Obviously, someone’s going to appeal this. Will the Supremes take the case?
ANAL, but I don’t see how SCOTUS could overturn this decision, since it raises the same equal protection issues as the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000. OTOH, the Supremes can do anything.
Any lawyers care to comment on the logic of the decision? Or how SCOTUS might view it?
The 9th Circuit has a special place in the heart of the US Supreme Court. They probably enjoy the reputation of being the most overturned of all Federal Appellate Courts. I don’t think that anyone is surprised after the orals in the matter. It was pretty evident that this was going to happen.
The 9th is getting famous for its left-wing rulings, and though I agree with their pledge of allegiance ruling I can’t see them striking down California’s balloting system.
Did they make any decisions during the last race, where Governor Davis was elected by a small margin using the same system?
I think the Republicans have a good case for the Supreme court with that, combined with the “most overturned status”.
It would have to be a quick turnaround though. I would also like to hear what the SCOTUS-watching dopers have to say about hat.
Apparently, the 9th circuit decision also rests on the fact (which I wasn’t aware of until I browsed today’s decision) that in September of 2001, the CA Secretary of State had de-certified the punch-card system in use in those counties, and they were to be replaced by the election of March 2003.
I’ll let a lawyer explain the niceties (or appropriateness) of the equal protection claims, but in summary the court felt that in the counties where the old punch-card machines were being used there was some reasonable likelyhood of disenfranchings more than a few voters by not having thier votes counted, where residents of other counties would be less likely to have a problem since they were using certified (more reliable) voting systems.
There was also more than a bit of verbage in the decision explaining that the time to fix this is now, rather than after the election when anyone seeking redress would have no remedy, since, as we all saw in FL, it’s impossible to do a good count of the ‘chad’ ballots.
As an aside: I don’t see how a decision that helps to ensure votes are counted as accurately as possible in an orderly, per the explicit proclamation of the CA Secretary of State, could be construed as a ‘liberal’ decision.
My prediction - the same people who claim that the ‘equal protection’ concerns in the 2000 election were a sham will also claim that those same concerns are vitally important this time around.
No probably about it. The 9th Cir. should be split up. (Irregardless of politics, the administration of the court is out of control) But that is a topic for another day. I don’t think SCOTUS will take this case, especially since there is no deadline like there was in Bush v. Gore with declaring a President. It is also hard to argue with the SofS’s own declaration that the machines don’t work.
To those who would decry inconsistency from those disagreeing with Bush v. Gore, consider that “equal protection” should, regardless of case, translate to the opportunity for people’s votes to be counted, instead of not counted.
Yes, it does. You fill in little circles with a pen and it feeds into a machine that reads the ballot. It’s kind of like a Scantron test. At the end of the balloting, all of the results are sent to a central computer and the votes are tabulated almost instantly. It’s a great system.
My armchair QB prediction (guaranteed wrong or your money back! . . . (not a guarantee)) is that SCOTUS grants cert., reverses the injunction, and then doesn’t decide the issue until after the election.
I haven’t read the decision yet, but as someone that’s against the recall, I can’t help but wonder what would happen if Davis and the California legislature just refused to allocate money to buy new voting machines. No more elections in California? Davis and the current legislature get to stay in office forever?
How are people in the state reacting? Is it like you were all excited like it was going to snow but then it didn’t or is it “Thank God we don’t have to go through with that until March!” or just
I’m sure we’ll have polls about this very soon. It’s interesting, too, since as I understand it, the CA constitution states that a recall election must be held within 80 days of the cert. Personally, I think this is a bunch of BS. We’ve used these machines for years and one more election won’t hurt. Let’s get a timetable for upgrading the voting machines and get on with life. Chances are, the new voting machines will have as many if not more problems the first few times they’re used anyway.
Damn. Can’t even make a prediction without telling lies.
For the record. The liberals had no problem with the argument that there were equal protection issues in Florida.
The only problem that they had was that SCOTUS minor equal protection problems over major ones. We did not have a problem with the basic argument that there were equal protection issues in florida. Only that the equal protection issue involved in ‘standardless counting’ was demonstrably smaller than the equal protection issue resulting from wildly differerent normal error rates between various types of voting technologies.
Since the lack of standards in hand counting could only affect those ballots for which the machine had already failed to determine the voters intent, it is simply not possibly for the standardless hand count to have a larger effect than the basic machine-error in the first place.
And yet, SCOTUS treated the standardless counting problem as paramount, and ignored the fact that 10’s or even 100’s of times more ballots were discarded unread by machines in poor counties than those in rich ones.
Furthermore, the real objection to the ruleing in Bush v. Gore wasn’t the equal protection argument. It’s that SCOTUS chose to remedy the problems they found by preventing the counting entirely.
The identified a problem, disenfranchisment of a few, and solved it by disenfranchising even more.
And the corrupt part of the decision - stopping the count - was decided 5 to 4.
Courts can’t just reach out and issue judgments on their own. They can only rule on cases that litigants bring before them? So, did anyone bring a lawsuit in the federal courts challenging the previous election on that basis? If not, the lack of any decision by the 9th Circuit on this point in that election is irrelevant.
I think it’s straightforward. The Secretary of State decertified that method of counting ballots. Some counties would be using decertified equipment. Makes sense that it would be delayed until the certified equipment can be put in place.
True, but I gather that the Sec of State’s decision was simply one factor leading the 9th Circuit to conclude that holding the election with the old machines in some areas would breach the federal constitution? obviously, a provision of the state constitution has to give way to a conflicting provision of the federal constitution.
