Let’s face it, the California recall is a freak show but it does have one thing I like - it allows ordinary people to show their displeasure with their elected officials and ripples are putting the fear of God into politicians everywhere. There is one major problem with the California recall: If the people are allowed to make their own decision about whether to recall the governor or not, they may decide on action contrary to the wishes of elite political entities such as the ACLU. Besides, the disenfranchised voters of the areas of concern are incapable of remembering what happened in Florida and using that lesson as a reminder to be more careful this time about how they punch their ballotts. Sure, the ACLU did not act when the same punch card ballots were used to elect Davis, a Democrat, earlier. But that was OK because he’s a Democrat and anytime the more liberal candidate wins that is good for the ACLU and thus all Americans in general. And let’s face it, without the divine guidance of the American Crafty Lawyer’s Union ordinary Californians could never decide on their own how their own government should be run. Thus, it is a good thing the ACLU went over the will of the people of California and to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and stopped this foolishness before someone forgets to make sure he punches his ballot all the way.
That’s not a debate, it’s a rant. 
And it’s not even a very good rant.
The California recall hasn’t been subjected to a single voter yet. The petitions were the product of a burr under the saddle of Congressman Issa, who paid a lot of the cost of collecting signatures. Issa wanted to be governor but withdrew in tears when other candidates showed up.
My guess is, if you spent enough money you could get plenty of people to sign a petition to recall the Pope.
A rant that is wrong also: the ACLU was bugging the California courts since early 2001! Could have affected the Davis re-election.
http://archive.aclu.org/news/2001/n041601b.html
Barking up the wrong tree or jerked around by the media chuckster? You decide!
Except that there is no recognized procedure for recalling the pope. I’m no fan of the recall, but an objective observe must at least admit that the current recall adheres to the CA constitution and is entirely legal. The fact that a particular individual was the driving force behind this effort has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the action itself.
chuckster, not only are you, as GigoBuster demonstrated, dead wrong about the ACLU and its efforts to end the use of punch card ballots, but you are dead wrong about the 9th Circuit.
The 9th Circuit decision is fully in keeping with the US Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore. Are you taking the position that the decision in that case was incorrect?
Sua
I have a question: Why is the very exact same system that elected Grey Davis fair and just when it elected him but unfair and unjust for the recall?
And above and beyond that, David Simmons, are you insinuating that Issa bought signatures? How does one go about doing that sort of thing? “Here’s a c-note, just sign here”?
Braving the possibility that I might be thought of as an extremist here, or even a raving conservative bigoted nutcase (which I’m not), I happened to hear Michael Savage on the radio last night when I got in the car. In between the usual crap he says, he did make one point that makes sense to me. If the machines “disenfranchise” voters, and they’ve been used for years, and they are completely unacceptable for elections, then why does that not invalidate every election up until now that used those machines for voting purposes?
Think about it. If I’m a cop, and I testify in 100 trials against the accused, and then I am later found to have been a perjurer, then doesn’t that invalidate all of my previous testimony?
My point is, if the ACLU is right, then all elections that used the machines are questionable. If they’re right, then what the hell is the holdup?
[Fixed coding. – MEB]
The 9th court of appeals is just trying to do their part in keeping a liberal in power. The decision was made by three liberal judges.
If they are really concerned about disenfranchising the voters, this is not the election to be concerned about. They claim to be making the decision with the good of the poor, minorities, and the inner city (mostly democratic). Punch card ballots are the easiest to fake. This is actually the ideal situation for getting Grey re-elected.
What the 9th court is really doing is bying Grey more time to get his ducks in line so he can prevail in the recall effort. Even with the potential of a high inner city turnout and the possibility of fraudulent voting (via the punch card ballots) the liberals believe the race is too close at this point.
Think about this; would they have made the same decision if it was a conservative facing the recall. NO.
What the H. is the federal court gettng mixed up in a state re-call election anyway. Their superficial motives are being exposed.
I dont like the punch card ballot myself, however I think the timing of this stinks to high heaven. After all, Grey himself was elected via the same method. Let the recall continue and square up the voting machine problem afterwards. Or get some new Effin machines in there ASAP. Oh, thats right, the Dems. dont want the new machines in the districts with the highest voter fraud. What a conundrum!! [Rant] The liberals will do anything to block a Bush appointee to any federal courts. Even when they are perfectly suited and come highly recommended (unless theyre liberal or moderate), can you say filli-stinkin`-buster. This is just another attempt at them getting their way. Screw that, let the recall continue and let the people of California get what they want. I for one am sick of being railroaded by the liberal agenda.
[/Rant over]
Ordinary people who have a million bucks or so to finance a petition drive, that is.
Yep, ordinary people like you and me. :rolleyes:
GIGObuster has already addressed this as well as I could.
You’re right, the will of the people will be totally frustrated, denied, and undermined if they have to wait an extra five months for the recall election so that all CA citizens can have the same chance of having their votes count. :rolleyes:
Several bloggers have suggested that whichever court this is appealed to (whether the entire 9th Circuity or the Supremes) should allow the recall to proceed, but require them to use plain old, low-tech, paper ballots. Glenn Reynolds has a nice article about the virtues of this technology here .
Well, sure. If you’re a cop, and you’re found to have perjured in 100 trials, then it calls those trials into suspicion. What we should do is retry people again immediately, putting you right back on the stand again.
That would be analogous to finding the voting machines were bad in previous elections, and therefore running another election so quickly that the machines can’t be replaced.
If the ACLU is right that the machines are questionable, then the holdup is exactly what they’re saying it is: another election should not be held until the machines are replaced.
Daniel
According to the 9th Circuit decision, it was not. The 2002 election cannot be fixed - it’s already happened. The 2003 recall election hasn’t happened yet, so the problem can be fixed.
Our underfunded and overworked federal judiciary.
Sua
And the conservatives didn’t do the same to Clinton’s appointees?! Both parties have behaved like schmucks in this regard.
Sua
If this is appealed to a higher court, what would the argument(s) be?
If the result of all this is that there is a single voting standard for the entire state, isn’t that good? How could (or why would) anyone argue against that?
Also, (slight hijack) if this ruling stands, can it be used as a precedent? IOW will we have suits being filed in every state that has a punch-card (or other discredited) voting system?
-
The only reason no one complained about 2002 was (a) there was already a consent decree in Common Cause I setting March, 2004 as the date the new machines would be in place, and (b) the outcomes in 2002 were not so close as to make the fact of the acknowledged ongoing violation of the U. S. Constitution a factor. Had they been that close, rest assured someone would have sued to overturn the election result.
-
The federal court was involved because the issue in question was violation of a U. S. Constitution provision, with no conjoined state law issue. The jurisdiction for such cases is, by the U. S. Constitution and by U. S. law, with the federal bench. Duh. (whuckfistle, you might want to actually obtain some knowledge before you rant; it makes for much more accurate assertions…)
-
The issue of retro-active application of the determination of unconstitutionality is a complex beast. In general, the Supreme Court has determined that it is best not to attempt to remedy every past instance of similar unconstitutional behaviour, because to do so not only puts into question the finality of court rulings but also provides for a very unsettled status with regard to state actions. Thus, the determination in Brown v. Board of Education, e.g., that equal protection of the laws was not provided through “separate but equal” schemes of service provision did not invalidate prior rulings and state actions to the contrary. The situation is somewhat different where violations of individual rights through criminal process are considered, and even then there is no strict rule as to when a holding of unconstitutionality will be retro-actively applied.
-
To the extent that the 9th Circuit concurs that voting in October with punch-card ballots in six counties will result in an equal protection violation, the court is simply applying the result of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. Republicans were quite happy at the result there; as predicted at the time by some, now we see long faces on the part of some Republicans when the omelet is flipped and served up with liberal seasoning.
ehhh let me rephrase that: If the result of all this is that there are higher (not necessarily a single) voting standards…
No one disputed the legality of the recall. My point was that the 9th circuit decision was not in any way a rebuff to a voter’s initiative. And there was no great public outcry for a recall.
Signers of a petition to recall the Pope wouldn’t know or care whether or not there was a formal method for doing that. A petition against someone to sign? Where’s the pen and which line do I use?
mack, most states are already complying with the decision in Bush v. Gore by eliminating punch-card ballots. Indeed, there is federal legislation providing states with funds to accomplish the task. Ohio, for instance, is utilizing the federal fund to standardize electronic voting systems, upgrading from, depending on the county, such antiquated systems as levers (such as we use here in Lucas County and have been around for over a CENTURY), punch-cards, etc. So, in reality, the only issue is one of time; beaurocracy takes time to overcome inertia.
To give you an idea of the kind of problems that can arise, here in Ohio the Secretary of State decided to take bids from voting machine companies for systems complying with certain standards promulgated after the 2000 election. After opening the bids, the SoS told the companies they were too high, and he wanted their “best bid”. One of the companies was determined to have failed to comply with this request, and wasn’t allowed to negotiate a final price with the SoS (if it sounds confusing, it is; I’ve been reading about it for months and still can’t figure out how your “best bid” isn’t your best bid). The company sued; the SoS was enjoined from precluding the company from participating in the final determination of approved vendors.
In the meantime, Lucas Co. went ahead and negotiated a contract with one of the companies for machines that would replace the REALLY old lever machines we rely upon. Lucas Co. wanted to have these in place ASAP. The SoS told Lucas Co. that it could not procede with replacement of the machines because he hadn’t finalized his approved list. So Lucas Co. has been forced to sit and kick its heels, using the old machines now for at least two local elections, while it awaits approval to do what it would have done last year anyway.
In California, there was a consent decree between the state and several voting interest groups that the state would replace its punch-card machines by the March, 2004 election. This decree was entered into in late 2001; it was agreed that the state wouldn’t be able to replace the machines in time to complete the 2002 election, so everyone simply held their breath and prayed that no really close election result occurred. But the parties to the decree never considered that there might be a recall election in October, 2003 (why would they, since it’s the first successful petition for statewide recall since the law was added in 1911!). The two initiatives scheduled for vote in October were on the ballot for March until the recall came along.
So the question is: do you allow the unexpected, unprecedented recall election, with its ungainly ballot filled with 135 alternative choices to proceed, knowing the U. S. Constitution is being violated by so doing? Or do you force the citizens of California to sit and wait for resolution of their political crisis while the state finishes its ministerial duty to correct its constitutionally flawed voting process?
Personally, I think the one factor the court didn’t consider that it should have was: who wants to spend the next seven months listening to Arnold Schwartzenegger campaign (if you can call it that) for governor???