In Horwath v. City of East Palo Alto (1989) 212 Cal. App. 3d 766, appellants challenged a city ordinance several months after an election on the grounds that the ballot included only a summary of the proposed ordinance, rather than the actual text, and the city attorney's "impartial analysis" did not mention a key provision of the measure. They unsuccessfully petitioned for a writ of mandate compelling city officials, inter alia, to refrain from enforcing the ordinance. ( Id. at pp. 771.) On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal, Division Four, determined the appellants had no basis for pursuing mandamus under the circumstances. The court observed the action was essentially an attempt "to contest the election on the theory that the enacting process was so infected by official misinformation . . . that the legislation must be invalidated." ( Id. at p. 773.) However, statutory election contest remedies were not available because appellants did not prove they were city voters or that the ballot deficiencies they identified "in fact affected the outcome of the vote." ( Id. at p. 775.) Nor could the court invalidate the election results as unconstitutional. In reaching this holding, Horwath announced guidelines for deciding whether defects in a ballot measure require invalidation of the law on due process grounds: "Determination of how much process is due in a local, direct decisionmaking context--where the complained-of irregularities consist of omissions, inaccuracies or misleading statements in the ballot materials--will depend on whether the materials, in light of other circumstances of the election, were so inaccurate or misleading as to prevent the voters from making informed choices. In conducting this inquiry courts should examine the extent of preelection publicity, canvassing and other informational activities, as well as the substance or content of such efforts. The ready availability of the text of the ordinance, or the official dissemination and content of other related materials, such as arguments for or against the measure, will also bear on whether the statutory noncompliance rendered the election unfair. Finally, courts should take into account the materiality of the ommission or other informational deficiency. Flaws striking at the very nature and purpose of the legislation are more serious than other, more ancillary matters. " ( Id. at pp. 777-778.)