NO CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR RECALL: ACLU succeeds in getting Fed Appeals Court to Postpone
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer


Court Delays California Recall Vote
9th Circuit Allows One Week for Appeal to Supreme Court
advertisement




By William Booth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 15, 2003; 3:00 PM


LOS ANGELES -- Three weeks before voters are scheduled to go to the polls in California's historic recall, a federal appeals court today postponed the Oct. 7 election, ruling that the use of older punch-card ballot machines would disenfranchise poor and minority voters.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the ACLU that the use of punch cards in six urban counties would subject voters there to a greater likelihood that the ballots would be misread or discarded as happened during Florida's election fiasco in the presidential vote in 2000.

In it's decision, the judicial panel relied in part on the Supreme Court ruling that decided the hotly contested race between then vice president Al Gore and then Texas governor George W. Bush. The court wrote today, "The choice between holding a hurried, constitutionally infirm election and one held a short time later that assures voters that the 'rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied' is clear. . . . These issues are better resolved prophylactically than by bitter, post-election litigation over the legitimacy of the election, particularly where the margin of voting machine error may well exceed the margin of victory. The Supreme Court's admonition in [the Florida case] bears re-quoting: 'The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees.' "

The appeals court, however, said it would give the California secretary of state, the top election official, one week to appeal its decision. That appeal could be directed to an 11-member panel of the 9th Circuit or more likely to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The postponement adds more drama to what has been a sensational political campaign to remove Gov. Gray Davis (D) from office and replace him with one of 135 contenders.

If the election is postponed until March, Davis and his strategists believe they can beat back the recall, as the embattled governor will have many more months to calm voter anger. That March election also will feature the state's presidential primary and voter turnout, especially among Democrats, is expected to be higher than it is for the recall election.

A postponement would also throw the campaigns of his replacement challengers into turmoil, as their runs for office were based on strategies of a quick sprint versus a months long marathon.

Peter Ragone, a spokesman for Davis, who has supported a delay in the election, told CNN that "anything that would lead to more people participating in the election would be good for California."

There was no immediate comment from the campaigns of the major candidates seeking to replace Davis. However, Doug Woods, who argued the case for the state before the 9th Circuit panel last week, said then that if the court suspended the election, California officials would seek an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The case was focused on the question of the accuracy of older punch-card voting systems in six California counties. Even before the recall election was on the agenda, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley (D) determined that the punch-card voting system in six counties -- Los Angeles, Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara and Solano -- had unacceptably high error rates, and they had been ordered by courts to replace their voting systems before the state's primary in March. But those plans were disrupted by the recall. Most were forced to use the old punch-card system for the Oct. 7 vote.

Recall opponents, recalling the confusion caused by such systems in the disputed 2000 presidential vote in Florida, said they could leave many votes disenfranchised.

The state's lawyers argued in court that errors in those counties was what would be expected and should not be a cause to delay the recall.

Some officials have also expressed concerns that there could be widespread voter confusion about polling places in the state for the recall election. Because of the short lead-up time to the election, only about 15,000 polling places are ready, state officials said. That number could grow, but it is expected to less than the usual 20,000 polling places in a normal election.

The decision by the 9th Circuit panel overturns a ruling by U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson, who said the election should be held because it reflected the will of California voters.

The decision came in the midst of busy campaign day here. Former president Bill Clinton is in California campaigning with Davis and urging voters to defeat the recall. And Arnold Schwarzenegger, a key Republican challenger, appeared on the Oprah Winfrey syndicated television show today with his wife, Maria Shriver.

In the past few days, Democrats and Davis have been showing increased signs of vigor. A Los Angeles Times poll found Californians almost evenly split on the recall. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (D), who is also on the ballot as a possible replacement for Davis, and Davis made their first impromptu joint appearance at the state party convention Saturday in an appeal for unity.

On the Republican front, the party is still split between its two candidates, Schwarzenegger and state Sen. Tom McClintock, who vows not to get out of the race, thereby possibly splitting the GOP vote.

The decision also puts on hold two propositions on the ballot.

Staff writer Edward Walsh contributed to this story.

? 2003 The Washington Post Company

Courts stopping elections?

I wonder if some people will now think it is the Democrats that are acting unconstitutionally. Of course, that's all BS.

Already posted, but how does "Court Delays California Recall Vote" translate into "No California Governer Recall?"

Last time I checked, delay didn't mean termination. Even without a successful appeal, the vote will probably still go down.

Greg, your news story summations are almost always incorrect.

Just another reason I don't ever want to live in California. As bad as Tennessee is, we aren't having to deal with Grey Davis and the ACLU knows damn well if they go too far here, we have no problem with shooting people.

The ramifications of this are that courts are now a bigger player in the election process. The 2000 election saw to that.

That's our government in action. When one branch seizes too much power, the other two branches move in.

Here's how it's gonna play out. If the recall IS allowed, Bustamonte will win because he's got the latino and minority vote.

Arnold and his like will rip apart the mainstream vote to such a degree that Bustamonte will be shoe in.

Sad that it takes a court order to make the state of Cali see reason.

This whole recall business is bullshit and has made the state the laughingstock of this country.

Not the recall itself. That's a very legitimate response to a retarded governor who has failed on every level.

What's become a joke is the flood of new candidates - pornstars, TV stars, movie stars, pornographers, janitors ...

The process should have been bifurcated. Take care of the recall before starting a new election process. While it hardly every comes up, the process needs to be changed to prevent the zoo atmosphere.

Your inability to read the post topic is indicative of your intent. What part of POSTPONE was misunderstood?

As much as it bothers me to admit this, I totaly agree with you. :winkwink:

Oh everything from the recall to the list of candidates is one big fuck up.

Davis got the vote, he hasn't done anything impeachable, therefore he should be serving his term as governor.

If the recall is successful I'll bet you a hundred bucks that there will be another one.

It's about time people started realizing there are consequences to everything they do, even voting.

all I can say is that I am glad to see you live in Oregon

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SEC. 14. (a) Recall of a state officer is initiated by delivering
to the Secretary of State a petition alleging reason for recall.
Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable. Proponents have 160 days to
file signed petitions.
(b) A petition to recall a statewide officer must be signed by
electors equal in number to 12 percent of the last vote for the
office, with signatures from each of 5 counties equal in number to 1
percent of the last vote for the office in the county. Signatures to
recall Senators, members of the Assembly, members of the Board of
Equalization, and judges of courts of appeal and trial courts must
equal in number 20 percent of the last vote for the office.
(c) The Secretary of State shall maintain a continuous count of
the signatures certified to that office.

This country is going to hell in a handbasket when it comes to politics! Aaaargh!

I'm with Kim on this.

Like Chris Rock says, "you can drive your car with your feet. Does not make it a good idea."

actually I think 109287120893471234 court orders would not get the lovely state of California to see reason...

I love it, as I was born and raised there, but it's politics and leaders are often living on the planet mars...

If punch card ballots aren't legitimate for use in electing the governer, then I guess Grey Davis isn't a legitimate governer. :2 cents:

if you were paying attention you would know that the courts determined that after the last election

That's "shoo in"

What do you mean "going"?

Exactly.
Balance of power, set in a chaotic scenario.

The American Civil Liberties Union or ACLU, the same people who represented pro bono (free for the intellectually challenged readers) NAMBLA.
NAMBLA, the people who think it is good for a male child to have sex with an adult male.
Now, ACLU, represents NAMBLA for free and is opposed to California recall, hummmm....
ACLU claims that the voting machine that will be used are not god enough and will disenfranchise voters in 6 counties in California.
ACLU forgets to tell you that when Governor Davis was elected about 12 months ago, he was elected with those same disanfranchising machines.
ACLU did not object to this 12 months agos...
A simple mathematic law; if A=B and B=c, therefore A=C
NAMBLA = scumbags
ACLU = NAMBLA
ACLU = scumbags
Very simplistics but to the points