Does section 170.6 of the California Criminal Code require a written affidavit to prove that the disqualification of the judge assigned to hear the case is invalid?

Our conclusion that section 170.6 is not subject to the objections discussed above does not conflict with Austin v. Lambert, 11 Cal.2d 73, 77 P.2d 849, 115 A.L.R. 849, which, as we have seen held unconstitutional a disqualification statute enacted in 1937. That statute differed materially from section 170.6 in that it provided for a 'peremptory challenge' of the judge assigned to hear the case without requiring the person making the challenge to state the ground for his objection or to make a declaration under oath that the ground in fact existed. It was condemned because it placed in the hands of a litigant the power to dislodge 'without reason or for an undisclosed reason' an admittedly qualified judge, the opinion stating that this was an unwarranted and unlawful interference with [50 Cal.2d 699] the constitutional and orderly processes of the courts. 11 Cal.2d at page 79, 77 P.2d at page 853. The opinion distinguished statutes from other jurisdictions which contained an affidavit procedure similar to that prescribed by section 170.6, pointing out that they specified prejudice as a ground for disqualification and required a showing in the form of a statement under oath. 11 Cal.2d at pages 76-78, 77 P.2d at pages 851-852.