Sanity prevails (temporarily)

It is going to be very interesting if the SCOTUS gets involved.
BTW here are a few issues that you may not be aware of...
1) The state of Ca. agreed not to use punch card ballots again. The special election was called after this was mandated.
2) Because of the lack of equipment, some 25% of the polling places will not be open.
3) the vast majority of item 2 will be in the largest, and poorest counties.
WHAT A MESS!

p2, you got it. A total mess it is!

Is this the same Court of Appeals that conservatives love to bash for its liberal leanings? -- the one that ruled that "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was wrong?

Why is this sanity, Bill? Because you're a liberal who likes judicial activism? Jeez.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision was preposterous for one reason: It is a blatant example of judicial activism. It is clear left-wing justices are acting on their ideological leanings to do something the California legislators or electorate did not do, that being to eliminate the entire recall law altogether.

First, as I hope everyone here knows, I absolutely, unequivocally oppose this recall. I do so strictly because it goes against our republican form of government. Is it unconstitutional? No. Is it illegal? No. Is it immoral? No. Is it a violation of civil rights? No. So on what grounds does the 9th Circuit act? What "substantive federal issue" was at issue here? "Bad" voting machines? Give me a break. These are the same machines that elected Davis. Let them be the same machines used to recall him.

I wasn't surprised one iota that the 9th Circuit ruled this way. They ignored the opinion of the state supreme court and a federal district court, both of which ruled, respectively, that there were no state or federal constitutional issued involved. There aren't.

I am also not surprised that liberals here are praising this decision, for it is this same group that constantly runs to the court when they don't like something their elected officials do (or don't do, for that matter). Once again, they realize they cannot get their ideological biases enacted legislatively, so they run to a court that is populated by their same mindset and expect such legislator-judges to do the work for them. After all, once a court rules, it's much more difficult to change such decision or ignore its enforcement.

Again, stopping this recall by getting a federal court to butt their noses in is not the way to do it. California's constitution must be changed to dump the recall itself.

BTW, it ought to be interesting to see if the U.S. Supreme Court even gets involved. Unlike Bush v. Gore, the Court may look at this as not having a federal substantive issue, refusing to hear it; however, they may believe that the 9th circuit's decision ignored this same qualification. It's going to depend on how the appeal is presented.

Is it any surprise that the 9th circuit is by far the most overruled court in the nation?

[ September 15, 2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

It ruled "under God" was unconstitutional--a terribly backward decision. The U.S. Supreme Court already ruled it permissible for Congress to require the phrase "under God" on all U.S. currency. Guess what's going to happen to the 9th Circuit's pledge decision?

MIB, I thought the court out here echoed the SCOTUS in its reasoning...
Also there are issues here about having 25% of the normal polling places open for this election, mostly in lower income areas. BTW I would be just upset if the burden was on the mostly right leaning orange county.
The issue can not be overstated as the race issue will also be on this ballot, and it would be insane to vote on this will having access limited in areas of minorites.

Well, p2, as I said, a lot is going to depend on how the appeal is presented; that is, which issues will be presented as substantive. We'll just have to wait and see.

I just don't like courts getting involved in things that really don't concern them. That's why we have legislators, whom we can at least run out of office if they vote for something stupid.

Has this system or any other been asked to handle over one hundred candidates on a ballot?

For that matter has any voting population ever tried to handle it?

If everyone can set aside their preset left or right bias here and look at thie 3-judge panel opinion.

First of all, unlike Bush v. Gore, this recall decision involved no federal election issue. It was a state issue. The recall election, as distasteful as itself is, is spelled out in the California constitution. Among some of the requirements is that such a recall election be held within 80 days of it being certified by the proper state official.

All this was done pursuant to California law.

Now comes a federal court usurping a state constitution, substituting their personal agenda for that of the people of California. That is why this decision is terrible and is an example of improper federal intervention.

I am not in favor of this recall in any manner. I truly wish it wouldn't occur, but having this result by way of a court doing what it is not permitted to do is not the way to get to this result.

The issue is that Ca MANDATED that all punch card ballot machines be replaced before any election taking place. This mandate was passed before the recall election was called.
So many of the counties have replaced the equipment. Others started, but have not completed the process. So the question is will the large counties get a fair shake.
Now with that said...
1) I would think a fair election is better than a questionable one
2) On the right, I would want the same as if there is a question regarding the vote you will see another recall if the Republican party were to win.
3)I thought the SCOTUS ruled that since not all counties were being recounted ( in Bush v Gore) that that was unfair as different standards were being used...is that not what the question is here ?

The punch card voting system was A-OK when it was used to re-elect Gray Davis less than a year ago ... but in the space of about 10 months, it's suddenly become unconstitutional?

Regardless of how you feel about the propriety of recalling Davis, that's the Ninth Circuit's only reason for quashing this election. Are you happy? They cancelled an election because they were afraid a lefty Dem was going to lose.

If you support this move, then stop crying and whining about the threat to democracy if/when a conservative court ignores the law and declares it's three-person opinion the law of the land. This is yet another example of Democrats and Democrat judges stealing elections and thwarting democracy ...

In fact ... if voting on the recall by punchcard ballots is unconstitutional and violative of due process ... then wasn't the election of Gray Davis by the exact same system illegitimate??? And if you believe that Davis's re-election -- which occurred two years after the Bush v. Gore on which the Ninth Circuit wholly relied today -- if you believe his re-election was unconstitutional and illegitimate ... then wouldn't that be a valid reason for recalling him?????

[ September 15, 2003, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

CITT,
You are missing the point! After the last election our state goverment ruled that the punch card ballots have a greater margin of error, and therefore must be replaced be fore the next election. Based on that many of the machines used were discarded. In several counties they will only have 25% of the normal polling places open. This is taking place in the poorer counties or those with higher populations.
So how about you chill for one moment, get off your high moral horse and answer the question if an election is questionable would it not be better to do it correctly?
I would make the same point if it favored the right wingers... See I am an american first, a liberal second...too bad your a right winger first

Well, the polling place I've enjoyed for the last several years was walking distance. On the recall ballot I received, the "special" polling place I was assigned to was literally three miles away. Since I own a car, its not that big of a deal. But I have to wonder about the folks who are NOT able to make the inconvenient journey to do their basic American duty. Someone please explain to me how they can justify forcing the poor to pay to travel to actually vote. Hint - its NOT.

If they want to schedule this recall vote, it should be under the same terms under which we normally vote. And don't throw out the nonsense BS option of absentee voting. Absentee voting is for the lazy, or those who expect to be out of town. It is not a right, and those eager to assume such clause should be willing to accept that their candidate might be guilty or exposed for something stupid or insidious between a mailed absentee vote and the actual voting date.
If they can't hold the election under normal terms, they have no business conducting the thing.

The Supreme Court stopped the Florida election on questionable federal grounds. Now a court is threatening to delay a State election on questionable grounds. No matter how sophisticated the arguements it looks like noone will be pleased with the Courts decisions until they agree with that persons ulterior motive.

Regarless of how this is decided looks like one thing is certain: A mjority of the voters will be screwed and a minority will make the decision on who is the next governor of California.

Climbing down from my moral horse to answer a question ... oh, the drop is so steep ...

The citizens of California have the right to have an election that they've requested ... under the California constitution ... within the time period set by the California constitution. Why you think those Constitutional rights aren't worthy of protection is a question you've left unanswered.

My point is much simpler: if the punch card voting system was constitutionally permissible 10 months ago to elect Gray Davis ... how did it suddenly get unconstitutional in September 2003. You've got the Ninth Circuit saying the right of recall has been indefinitely suspended. How's that constitutional? Why is a system acceptable 10 months ago suddenly so contrary to each citizen's voting rights that a lawfully-called election must be stopped?

Your point about the number of polling places being reduced: red herring. That was not the basis for the Ninth Circuit's decision.

You don't have a constitutional right to have a voting location within walking distance ... especially not in California where everybody drives. My designated voting location used to be two and a half miles away from my house. They moved it so that it's now four miles away, although I usually do \"early voting\" at a location about seven miles away. So enough of the Dickensian sympathy for the \"poor\": if they care enough to exercise their franchise, they can travel just like the rest of us do. And if they don't have a car, call Gray Davis or Schwarzenegger or whoever they plan to vote for and their campaign machine will have some sort of GOTV (get out the vote) operation to get them to the polls. Happens every election, everywhere, in America.

They didn't "stop the election" in Florida. The election was held and the votes were counted. And re-counted. They stopped the re-recounting. Here, Democratic judges on the Ninth Circuit (two Clinton appointees, and one Carter remnant) stopped an actual election that was legitimately requested by California voters under the California constitution.

[ September 16, 2003, 06:44 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

MIB and CITT, I actually agree with you that if the standards were acceptable for the last gubernatorial election they should stand for this one, but it does appear that BETWEEN the period of Davis's election and the initiation of the current recall process, the California legislature (GOP, Democrats and others) passed a law mandating fairer voting procedures. So the Court does appear to be basing this on the legislative decision.

The recall, however, does not appear to be a federal election issue, so I do wonder how much Bush vs. Gore applies on a state level. It's just very unfortunate that the most populous counties in California, which also have the largest non-white populations, also have the most screwed up election machines. Why doesn't the state (or the federal government) take elections seriously? I mean, if Brazil and the Phillipines and South Africa can push so that even the poorest areas have proper equipment and clean procedures, certainly the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, the United States of America, can do so.

And MIB, please, right-wingers fly into courts every chance they can to overturn laws they dislike; that is, if they can't rig the electoral process or override democratic votes to push their agendas.

If that was the reasoning, the three-judge panel would be wrong. Constitution always trumps legislation, even at the state level. If legislation says a change must occur before the next election, but a special election is called under the Constitution, the right to the constitutionally-called election has more force than a statute ordering that changes in voting procedures be made.

You can't change a constitution by statute ... although a lot of amateurish politicians both left wing and right wing keep trying.

I'm a liberal guy and I think the whole recall is bizarre. I also hope that Gov Davis gets to finish his term. If anyone has ever had an eye-opener on job performance, it's him. I think of all the candidates, if he makes it through the recall, he will come out of this looking the best. If someone like Arnold demands change and then inherits all these problems, I can't imagine they'll be successful in the end.

Having said all that, I think that the recall should go on as planned. It is the will of the people and although it may not meet the requirement for voting machines, that decision was not made by voters and should thus be more malleable in my opinion. When they made the decision to go to the new voting machines, they obviously had no idea this recall was coming, I think they should back off that decision and have the vote.

By the way, there will probably be a lot of mad democrats in California after this. What will stop them from recalling the next governor if Davis is beaten?

I agree with you on this. Actually, Texas does amend its constitution by legislative votes, I believe, which is one of the reasons it has one of the longest constitutions in the United States.

But if the state courts did base their decisions on California's constitution, which would trump the legislative decision, then I can't see how SCOTUS would allow this to stand. It'll be fairly clear. I do want to know if Sandra Day O'Connor (whom they'll appeal to, right?) will look at this from the California constitutional standpoint, or from the standpoint of SCOTUS precedent.

All in all, this whole thing has been extremely bizarre.

First and foremost, The election was DELAYED not thrown out.
Second In many polls Davis was withing 2 points of not being recalled.
Third if there is wide spread voting problems there will be another recall, something that I would rather not see.

From what I heard this morning (caveats - it was the Today show, with about 4 minutes of analysis and I was working out) the federal court ruled on an equal protection basis - that the SCOTUS clearly spelled out in Gorev.Bush (or was it the other way around?) that votes must be counted the same way in every jurisdiction.

Now, I think it is a stretch to use it in this context, and I suspect the federal court is expanding the understanding of Gorev.Bush that voting must be the same across jurisdictions. It also appears (as they referenced Gorev.Bush several times - apparently far more than is normal) that court was almost mocking SCOTUS and their decision in that case - An instance of "see what happens when you interfere?" aimed at SCOTUS.

As to the federal state issue - in general if the US Constitution prohibits something, does not that trump the state Constitution - even in a state matter? I am specifically looking at the recent Alamabama case, where certain Moore supporters were arguing the First Amendment applied only to the federal government, and that states were free to designate official religions, and that Alamabama had done so.

Without commenting on the ruling itself, here are some questions which will have to be answered if the ruling is upheld and the recall is delayed to March:

--Can election officials break the election into two ballots--one for recall, the other for the presidential primary?

--Will the recall election be open to more candidates?

--Could candidates on the current ballot be allowed to drop off?

--What happens to those absentee ballots that have already been returned?

The March election would include a primary ballot for president, US Senate and House seats, some legislative seats, local elections--county board of supervisors, judgeships, school board, city & other special district positions--and ballot measures. Add the recall questions to that and (as any good sitcom scribe would write) "chaos ensues."

It seems to me that if one accepts testimony that punch-card machines are 2 1/2 times more prone to errors than the newer machines--and that the six counties (including my own LA county) scheduled to use punch-card machines in this election included 44% of the last election's electorate--the ruling can be upheld. In the ruling, the judges wrote: "No voting system is foolproof, and the Constitution does not demand the use of the best available technology. However, what the Constitution does require is eaual treatment of votes cast."

~Adam

At this weekend's state GOP convention in LA, I accurately predicted that this Ninth Circuit panel would halt the election. Now I'll predict how the Supreme Court will undo their latest devilry: either by summary reversal or with instructions to vacate the panel decision and reinstate the decision of the District Court, which didn't buy the ACLU's arguments for many of the same reasons posted above.

To me, Bush v. Gore isn't the controlling precedent, Coalition of Economic Equality v. Wilson (Prop 209 case affirming Californians' right to the initiative process) is. And I must say, while I do not at all support reinstating such qualifiers, that the ACLU's position of "the unknowing voter" is the strongest argument in favor of literacy tests yet.

Fantomas, I am sorry, but that purview belongs solely to the California state courts. There is no federal constitutional question involved. Normally, the U.S. Supreme Court would never rule on something that has no federal question; they lack the authority. However, here they may rule, but in a manner that admonishes their lower brethren, specifically because the appellate court also had no jurisdiction in the case.

The CA. Supreme Court spoke; they upheld the election, indicating, among other things, that even though the state legislature mandated the machines be replaced, the state constitution's requirement of the election being held within 80 days of certification took precedence, as it superseded any legislative action.

BTW, for what it's worth, some associates of mine out there tell me they believe the decision will be heard by the 9th circuit en banc, and that the full court will overturn it. We'll see about that.

Lastly, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has individual jurisdiction over the 9th circuit; however, she is presently unavailable to decide the matter. Therefore, the case would be handled by Justice Scalia.

That is the most obvious--and accurate--statement there is on this whole mess.

I guess the court has now postponed its ruling on postponing the election. They may change their minds, but maybe not. I guess it will be heard by an 11 judge panel...maybe.

web page

Are you backing McClintock?

RZB, No, because only Arnold is electable. McClintock's better on numbers and budgets, but Arnold is MUCH better on our issues in general. He also has none of the right wing baggage that McClintock has.

Recounting was a legitimate part of the voting process according to Florida law and the decisions of the Florida Supremme Court which is legally encargoed with it's interpretation when in dispute. A federal court usurped a states job.

Arnold is MUCH better on our issues in general. He also has none of the right wing baggage that McClintock has.
Sorry gmginsfo, I think you posted this on the wrong topic, the Ca laugh track is where you meant to post this right? Or did his interview on Opra win you over-

No, sir. It did not. The Florida Supreme Court violated the Constitution's specific mandates that a state--that is, the legislature, and not a state's court--be the sole body that determines who its electors are. The FL. Supreme Court, as even its Democratic Chief Justice explained, overstepped its authority and ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution's 12th Amendment.

So then MIB since "Constitution's specific mandates that a state--that is, the legislature, and not a state's court--be the sole body that determines who its electors are" As the Ca legislature mandated that punch ballots could not be used,going forward in the "Next statewide election" the court was right in delaying the election untill the mandate may be met?

"Judicial activism" is mostly bullshit conservative Newspeak -- like "political correctness" -- that's used as a cudgel on principles of fairness and equality. Right-wingers aren't judicially active? Like justices who stop the vote count in a presidential election to install a fraud?

Literacy tests are unconstitutional.

Jon Stewart's on Issa's poker-faced complaint that the court ruling "hijacks" democracy: "They think we're retarded."

That state made specific laws about how it should carry out that duty. My understanding is that there was a dispute as to whether those laws were being followed. Why didn't the state just overrule, impeach or otherwise excercise it's authority over the justices? What is the purpose of state justices if they can't interpret state laws? And did the US Supreme Courts ruling use that interpretation of the 12th Amendment or did they rule that some voters were being treated unequally by the delay?

No, the Court was not correct for one main reason: It did not have the legal authority to make such a decision. In other words, it was none of their business. The argument of whether or not the election should be delayed because of the machines was a matter not subject to federal review. Instead, it was a matter of state review, and the CA. State Supreme Court already ruled on this.

Furthermore, regardless of what the state legislature passed with respect to the machines, the California Constitution supersedes such legislative action. Any conflicts regarding such are, again, subject only to review by the CA. Supreme Court.

In Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court had two rulings, one that dealt with Equal Protection claims (your latter point) and another that dealt with 12th Amendment and USC Section 5 issues, along with Article II (of the U.S. Constitution) issues.

I have always had the opinion that the Equal Protection claims were weaker than the 12th Amendment/USC Sect. 5 et. al. issues.

Remember, BTW, that seven--and not just five--of the nine Justices indicated that there were constitutional problems with the Florida Supreme Court's recount order.

[ September 17, 2003, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

If the 12th Amendment gives the state legislators the duty of arranging for the selection of the electors then how does the US Supreme Court come into it unless Florida had legislated away their right/duty, it seems to me the Florida Supreme Court should have been left to do it's legislated or appointed duty to interpret the dispute period?

Sport, the U.S. Supreme Court got involved because the FL. Supreme Court usurped the authority of the state legislature, who has the sole responsibility of determing its electors. Such authority is granted to them and not a state governor or state court.

In layman's terms, the U.S. Supreme Court told the FL. Supreme Court, "Hey. You guys do not have the legal right to change the rules. Only your legislature can do that."

Bingo.

The truth hurts, doesn't it, Bill? It's always amusing when the left gets caught in its own judgislating. They'd rather it be done discreetly, with no one watching.

The Florida Supreme Court's December 8, 2000 decision appears to only refer to interpreting Florida State law. I do not believe that state election laws are anywhere near perfect, especially in many southern states, but I don't think these laws threatened the federal constitutional rights of Florida's citizen's any more than many others. The US Supreme Court IMO had ulterior motives in entering this particular case. The Florida Supreme Court appears correct.

The FL. Supreme Court does, indeed, have the authority to interpret FL. state law. However, this wasn't the issue. Both USC and the Constitution give the state legislatures the sole power to determine their electors, in however manner the legislatures see fit. If there is some problem involved, a state's court system cannot intervene to change it. At most, it becomes a political and nonjusticiable issue.

Is it any surprise that the FL. Supreme Court's Chief Justice, a Democrat, repeatedly warned his fellow Justices that they lacked the legal authority to do decide the case? He was backed up by seven Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. That was also one reason why the case was issued per curiam, something extremely rare in controversial or high-profile cases.

[ September 18, 2003, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

According to Bill W., these aren't activist judges:

Judge Harry Pregerson, a notorious judicial activist named to the court by President Jimmy Carter, was the senior member of the three-judge panel postponing the recall. In his 1979 confirmation hearing, Pregerson said he would follow his conscience rather than legislative intent if necessary. This year, he refused ''in good conscience'' to go along with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that ''three-strikes-and-out'' legislation is constitutional.

Query: Why is it wrong for Chief Justice Moore of Alabama to defy a federal court, but OK for a U.S. Appeals Court Justice to defy the U.S. Supreme Court? Never mind. I know the answer: Because he's a liberal.

Another member of the panel is Judge Richard Paez, an appointee of President Bill Clinton who was confirmed by the Senate in 2000 despite Republican accusations of judicial activism.

Note: FWIW, I am not a fan of "three strikes you're out" sentences.

It just gets curiouser & curiouser:

Darrel Issa, who bankrolled the petition drive to put the recall on the ballot has said that he will urge voters to REJECT THE RECALL if it appears Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom McClintock will split the Republican vote & bring about a victory for Cruz Bustamante. "As someone who some people call the godfather of the recall, nobody should be more determined to remove Gray Davis from office. But, when you vote, if there are still two major Republicans on the ballot, then I advise you to vote no on the recall."

When Issa dropped out of the race, on the day following Schwarzeneger's entry, he tearfully let the public know he would return to Congress where his main purpose was to bring "peace to the Middle East." Maybe he should just shut up now.

~Adam

GAME ON!

The recall is back on for October 7th, per Federal Appeals Court. Unclear whether the case will be appealed to SCOTUS.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/945950.asp?0cv=CA01

I think this is the correct decision. There was no good justification for the postponement. The punch-card ballots, which have been used in dozens of previous elections, were to be phased out at the end of 2003. In case you don't have a calendar handy, the year's not over for another three months. Also, the spirit of the recall law was to hold an expedient election. Holding it 10 months after the recall petitions are submitted is not expedient.

Adam, No kidding! so Issa says vote no, if it looks like if grey is recalled but the Dems may retain the seat, but it is not a power grab?
Beachjock, I do not know if I agree or not but I am ready to have the recall over, except that I have already heard of people getting ready to recall, again, if Arnold or Tom win....Pandroas box indeed

So just to be clear: The recall of the recall has been recalled? Great, thanks...

I can now endorse Davis.

California Moves to Ban Unsolicited E-Mail Spam

Adam, it sure sound slike Issa is one sore loser. He's sounding like a whining little kid now.

William, can we just recall CALEEFORNIA? :confused: