9th Circut Reverses Recall Election Decision

[Guest I'm That Damn Zzzzz]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...gu/davis_recall

 

Court Rules California Recall Must Go On

3 minutes ago

 

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court Tuesday reinstated California's Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election, rejecting a three-judge panel's decision to put it off for months.

 

 

Unless the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) steps in quickly, the decision means Election Day is two weeks away.

 

The 11-member panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) unanimously overturned the Sept. 15 decision of a three-judge panel from the same circuit. The original panel postponed the election on whether to recall Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites) because six counties would use outdated punch-card ballots that were the subject of the "hanging chads" battle in the 2000 presidential election in Florida.

 

The decision clears the way for a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could be asked to revisit its Bush v. Gore decision in the 2000 election.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), which brought the challenge, did not immediately say whether it would appeal.

Edited September 23, 2003 by I'm That Damn Zzzzz

[CanadianChris 0]

That's a fairly flimsy reason to put off an election, if you ask me.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

LOL -- Now even the 9th Circuit overturnes the 9th Circuit...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

They'll appeal to the SCOTUS, and it's going to be a massive shitstorm because they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they don't take it up, they essentially admit that they had no business ruling in Bush v. Gore, and if they do take it up, they essentially invalidate portions of Bush v. Gore because they put a line in there that suggests that Bush v. Gore is inherently not able to set precedent.

 

All in all, it should be very interesting. As always, O'Connor will be the swing vote here, and I'm not positive that she'll concur with the right-wingers like she did last time.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Bah, I doubt this will go to SCOTUS at this point, and I doubt they're interested in hearing it at this point. The ACLU's case is so flimsy it'd get dragged out to slaughter.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Not really. The election probably shouldn't have been delayed, but it's asinine to assume that punchcard ballots aren't an extremely flawed system of elections. Is it an equal protection issue? I don't know, that's for the courts to decide. However, it IS an extremely flawed method and it should probably be fixed. The SCOTUS didn't really address that (or anything) in Bush v. Gore, and the 9th Circuit's original challenge -- which was, in fact, giving precedent to Bush v. Gore in the first place -- should be enough of an embarassment for them to hear it, in my opinion.

 

Of course, we won't know for another few weeks.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Not really. The election probably shouldn't have been delayed, but it's asinine to assume that punchcard ballots aren't an extremely flawed system of elections. Is it an equal protection issue? I don't know, that's for the courts to decide. However, it IS an extremely flawed method and it should probably be fixed.

And the ACLU agreed in a previous case that these machines would be gone in 2004. They're going to have to stick with their original agreement and deal with a fact that an election is going to be held prior to that date.

 

As a California voter, I can't take another six months of this mess, thank you.

[Justice 0]

The real problem is that no problems have arrisen yet, though, which is the major difference here. Nothing has happened yet, they are only basing it on what could happen. In Bush v. Gore, there were problems there that they could identify with the handling of the votes and the recounts. We could all see that. Here, there is nothing wrong except for the possibility that something might go wrong. Basically the 9th Circuit said "Well, we can't rule on something if it hasn't happened yet. We have to rule on what has happened, and nothing has." At least, that's how I see it.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I believe, however, that agreement was under the assumption that 2004 would be the next elections, not late 2003.

 

Again, though, our opinions are just that: opinions. It's a wait-and-see type situation for the next two weeks, and there's no sense in debating the merits of either case since the SCOTUS has a history of blatantly disregarding them in cases where they wish to renew or revise precedent. I don't think anyone would argue that's the case here.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The real problem is that no problems have arrisen yet, though, which is the major difference here. Nothing has happened yet, they are only basing it on what could happen. In Bush v. Gore, there were problems there that they could identify with the handling of the votes and the recounts. We could all see that. Here, there is nothing wrong except for the possibility that something might go wrong. Basically the 9th Circuit said "Well, we can't rule on something if it hasn't happened yet. We have to rule on what has happened, and nothing has." At least, that's how I see it.

Jesus, can you imagine what would happen if we had another 2000-esque fiasco with those ballots?

 

Phew.

[NoCalMike 0]

You don't rule because nothing has happened yet. The Bush/Gore fiasco was using the same machines and methods to count & collect voting results. If the methods/systems in place are not efficient and/or have shown not to be, why in the hell would ANOTHER election proceed using the same machines/methods....

 

Quite frankly, I don't care about the recall anymore, I live here in CA, and have already heard enough & seen enough. I don't really ever want to turn on local(or national for that matter)news in fear of sitting through more conversation about the recall.

 

If people in this state actually want to recall Davis in favor of Arnold fucking Schwarzanegger(sp?) based on what I don't know, then go ahead and do it. Dig your own grave and then bury yourselves.

 

I probably will vote although the thought of going to the polls for this fucking sideshow circus of of an election has me feeling very ill.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Jesus, can you imagine what would happen if we had another 2000-esque fiasco with those ballots?

If California did, I'd love to see Bust(whatever his name his) win. Davis would be crying "foul election" and Bust... would be pleading for us to "move ahead..."

[Guest SideFXs]

Jesus, can you imagine what would happen if we had another 2000-esque fiasco with those ballots?

 

Phew.

You can depend on the liberals coming up with some kind of dispute.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The American Civil Liberties Union, which had sought the postponement, indicated it would not appeal Tuesday's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, suggesting the recall election is in the clear.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/23/...ling/index.html

 

From how I read the ruling, the 9th Circuit basically said that the original opinion was based on the facts of the case and not the appelate jurisdiction of the court. Thus, the potential appeal would be rather pointless and would just waste time.

 

Also, SideFXs, at least we can count on you to spew absolute nonsense and partisan bullshit, too.

[Vyce 0]

This was nothing but a week-long exercise in futility.

 

Now let's get the election over and done with.

[Guest MikeSC]

They'll appeal to the SCOTUS, and it's going to be a massive shitstorm because they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they don't take it up, they essentially admit that they had no business ruling in Bush v. Gore, and if they do take it up, they essentially invalidate portions of Bush v. Gore because they put a line in there that suggests that Bush v. Gore is inherently not able to set precedent.

 

All in all, it should be very interesting. As always, O'Connor will be the swing vote here, and I'm not positive that she'll concur with the right-wingers like she did last time.

SCOTUS won't get involved.

 

Bush v Gore was over the only national federal elected office --- and the Florida Supreme Court was inventing law, which is a bit much.

 

This is for a statewide office.

 

There is a world of difference.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I posted that above

 

Basically, the reason why Bush v. Gore comes up is because the 9th Circuit's original opinion was laden with references to the aforementioned case, some of which were very valid. However, in reality, the feds have no business intervening in a state election.

 

That being said, the state courts probably should have delayed the election until the machines could be replaced.

[Guest MikeSC]

I posted that above

 

Basically, the reason why Bush v. Gore comes up is because the 9th Circuit's original opinion was laden with references to the aforementioned case, some of which were very valid. However, in reality, the feds have no business intervening in a state election.

 

That being said, the state courts probably should have delayed the election until the machines could be replaced.

As has been posted elsewhere as well, the 9th Circuit has become synonymous with the term "overturned".

-=Mike

...For a change, it's not the SCOTUS overturning them

[NoCalMike 0]

Just vote NO on the recall. I mean hell that guy who started the recall with 2 million of his own dollars even wants people to vote NO on it now. I am not sure the reasoning but I find it fucking hilarious.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

That being said, the state courts probably should have delayed the election until the machines could be replaced.

2 problems:

 

A delay would go against the state constitutions.

 

Punch-card voting has a better success rate than that of two methods allegedly used only by middle- to upper-class whites.

 

Where, oh where, is the ACLU?

[Firestarter 0]

A delay would go against the state constitutions.

C'mon, stop quibbling. It's just the damn state constitution. Surely the courts can set that aside in the interests of the people! I mean we're all Democrats here, right?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Punch-card voting has a better success rate than that of two methods allegedly used only by middle- to upper-class whites.

 

I'd like to uh, see some statistics on that one.

 

And Marney, do you think invalidating a legal election for governor in order to hold another one that is funded in full by wing nuts (no matter which side of the fence they're on) is in the best interests of the people? What about having a governor who has less than 30% of the state's vote?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

What about having a governor who has less than 30% of the state's vote?

I think that is awesome and I think we need more of that.

 

Seriously, people are getting into this because there's so many choices. Sure, not all of them are worth voting for and some people are obviously just there for a good time, but we've been able to seperate the people who have serious support and backing and those who are just there for humor.

 

Regardless of that circus atmosphere, I'm happy for once to have an election with more than just the same damn two choices brought to you by the same two parties. The two choices who have interests that follow the most down the party line, of course.

 

This is more democracy than the constant DNC/GOP pandering that the last election was.

 

EDIT: Oh. Now I see what you mean. I think. I'm not sure. I just know I enjoy having more than one Democrat who totally panders to all the Democrat stuff and one Republican who totally tows the Republican crap.

 

I vote based on issues, not parties.

Edited September 24, 2003 by Jobber of the Week

[Firestarter 0]

Marney, do you think invalidating a legal election for governor... is in the best interests of the people?

Absolutely not, unless the governor in question is named Gray Davis. In that case, yes, it is in the best interests of the people, but it's still wrong.

 

What about having a governor who has less than 30% of the state's vote?

Absolutely not, unless the governor in question is not named Gray Davis. In that case, yes, it is in the best interests of the people, but it's still wrong.

 

But even though it's wrong it is nevertheless legal and constitutional. And that should still matter in a country which is supposed to be governed by the rule of law.

 

I don't support the recall. I don't like the recall. I don't want the recall to happen. But it WILL happen, and it MUST happen, because it is mandated under California's state constitution. I'd say the same thing even if the governor were competent, intelligent, and Republican. AFTER the recall, California should amend its constitution again and remove the provision for the gubernatorial recall. UNTIL then, politically motivated activist judges shouldn't try to invalidate legal procedures explicitly mandated under the state constitution.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

AFTER the recall, California should amend its constitution again and remove the provision for the gubernatorial recall.

I know your reason for disliking the recall, but don't you see how all this recalling going on nationwide may *gasp* force the parties to present candidates that voters actually LIKE?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Only if they make the majority of the population sign the damned petition. Otherwise, you'll just have people signing recall petitions all the time and the governors will do more time campaigning than... well... running the state.

[Firestarter 0]

I know your reason for disliking the recall, but don't you see how all this recalling going on nationwide may *gasp* force the parties to present candidates that voters actually LIKE?

Not really. Two states is hardly "nationwide." Are there more? And how does it provide any more of an impetus for the parties to present decent candidates than a normal election? As Tyler said, all this will accomplish is to make the elected officials of states which have recall provisions engage in endless term-long re-election campaigns and popularity contests. I don't see how that helps anyone.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Only if they make the majority of the population sign the damned petition. Otherwise, you'll just have people signing recall petitions all the time and the governors will do more time campaigning than... well... running the state.

We'll see. If the vote is close or Davis loses, then the recall election was certainly justified.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Not really. Two states is hardly "nationwide."

Ah, okay. Not sure how far it's going. It's difficult to gauge national reaction to the recall when everything from the governor to our local city council (no kidding) is being recalled and our news is pretty much avalanched by that stuff. And the national sources keep going on about the recall because of Arnold's involvement, so...

[Firestarter 0]

FNC article:

 

"Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, also doubted that the Nevada effort would be successful.

 

He added that it is unlikely California's process will be repeated elsewhere.

 

'You can't have something this big in the nation's largest state without there being ramifications elsewhere. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's a trend though. There are only 18 states and the District of Columbia that have any kind of statewide recall provisions and most of them have much more restrictive laws than California.'"