If I’m understanding Sua, the first “Who should be governor question” is really, “Should the incumbent be removed from office and disqualified from running?” The answer to that may be yes, it may be no.
The second “Who should be governor” question (potentially) is, “Having disqualified the incumbent, which of the candidates not yet disqualified should be governor?”
All incumbents, and only incumbents, are subject to the recall law. All non-disqualified candidates can run after a recall. No equal protection issue. Makes sense to me now (though I am no more fond of the law than I was before).
I understand Sua too, I just think he’s wrong, on the basis that both questions are being asked on the same visit to the booth and it’s therefore one single issue.
Oh. Hmm. Why does that make any difference? If the vote for the new governor occurred the day after the recall vote how would that change the constitutionality of the matter in any material way? Or do you mean something different?
It’s actually two issues. The first: Should Gray Davis be recalled? The second: If so, who should be governor?
The constitutionality doesn’t rest on doing it at the same time. If they did the first issue one day and then waited a day, a week, a month to take the vote on the second, the analysis of the constitutionality would be the same.
I might have been unclear. I didn’t mean to say it would be stronger for the other candidates in the recall, I meant a term limits argument would be stronger if you accepted the argument of some of the posters. Sorry if I was confusing.
There is a lawsuit on this election which does use an Equal Protection argument, but it is based on the fact that the different counties are going to have to use different voting systems and some are not as accurate as others. For example, Los Angeles County is going to have bring the Votamatic out of retirement for one more election. (March 2004 will be all touchscreen).
Based on the cases from the Bush-Gore election, some legal scholars think that Davis’s people may have a case for delaying the election until March. However, the State Supreme Court said no way, but it is still pending in Federal court.
Thanks for the info, BobT - can’t you hear Scalia and Rehnquist begging out loud “Pleasepleaseplease keep this away from us!”?
I don’t think I’m getting anywhere with the observation that it’s effectively a single issue and a single election, so perhaps I’ll let that drop. But that’s only part of the problem - the handicapping of a particular candidate, and the (partial) disenfranchisment of his supporters, is primarily where their protection is not equal. Yes, one candidate does have to reach a percentage to be eligible to win office that the others do not. I have seen no explanation of how that is acceptable practice, just restatements of the fact.
You can keep repeating this, but it doesn’t make it true. If you can find a case in which this type of arrangement is found to violate equal protection, I’m certainly willing to listen. Or, you can make an argument based on legal precedent.
You have seen an excellent explanation of why that is an acceptable practice from SuaSponte. The fact that it doesn’t fit with your goals is an entirely different issue.
Let me also add that I think the ACLU lawsuit raises some legitimate equal protection issues. I don’t know much about election law so I won’t wager a guess on the outcome.
The ACLU claim is much different from Davis’s claim. The ACLU is saying that different people in the same circumstances will be treated differently due to vote tallying.
Nah, I can easily see them passing down a ruling that the recall should proceed, and that their prior precedent from Bush v. Gore shall be ignored for inconveniently proving their hypocrisy.
Don’t be snippy, Zoff. It’s not my fault you didn’t/couldn’t address the question I asked about how this is somehow not really a single election with one candidate under a special handicap.
Since you brought up my alleged “goals”, you might explain what you think they are, other than a concern for the integrity of small-d democracy.
I explained exactly how it’s two issues. But I’ll repeat myself: The ballot asks (1) Shall the governor be recalled? and (2) If so, who shall become governor. The fact that the issues are decided on the same day doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
As for a candidate having a handicap, that happens all the time. Zbigniew Brzezinski has the “handicap” of being born in Poland so he can’t be President of the United States. Mary Kate and Ashley have the “handicap” of being too young to be a U.S. Representative. Gray Davis has the “handicap” of a law that says he can’t run in part 2 if he loses part 1. None of these are violations of the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.
I apologize. It’s so easy to get jaded reading this board. There are so many posters who are blinded by partisanship and are so utterly predictable that you know their position before you open the thread. You know, the kind of poster that ignores evidence that doesn’t lead to their pre-conceived conclusion. Sometimes that cynicism creeps into my posts when it shouldn’t.