JoinCalifornia: Election History for the State of California

Information Home Elected Offices Elections by Decade Longest Service Shortest Service Most & Fewest Votes Uncontested Races Closest Contests Redistricting Recalls
Elections 2026 Candidates 2025 AD-63 Special 2025 SD-36 Special 2025 AD-32 Special 2024 General Prior 2020s Elections Elections by Decade
Other Stuff Advanced Search CA Constitution CA in Congress Line of Succession Highest Ranking SCOTUS Cases

[search tips] [advanced search]

Searching tips

  • Enter a candidate's name to find a candidate
  • Enter the name of a political party to find the party and all candidates
  • Enter a date to find an election
  • Enter a year to find all elections within that year

David A. Tunno

Democratic

Date Party Office Votes Result
11-03-1970 Democratic CD-38 85684 Loss
 

Candidate Biography:

19??-1970: Chief of Staff, Congressman John V. Tunney

  • Followingn the 1970 election, Tunno unsuccessfully contested the results on the basis that "On or about August 15, 1970, the elections supervisor [for] Riverside County... wrongfully and illegally canceled the affidavits of registration of approximately 11,137 voters of Riverside County, State of California. As a result of said illegal and wrongful cancellation of said affidavits of registration, approximately 10,616 qualified voters of Riverside County, State of California, were precluded from voting at said last preceding general election for Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from the 38th district."
    The Committee on House Administration report concluded that federal law and the rules and precedents of the House of Representatives are that:
    1. The official returns are prima facie evidence of the regularity and correctness of official action.
    2. That election officials are presumed to have performed their duties loyally and honestly.
    3. The burden of coming forward with evidence to meet or resist these presumptions rests with the contestants.
    It is clear that the contestant in this case has failed to meet these presumptions and requirements. The major flaw in the contestant's case is that he fails to carry forward with his claim to the seat as required by the precedents of the House of Representatives and the Federal Contested Election Act. [Source]