Does California's Constitutional Right to Petition the Government Include a Right to Eventually Get an Answer?

On October 2, our petition for writ of mandate against the California Fish and Game Commission is scheduled for a hearing in Sacramento Superior Court.

The case started with ferrets.

But the question it raises is much bigger:

That question should matter to anyone who has ever tried to change a California regulation — whether the issue involves animals, the environment, professional licensing, small businesses, housing, fishing, agriculture, or something we haven't even thought of.

Because if citizens have a right to petition their government, what happens when the government simply never finishes considering the petition?

The Right to Petition Is in the California Constitution

This part isn't our interpretation.

Article I, Section 3(a) of the California Constitution protects the right of the people to petition government for redress of grievances.

That is a constitutional right.

But California law goes further.

California Created a Specific Process for Regulatory Petitions

The California Administrative Procedure Act gives interested persons a specific way to ask state agencies to adopt, amend, or repeal regulations.

Government Code §11340.6 provides that an interested person may petition a state agency requesting the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation.

Then comes Government Code §11340.7.

It tells an agency what it must do after receiving such a petition. Within 30 days, the agency must either deny the petition in writing and give its reasons or schedule the matter for public hearing.

That language matters.

California didn't merely give people permission to send letters to their government. The Legislature created a statutory process for regulatory petitions and specified what an agency is supposed to do after receiving one.

What Happened to Petition 2025-003?

On March 4, 2025, we filed Petition 2025-003 with the California Fish and Game Commission, asking the Commission to reconsider California's regulations concerning domestic ferrets.

The Commission did not deny it.

On June 12, 2025, the Commission voted 5-0 to adopt the staff recommendation and refer the petition for review and recommendation.

In other words, the petition went forward for further consideration.

And then we waited.

And waited.

Meeting after meeting passed without a final disposition of Petition 2025-003.

More than a year after the Commission voted to move the petition forward for further consideration, we still had neither a final grant nor a final denial.

The Problem With "Further Consideration"

There is nothing inherently wrong with an agency needing time to study a complicated issue.

Agencies should be able to gather information, consult experts and carefully consider the consequences of regulatory changes.

But when does consideration become indefinite delay?

That's where the legal question becomes much more interesting.

Government Code §11340.7 expressly establishes what happens at the beginning of the petition process.

But what happens when an agency chooses further consideration and the process never reaches a final disposition?

Suppose a group of contractors petitions a licensing board to change an outdated regulation.

Suppose fishermen petition for a change in fishing regulations.

Suppose small-business owners petition an agency to repeal a burdensome regulatory requirement.

Suppose an environmental organization petitions for additional protections.

The subject doesn't matter.

The process does.

If an agency can accept a petition for further consideration, refer it elsewhere for study, and then leave it there indefinitely without reaching a final decision, citizens are left with a peculiar kind of government participation.

That Is the Issue Our Writ of Mandate Raises

Our case does not ask a Sacramento Superior Court judge to legalize ferrets.

It does not ask the judge to substitute the court's judgment for the Fish and Game Commission's judgment about California wildlife policy.

And it does not ask the court to order the Commission to grant Petition 2025-003.

The Commission can say yes.

The Commission can say no.

Our position is that it cannot simply leave the petition unresolved indefinitely.

We brought our case as a petition for traditional writ of mandate under California Code of Civil Procedure §1085.

Section 1085 authorizes a court to issue a writ compelling the performance of an act that the law specifically requires as a duty resulting from public office.

That is why the distinction matters.

What Happens If the Court Agrees?

If the court concludes that the Commission cannot leave Petition 2025-003 in administrative limbo, that would obviously be important to California ferret owners.

But the significance would extend beyond ferrets.

It would provide an important example for other Californians confronting the same problem: an agency accepted their regulatory petition, began considering it, but never completed the process.

It would reinforce a simple principle of public participation:

That doesn't mean citizens have a right to get the answer they want.

It means there is a serious question whether the government, having invoked the statutory petition process, can avoid giving an ultimate answer at all.

What Happens If the State's Position Prevails?

This is where the consequences become more troubling.

If the Commission's handling of Petition 2025-003 is legally sufficient, other Californians should ask a very simple question:

What prevents another state agency from doing exactly the same thing?

The petition hasn't been denied, so the agency can say it remains under consideration.

But it hasn't been granted either.

The petitioner remains caught somewhere in between.

And the longer that condition can continue, the more important the underlying question becomes:

What practical value does the right to petition have if the process never has to end?

We Need to Be Precise About What This Court Can Decide

There is an important limitation we don't want to exaggerate.

A Sacramento Superior Court ruling in our case would not automatically create binding statewide appellate precedent.

Published opinions of California appellate courts may be cited or relied upon by other courts and parties. Our October 2 hearing is in Superior Court, not the Court of Appeal or California Supreme Court.

So we aren't claiming that one ruling in Sacramento will suddenly rewrite administrative law for every state agency in California.

But that doesn't make the underlying question insignificant.

If the State's interpretation prevails, Petition 2025-003 will provide a real-world example of a regulatory petition being accepted for further consideration and remaining unresolved for an extended period.

If the court concludes that the process must ultimately produce agency action, that too will provide an important example for citizens facing prolonged administrative delay.

And if these issues eventually reach an appellate court, the legal significance could become considerably broader.

This Is Why October 2 Matters

For more than twenty years, our organization has advocated for changing California's treatment of domestic ferrets.

We obviously care deeply about that issue.

But this particular case has become about something more fundamental than whether Californians should be allowed to own ferrets.

It's about what government owes citizens who follow the rules.

We filed the petition.

We participated in the public process.

The Commission voted unanimously to send the petition forward for further consideration.

We waited.

We continued participating.

And eventually we went to court — not to demand that government give us the answer we want, but to argue that government has to finish what it started.

California's Constitution expressly protects the people's right to petition their government.

California's Administrative Procedure Act expressly gives interested persons the right to petition state agencies for regulatory change.

California law expressly tells agencies how to begin responding to those petitions.

And California law provides a writ of mandate to compel government officials to perform duties the law requires them to perform.

Those propositions are not something we made up.

They're written into California law.

What remains to be decided is the question at the center of our case:

Because a right to petition government means considerably less if government has the option of never answering.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Sources

• California Constitution, Article I, §3(a) — Right to petition government for redress of grievances.
• California Government Code §11340 et seq. — California Administrative Procedure Act and regulatory petition process.
• California Code of Civil Procedure §1085 — Traditional writ of mandate.
• Judicial Branch of California — Published/Citable Opinions — Explanation of published appellate opinions that may be cited or relied upon by other courts and parties.
• California Fish and Game Commission records concerning Petition 2025-003 and its referral for review and recommendation.