G067403 (both cases; filed September 8, denied September 9), and G067591 (charter-initiatives case; filed October 19, denied October 20). A separate petition for writ of supersedeas and immediate stay, filed September 8 within appeal G067387, was denied September 9. We are noting this explicitly because the cases and appeal numbers are easy to conflate.

Copies of the underlying court documents are posted here:

• Minute order, August 19, 2026 (Case No. 30-2026-01580961) [17]
• Minute order, August 27, 2026 (Case No. 30-2026-01559183) [5]
• Notice of appeal, August 27, 2026 (Case No. G067367) [11]
• Minute order on entry of writ, September 2, 2026 (Case No. 30-2026-01559183) [18]
• Notice of appeal, September 2, 2026 (Case No. 30-2026-01559183; Court of Appeal Case No. G067387) [19]
• Minute order on ex parte application, September 14, 2026 (Case No. 30-2026-01559183) [23]

CONFIRMED [17] [5] [11] [18] [19] [14] [20] [23] [70] [73]

REPORTED [71]

Two appeals remain pending on the merits: Case No. G067367 (from the August 19 and August 27, 2026 orders) and Case No. G067387 (from the September 2 writ). On September 23, 2026, the Court of Appeal asked the parties to file letter briefs addressing whether Case Nos. G067367 and G067387 should be consolidated for all purposes, including record preparation, briefing, argument, and decision, and whether the appeals should be expedited and given calendar preference. The court's scheduled actions list letter briefs due October 5, 2026. The City sought a stay of the writ through a separate writ proceeding, Case No. G067403, and was denied one on September 9, 2026. On September 17, 2026, the City filed a petition for review with a request for stay in the California Supreme Court, Case No. S298609. The Supreme Court denied the petition and the stay request on September 30, 2026. No order staying the writ appears in our sources. On September 14, 2026, the Court denied the City's ex parte application seeking relief related to its administration of the standalone election.

CONFIRMED [11] [18] [19] [20] [23] [35] [36] [49]

CONFIRMEDelection-administration method and September 14 ex parte denial The City Council voted 4–3 to proceed with a standalone, mail-only special election administered directly by the City through a third-party vendor rather than the County [22]. On September 14, 2026, Judge Bancroft denied the City's ex parte application seeking relief related to that administration. [23] Independent coverage: [30]

UNCONFIRMEDbroader legal questions What remains open: whether the standalone election plan conflicts with the Elections Code or the City Charter.