No Deadline Doesn’t Mean No Action
A closer look at the State’s response to Petition 2025-003—and the question it leaves unanswered.
When we filed our Petition for Writ of Mandate, we asked a simple question:
After months of waiting—and a Public Records Act request that turned up no records of work or analysis—we turned to the courts for an answer.
Now, the State has indicated it plans to file what’s called a demurrer—a motion asking the court to dismiss the case before addressing the underlying issue.
They’ve outlined three arguments. Each deserves a closer look.
1. “The Wrong Party”
The State argues that the claim should be directed only at the Commission, not the Department, asserting that the Department does not have the authority to issue the written determination we are seeking.
This is largely a procedural argument about which entity is responsible for a specific action.
Even if the court agrees with that point, it does not resolve the central issue:
Whether the responsibility lies with one agency or another, the question remains the same.
2. “No 60-Day Requirement”
The State also argues that Government Code section 11340.7 does not require agencies to issue a written determination within 60 days.
That may be correct as a narrow reading of the statute.
But it raises a more important question:
The argument focuses on what the law does not require—but does not explain what has been done.
It does not identify a timeline for action, any steps taken to evaluate the petition, or any anticipated resolution.
Instead, it reframes the issue without addressing the underlying concern:
3. “Uncertainty”
Finally, the State claims that the Public Records Act portion of the case is “uncertain,” suggesting that more detail is needed about the request.
This is a technical pleading issue that can be clarified if necessary.
But again, it does not address the substance of what was revealed:
A request for records related to the evaluation of the petition resulted in no responsive records.
No studies.
No internal analysis.
No documented progress.
What This Means
Taken together, these arguments focus on technical and procedural points.
They do not answer the central question:
This case is not about a missed deadline.
It’s about whether a petition can be submitted, referred for evaluation, and then left without action—without explanation—for an extended period of time.
The Issue Before the Court
At its core, this case asks the court to consider a simple principle:
Not within a rigid timeline. Not under artificial pressure.
But within a reasonable period of time, and with some evidence that the petition has been seriously considered.
Where Things Stand
A hearing on the State’s demurrer is expected later this year.
Between now and then, the key facts remain unchanged:
- The petition was submitted and referred
- Months have passed
- A Public Records Act request revealed no records of evaluation
And the central question remains unanswered.
Final Thought
This case isn’t about forcing a particular outcome.
It’s about ensuring that when citizens engage with the administrative process, their petitions are not simply acknowledged—and then ignored.
We’ll continue to pursue that answer.
Petition 2025-003 deserves more than silence.