Asymmetrical Information

"But I didn't see that any of the other candidates had any convincing right to an election at the time of their choosing, provided other legitimate interests were at least arguably more compelling; the right to have your vote counted strikes me as pretty compelling."

It wasn't about candidates having a right to an election at the time of their choosing (the date was chosen by the other candidates). It was about following the California state constitution, which stipulates that a recall election occur within a certain period of time after the petitions are certified.

Doh!!

That should read "the date wasn't chosen by the other candidates."

The circus continues and the other 49 States can lift their heads just a little bit higher now. ;)

When a state lifts its head "just a little bit higher", does it cause an earth quake? Just wondering.

Actually, they're shutting down the circus prematurely. It will be over in a couple weeks now, instead of lasting till spring.

I just read the opinion. How refreshing to see judges do their jobs properly! And the ruling was written with admirable restraint in a very civil tone -- no shots were taken at any of the parties. It's almost enough to restore my faith in our justice system. I thought I'd never say this, but thank you, 9th Circuit.

hmm,
wonder what happens when the appeal goes to the supreme court. thrown out as a "stae's only issue" or will the precedent of bush v gore be applied?

The appeal won't go to the Supreme Court, as the ACLU has stated that it won't appeal the case any further.

And as the per curiam opinion pointed out, Bush v. Gore addressed an entirely different issue, and as such, was not precedent.

Well, what do you know? Even a moonlighting clown college can call a case correctly if the more insane members are locked in the broom closet by the luck of the draw.

The Democrats are probably most annoyed that the en banc decision deprived them of the opportunity to whine about being slapped down yet again by the USSC.

"The appeal won't go to the Supreme Court, as the ACLU has stated that it won't appeal the case any further."

And even if it did, I doubt that the USSC would grant certiorari, as the conservatives would be satisfied with the outcome, and the liberals wouldn't vote to hear the case just to get slapped around again by Scalia, et al.

Jane!

Surely you jest! Of course you see that delaying an election unfairly extends the time in office of the incumbent. Yes, this is an unusual election, but surely you see that a delay of, say, a couple of years, would unfairly give the current governor a pass? The presidents of banana republics never do away with democracy, they just delay the elections until, well, whenever.

Also, if we are going to wait until elections are perfect to have them, we just aren't going to have them.

Mark basically called it correctly, here.

If the Ninth Circuit decision had stayed, courts (including the Supreme Court) could have cited it as precident for delaying the 2004 Presidential race until... well, until foot-dragging Republican districts upgraded their election machinery. Which they'd have no incentive to do, since their guys control all the branches of government.

As for whether the USSC would have applied the "precident" of Bush v. Gore to the California case -- well, the USSC stately quite plainly that Bush v. Gore was never, ever to be used as a precident. The Ninth Circuit just can't read, apparently. :)

The candidates have shit for rights.
The voters and citizens of CA have rights.

If a recall election has been established (as this one has) then there are two possibilities.
A) The public official is a scum bag, and every day in office damages the government.
B) The recall is bullshit, and every day that the incumbent has to fight to retain his/her job distracts him/her from the job, and damages everyone.

In other words, it is in everyone's best interests to have a short to medium term cycle on recall elections, and that is precisely what the CA constitution provides for.

Byna, notes that the Nevada SC recently voted to violate the Nevada constitution. The bastards should be shot.

Sorry, but the issue of equal protection is a real one. On the other hand, it is likely to manifest itself primarily in a close election. If the outcome of the election is close (less than the 40K figure cited by the three-judge panel in their opinion) look for another lawsuit. Fact is, though, that nobody expects the election to be that close.

BTW, your assumption that that Dems are necessarily opposed to the recall election being held in Oct instead of March is a little silly. The recall election is taking attention away from their presidential nominees. It seems a little silly to assume that they would want that to continue through the CA primary.

Raj,

Of course the Dems want the election to be held in March. Wouldn't you want an election to be held when you knew there would be a larger turnout from your party, as is the case when the Dems hold a primary and the Reps do not?

It doesn't seem silly to suggest that. It seems obvious.

No, Raj, the issue of equal protection is not real in this case. The study upon which the ACLU based their argument (the same one that was tossed by the State Supreme Court when put up by Davis' people in case anyone thinks the ACLU non-partisan) has been found to be extremely suspect.

It was funded by a company that sells electronic voting systems. The two counties in California found to have highest error rate have very low minority populations and one of those counties doesn't even use punchcards. For the study to be consistent with these facts it would require that virtually all minority voters in Tulare County be incapable of using the punchcard system. My memories of Tulare as teenage carny in 1981 are not fond ones but I don't recall there being an extraordinarily large percentage of mentally impaired person among the non-Anglo locals.

If you listen to the proceeding, especially while Judge Kozinski is tearin the ever silly Laurence Tribe a new one, it become clear just how outrageously those original three judges overstepped their bounds to give their party a favor.

Another very important difference between the use of punchcards here in California and in Florida back in 2000 is that there was a lack of consistent standards for how questionable ballots were handled. This is why we got the whole bizarre vocabulary of chad variants.

In California the rules have been definitive statewide since the 60's. Thus a great lack of similar scandals here. Instead, now that they want to make it a pushover for illegal aliens to become registered voters we can instead look forward to many grander repetitions of the Dornan-Sanchez battle in which the later was found to have received thousand of votes from illegals and ultimately won by only a few hundred ballots. In that case we just traded a colorful lunatic for a dull silly person barely conscious of the major issues of recent history.

"Also, if we are going to wait until elections are perfect to have them, we just aren't going to have them."

That is absolutely correct. Utopian perfection is not possible. Democracies muddle along the best they can.

The real problem with voter mistakes has to do with marginal to functional illiteracy. Some people will goof up regardless of which voting machine is placed before them.

Comments are Closed.