California Gov Recall 2003
September 15, 2003
9th Circuit Court Of Appeals Says Recall Election, As It Now Stands, Is Unconstitutional Due To Improper Voting Equipment

Bravo! Bravo! I must say, I am pleasantly surprised by this thoughtful ruling by the 9th District Court of Appeals.

(Too bad the Supreme Court wasn't as thoughtful in the 2000 presidential election.)

Appeals court blocks California recall

By Bob Franken and Kelly Wallace for CNN.


The ruling follows a hearing last week at which the American Civil Liberties Union argued that election officials should have more time to replace antiquated voting machines in several California counties.

The ACLU said the punch-card system could disenfranchise voters in six counties, including Los Angeles, the state's largest. Those six counties include 44 percent of state voters and have heavy concentrations of minority voters.

A lower court last month had rejected the request, but the appeals court disagreed.

"In sum, in assessing the public interest, the balance falls heavily in favor of postponing the election for a few months," the court concluded, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision that settled the 2000 presidential election.

"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."

Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer for the ACLU, called the decision "a masterpiece."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/recall.delay/index.html

Appeals court blocks California recall
Voting equipment 'defects' cited

Monday, September 15, 2003 Posted: 5:45 PM EDT (2145 GMT)

California Gov. Gray Davis talks to reporters Monday, following a court decision postponing the recall election.
Story Tools


RELATED
Federal appeals panel hears arguments for halting recall
Federal judges refuse to postpone California recall
Read the court's order (from FindLaw PDF)
VIDEO
CNN's Candy Crowley says the delay is good news for Gray Davis.
PLAY VIDEO
GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom McClintock says he is confident the court order to delay the California recall election will be overturned.
PLAY VIDEO
ACLU attorney Mark Rosenbaum says the U.S. 9th Circuit ruling postponing the recall election is a 'masterpiece'
PLAY VIDEO
SPECIAL REPORT
Gallery: Who's running
Map: Petition signatures
Davis faces recall vote
Special Report
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
California Recall
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- A federal appeals court Monday ordered California officials to halt preparations for the October 7 gubernatorial recall election, citing concerns about a "hurried, constitutionally infirm" process.

Specifically, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the state needed to upgrade its voting equipment first.

"The inherent defects in the system are such that approximately 40,000 voters who travel to the polls and cast their ballot will not have their vote counted at all," the court ruled, citing voting machines that the secretary of state's office has declared unfit.

Voters had been scheduled to go to the polls October 7 to decide whether to remove California Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat.

But the ruling leaves the election in doubt -- at least for now. The court stayed its order for seven days to allow appeals. If Monday's ruling stands, the recall vote could be moved to March 2004, when it would share space on the ballot with California's presidential primary.

Davis, who Monday spent a second day campaigning with former President Clinton, said he was "prepared to conduct this election whenever the courts tell me the election is going to occur."

Davis had pushed for the recall vote to take place in March, when the state's presidential primary was expected to draw a higher Democratic turnout.

"It seems to me that the more people think about the recall, the more that decide to oppose it," he said.
ACLU objections

The ruling follows a hearing last week at which the American Civil Liberties Union argued that election officials should have more time to replace antiquated voting machines in several California counties.

The ACLU said the punch-card system could disenfranchise voters in six counties, including Los Angeles, the state's largest. Those six counties include 44 percent of state voters and have heavy concentrations of minority voters.

A lower court last month had rejected the request, but the appeals court disagreed.

"In sum, in assessing the public interest, the balance falls heavily in favor of postponing the election for a few months," the court concluded, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision that settled the 2000 presidential election.

"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."

Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer for the ACLU, called the decision "a masterpiece."

"To those who say this will upset things, I suppose one answer is in fact this is going to give the voters of California more time to consider the issues and the character and the substance of the candidates," Rosenbaum said.

The 9th Circuit has a reputation as being one of the most liberal appellate courts in the federal judiciary, and its decisions are often reversed by the Supreme Court.
Appeal urged

Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger -- the leading Republican candidate to replace Davis should the recall succeed -- said he would continue his campaign for governor and called on Secretary of State Kevin Shelley to appeal the decision immediately.

"Historically, the courts have upheld the rights of voters, and I expect that the court will do so again in this case," he said.

Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, the leading Democrat among the 135 replacement candidates on the ballot, said he was confident the court would reach "a carefully thought out and considered decision.

"We will continue our campaign until there is finality in the courts," he said in a written statement after the decision.

But state Sen. Tom McClintock, one of the Republican candidates hoping to replace Davis should the recall succeed, said the ruling is "simply a distraction and will have no bearing on this election."

McClintock said the 9th Circuit "has become a national laughing stock" for previous rulings, such as one that found the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

"I have every confidence that, in a short time, the U.S. Supreme Court will allow this election to go forward," he said.

McClintock trails both Bustamante and Schwarzenegger in recent polls.

In Washington, officials at the Justice Department and the White House declined comment.

-- CNN Correspondents Bob Franken and Kelly Wallace contributed to this report.

Posted by Lisa at September 15, 2003 02:51 PM | TrackBack
Me A to Z (A Work In Progress)
Comments

"Thoughtful ruling" my ass.

The *same* machines that voted Davis into office have now been deemed "unfair" and unfit for voting.

I call BullShit.

This is just the same "tie it up in the courts" shit that the Dems and Pubs did in 2000. I tell ya, there's nothing like having the judiciary branch extending its role beyond its purpose.

Posted by: Passerby on September 16, 2003 01:20 PM

Hey Lisa,

Great things DO happen!!! As with Bush vs. Gore
The Recall will continue.
We can finally get rid of overspending,
vote-buying Gray Davis !!!!!
There is JUSTICE in the Courts !!!

Have a nice day!!!

Posted by: Bill Alread on September 23, 2003 09:29 AM

Hey Lisa,

Great things DO happen!!! As with Bush vs. Gore
The Recall will continue.
We can finally get rid of overspending,
vote-buying Gray Davis !!!!!
There is JUSTICE in the Courts !!!

Have a nice day!!!

Posted by: Bill Alread on September 23, 2003 09:30 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


No free link advertizing is allowed here. If you post a commercial link in this comment you agree to pay me $500 per link pursuant to the Terms posted here. Type "AGREE" here:

Comments:


Remember info?