Federal appeals court delays California gubernatorial recall election.

[MaineDem]

Just on Bloomberg. I'll look for the link

http://www.cnn.com/

CNN has the above as a breaking news headline. That's all I've benn able to find so far.

Another link. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aiPrGBO.9pmw&refer=home

Mods - the headline keeps changing, it seems, everytime they update their site.

[realFedUp]

1. What????

Did the higher court decision get made?

[Melinda]

2. Fed. 9th Circuit Ct. 3 Fed Judge Panel stops 10/7 Recall election

Overturns lower courts ruling that voters won't be disenfranched by using punch ballots in a minority (4 or 5) of counties. Justices said because there is a significant difference in error rate between the voting methods that the election must be stopped.

[Nederland]

38. FYI

The Fed. 9th Circuit Ct is overturned by the Supreme Court on a regular basis. I don't expect this ruling to survive appeal.

[mac56]

40. If they do, they'll have to give a reason, won't they?

It should involve some very interesting observations about the Selection.

[diplomats]

41. Someone on another thread said

this will go next to the California Supreme Court. Can anyone confirm that?

[realFedUp]

44. why would a Federal court go to the state Supreme Court?

I don't know.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

45. It can't. The Voting Rights Act is a federal matter.

[Melinda]

49. Actually, I have my doubts as to SCOTUS getting involved.

It's ultimately a state issue despite the fed question and CT rightly stepping in... Bush v Gore WILL come back to haunt SCOTUS if they do agree to hear it... just watch. ;)

[cally]

60. SCOTUS would really have to admit

that the selection decision was a mistake if they overrule this. I think that would help Dems overall if they overturn this. I don't think they will take it on.

[realFedUp]

79. Ya have to love this

the SCOTUS would have to twist themselves in further
knots defending Bush v Gore with this one.

and Republicans started this remember.

[Melinda]

80. Yes, I agree. Here is how the 9th Circuit applied Bush v Gore:

In this case, Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Clause claim mirrors the one recently analyzed by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). As the Supreme Court held in that case: “Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”

:evilgrin:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

78. They are not overturned anymore than other courts when one

considers that only about 10% of their cases are appealed. This is a myth.

[Nederland]

88. Not true

The Ninth Circuit is sharply ideologically divided, with its liberal rulings often the most liberal in the country. Between 1996 and 2000, the Supreme Court reviewed 90 cases from the Ninth Circuit, and reversed 77 of them. This case may add to the Circuit's dismal reversal statistics.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20011120.html

Ninth Circuit's reversal rate by the Supreme Court was 81 percent, and the average for all other courts was 57 percent.

http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/restructure.nsf/0/b1c7945a415d75d18825681e007e9301?OpenDocument

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

114. Not compared to the total number of cases they hear:

1. Reversals
There have been more cases from the Ninth Circuit to the Supreme Court than any other circuit in recent years. There have also been more cases decided by the Ninth Circuit in recent years than any other circuit. As set forth in the study by the Honorable Jerome Farris, a Ninth Circuit judge recently senior, in 1995 the Ninth Circuit decided 7,955 matters, in 1996 7,813, and in 1997 8,701. The percentage of reversals as against the total number of cases decided was 3/10 of 1%.

http://www.abanet.org/govaffairs/testimony/garvey9th.html

Most rumors about the 9th circuit are created by Repubs who have been trying to break it up for years in order to further stack the courts to their liking.
During the last several years, Supreme Court reversal rates of Ninth Circuit decisions have been consistent with that of other circuits. For example, during this past term, on a percentage basis, there were seven other circuits whose reversal rates exceeded ours. Perhaps more importantly, the number of petitions for certiorari granted by the Supreme Court arising out of decisions of the Ninth Circuit has declined significantly in recent years.

Even in the year most frequently cited by critics, 1996, our circuit was not the most reversed circuit on a percentage basis. That year, five circuits had all of their decisions reversed: the First, Second, Seventh, D.C., and Federal circuits. And since that time, we've had 14 new members added to our court.

All of this indicates that our opinions are receiving an appropriate amount of internal examination, and the consistency of our opinions does not vary from that of other circuits.


http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju80880.000/hju80880_0.HTM

[GinaMaria]

135. Great Post

Thanks for the info. I need to file this for future use.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

139. Glad I could be of assistance. Attacks on the 9th circuit are propaganda

They are one of the more consistent courts in the nation.

and :hi: you have been missed :D

[GinaMaria]

140. missed you too

Life threw me some curb balls. I'm trying to check in everyday and catch up. I've been reading a lot more than writing posts.I'm working on my conservative friend. She's actually a bit a of a dem, so I'm working that angle. Every vote counts and posts like yours are good to use to persuade her.

Good to see you again.

Peace,
GinaMaria

[joshcryer]

149. Thank you very much, that's very important to know.

Thank you. :)

[Nederland]

150. Read your own link

Keep in mind all these quotes come from the link you yourself posted.

The Ninth Circuit's number and rate of reversals is troubling. The number of unanimous reversals is perhaps even more troubling. Make no mistake about this—the reputation, which is founded in fact, has caused serious erosion in confidence for our federal circuit court.

The New York Times, generally considered to be the newspaper of record for the country, began its recent story on the pledge of allegiance decision with the following line: 'Over the last 20 years, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has developed a reputation for being wrong more often than any other federal appeals court. Adam Liptak, Court that Ruled on Pledge often runs Afoul of Justices, N.Y. Times, July 1, 2002.

and even more telling, this:

Moreover, the Supreme Court has unanimously reversed or vacated 26 Ninth Circuit decisions since 1998.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

152. Read my link a little closer, that was a Republican Atty gl of Idaho

that you quoted on behalf of the Republicans trying to bust up the 9th circuit court. The other link I provided from the ABA rebuts it quite nicely. PS...question for you...how many of those reversals were 5-4 decisions?

Here, you can read all about Lance on a Republican lawyer site:
http://www.rnla.org/bio/BioDetail.asp?MemberID=975

and "keep in mind" my posts on the matter cite NUMBERS and your cite is hyperbole with no facts attached.

[Booberdawg]

158. This post has come in handy

Just reading news on another website this morning and ran across this:

"Dave Gilliard, a political strategist for the group, said: “The 9th Circuit is the least respected and most overturned appeals court in the nation. These are renegade liberal judges who time and time again seek to make their own law, rather than follow law.”"

http://www.msnbc.com/news/945950.asp?0cv=CB10

And a response to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=344372#344477

[maveric]

151. I heard a freeper doctor use the Homer Simpson line,"DAMN DEMOCRATS!"

I just chuckled with glee as he mumbled something in disgust walking away from me.

[SilasSoule]

3. Yep CNN saying that at three judge panel in Pasadena

has enjoined.

[newyorican]

4. Well, I don't live in Cali, but...

Holy Shit!

[wryter2000]

5. What a farce

My poor state. I only hope this doesn't mean we'll just go through it all again in a couple of months.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. I think the Repubs will ask for an en banc decision

[realFedUp]

10. what's an en banc decision?

I guess this goes to the Supremes?

[Atlant]

13. En Banc means asking for all of the judges on the panel...

En Banc means asking for all of the judges on the panel to rule
on the decision, and not just the (three?) that voted so far.

Atlant

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. En banc is where they ask the entire court to rule

[realFedUp]

27. Are there five judges on the Appeals court?

so this was a majority who ruled?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

36. No there are 11 members..the three who ruled are considered

the most liberal judges on the court. One Carter appointee and two Clinton appointees.

[realFedUp]

47. Thanks for the info

You are a smart one.

[cally]

68. Do they have to agree to en banc review

Do you think they will agree to it and how do you think they will rule?

It gets to be more of a circus every day. I HATE this recall.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

71. Yes they have to agree to it. I think the result will remain the same

[cally]

84. Thanks...nt

[realFedUp]

8. I think it means it would be stayed til March

but I'm not a lawyer....This won't bode well for McClintock.

[proud patriot]

7. YEAH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A March vote , is better ...So now I'll be voting
No on the recall , No on 54 , Yes Bustamante,
and my vote in the Dem primary for President all
on one day :-)

:bounce: :bounce: :party: :bounce: :bounce:

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. wow

I don't know if this is such a good thing. Any more of a delay gives Arnold time to catch up.

I'd be more cautious about this news than happy if I were a California Dem.

[Dookus]

11. I'm a California Dem....

this is good.

Arnold won't catch up with more time and media attention.

If it's moved to March, the Recall will fail.

The only downside is listening to 6 more months of Arnold telling us up "audit everything: open the books!".

[THUNDER HANDS]

46. LOL

That's so funny because my parents just got back from a vacation to San Fran and they told me that all they heard on the news every night was Arnold saying "Open da books."

:)

I thought she was joking!

[magnolia]

74. I think this is great!

For one thing...California citizens will get to know Arnold better...and considering his past, that's not good for him. Also...the attention span of the general public is short. The novelty of Arnold will wear off...everyone will get to see him at some point and it'll get old fast. The comedians get lots of time to focus on him and come up with new jokes. We'll have forgotten how wonderful he was on "Oprah". The best thing is that Bush will continue to go down... and when he goes down he'll drag all repubs with him. And...there's time for Davis to do something good. Okay...I'm reaching now.

[GinaMaria]

141. over exposure is death to an actor's career

isn't it? Hope it does the same to Arnie's short lived political career. I wish for him nothing but media attention from now until March. People will be as tired of him as "Where's the Beef" and Chia Pets!

[ozone_man]

154. I agree on both counts.

Time is bad for Arnold and bad for Bush, since the economy will be getting much worse, not to mention the Iraq quagmire. Well, economy might hurt Gray some too, but Arnold won't survive 6 months.

[realFedUp]

15. More time isn't going to help Arnold

He's in this thing because he won't need a lot of votes,
he can't win in a regular election and more stuff keeps
coming out about him.

[BrotherBuzz]

17. Good

A March vote coupled with the Democratic primary means lots of dems turning out.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. March favors Dems as long as Dems maintain an edge in

registration. We have approximately 1.3 million more Dems in the state than Repubs.

[PurityOfEssence]

37. Yes, but...

Keeping this circus alive until AFTER the primary season may well be over will just suck more oxygen out of the political coverage. Lesser-known candidates trying to get traction will be even more crowded out of the airtime.

The pendulum seems to be swinging a bit toward Davis, too, and it may be a good thing to strike next month and put an end to it.

Then again, it's mighty complex. It's also good to stop the stampede and somehow suggest that it's "not the right thing to do", which will be at least intimated should it be delayed.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

48. It allows Dems to raise more funds and attach this to the general election

It also allows us to make the recall issue moot by ratcheting up the manner in which Repubs actually BLOCKED the budget and FORCED the increase in vehicle license fees.

[AnnabelLee]

22. I had the same thought

The polls (if you believe them) are showing that the majority is seeing the recall as unfair; mightn't it be best to get the vote done while the pendulum has swung in that direction?:shrug:

Disclaimer: I'm not a Californian, & have not been following this story as closely as some here on DU.

[monobrau]

25. Who loses?

I'm inclined to think that Arnold and Davis have the most to lose here, and Bustamonte and Mclintock have the most to gain from time.
That's just pure speculation, but I think that Arnold's name recognition factor is already wearing off, and this gives him more time to say something stupid. And love him or hate him, Davis is not going to get any more popular.

[realFedUp]

30. I think McClintock is up for re-election next year

so if he became governor, that would be moot, but
he needs to re-run for the state Senate...so
he'll be out unless he decides to forgo his Senate
election and keep running for gov.
The amount of money in his State Senate campaign
coffers is $241,267.09.

[Nederland]

83. Agree

I'm inclined to agree with you. In order for the recall to fail, Davis has to get more votes than he did last time--a difficult feat given the state things are in. Likewise, I don't think this is a good thing for Arnold either. Personally, I think Bustamonte is the big winner here. I agree that Mclintock will benfit from the delay, but he is simply too far right to win more votes than Bustamonte.

[realFedUp]

91. McClintock will have to choose-State Senate or Governor

That is the most interesting question after this
recall date is set....My guess is he drops out
to re-run for State Senate where he can win his
seat. He can't win for governor because he's too
conservative.

[CMT]

12. Good Grief

This will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

[jos]

16. A lot of people thought this was coming

If it holds up under en banc review. I'd love to see the Supreme Court take this and try to distinguish Bush v. Gore.

Great news though! If recall is in March, it will be on the date of the Dem. primary!:bounce:

[TacticalPeek]

42. Bush v . Gore?

Breath is wasted here. The Furtive Five pre-discredited their own decision, and it is unavailable as precedent. Ah, the law.

[Melinda]

95. Read Bush* v Gore again - look at the legal cites relied upon

You'll see they include almost, if not all, the exact same citations and well settled law that the instant case relied on... there is no way that SCOTUS can consider this case without having Bush* v. Gore right in their faces and THAT is the beauty of it -- Bush* precedence reliance or not. The issue is EQUAL PROTECTION, not Bush* - it's just ironic that the very same laws and arguments Bush* used to steal FL and OUR WH looks to bite the GOP in the ass.

And that's beaaautiful. :evilgrin:

[calimary]

110. I'm a Californian and I think this is one of many truths.

I wonder if the Supreme Court would even be willing to take this case. They've received quite a bit of flack for Selection 2000. It WOULD INDEED be right back in their faces.

Further, if they do, and they rule for the rethugs, it will only FURTHER INFLAME California Dems. We are already UP-TO-HERE, out here. It's our cities, like Arcata and Santa Cruz, that are passing local measures calling for bush to be impeached. It's our Congresswoman, Barbara Lee of Oakland, who led the opposition to the Iraq vote in Congress. It's our Congressman, Henry Waxman (MINE, actually) who's leading the charge against the energy task force coverup by dick cheney, and the 9-11 investigation, and so much more. It's us who went resoundingly for Gore and have done the most for the advancement of Howard Dean. California does not slant republican. Heck, the best the rethugs can do, on which they can pin any hope, is Ahnold, who isn't even a "good" republican.

Either way, the rethugs lose. If the Supremes say yes and vote with the rethugs, that will lure Dems to the polls like yellowjackets to a picnic table full of sushi.

If the Supremes don't get involved, or uphold the 9th Circuit Court, it means a delay of the recall until next March, which just happens to be in time for the presidential primary. That, too, will mobilize and draw out legions and legions of angry, outraged Dems. And Ahnold will be finished. Furthermore, it gets the short-attention-span feel-good-hug-Oprah folks farther away from the shameful Ahnold-and-Maria show on Oprah just today. As my husband said earlier this morning, "Ahnold will have to hide for six months." He'll have to find a way to avoid the debates, he'll have to raise more money, and fight off the funky stories that keep coming up about him. Tom McClintock may decide to throw it in because he's got his own little State Senate seat to reapply for and may realize it's too uphill a battle if he lingers. So it'll be Ahnold.

Further, Ahnold will lose in the polls. More and more people will grow more skeptical of him, as the glitter and glamour continue to wear off. Further, as the polls have been trending - the recall is slowly losing support. Not quickly, or decisively, but it's losing steam. The No on recall numbers are within striking distance of the Yes's and on the upswing. The Yes's are trending down. Furher, Bustamante gains more time to build his case and further woo Hispanics - a group not to be trifled with out here anymore, because the numbers are trending most mightily their way. More and more people at the moment are seeing the recall as unfair. I forget the figures but they're gaining ground, too. Not a majority yet, but, as time goes on, if the current trend holds, that will eventually be the case.

FURTHERMORE - it could almost be hoped that the Supremes do overturn the appeals court. BECAUSE... it would effectively mean the rethugs have done the unthinkable: turning Gray Davis into a martyr. And that's one they can't win, no matter how much money they throw at it.

For rethugs in general, I think it would be wise to thumb through some books of old sayings and moldy proverbs and cliches for this one: "Be careful what you ask for. You might get it."

I was in a mean mood earlier. Obviously, now, I no longer am.

[Melinda]

118. And here is one more truth.......

After living on the right side of the USA for the last seven years I am now fully returned to and living in my beloved California :loveya: And with today's ruling I'll have fufilled all residency requirements in plenty of time to register and vote in the March 2003 election. That is, to me, so wonderfully sweeeeet. :)

And I love the way your mind works, Mary - If I nod in agreement with you any further I am in danger of developing a kink in my neck. Great post. :hi:

[Zhade]

125. Hey! Waxman is my rep too!

That means we live near each other. Cool! I've always wanted to find a DUer in SaMo (outside of my own house, that is).

Are there others? Does everyone gather to discuss strategy? Are there bagels? ;)

[ronnykmarshall]

126. Mine too!

I'm in WeHo.

[Zhade]

127. Sweet!

We should have a Westside DU Meetup soon! I think our activist community could use some fresh additions - we always need more, ya know? :)

[calimary]

144. Sounds like fun to me!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

128. Maybe we should all go have drinks and celebrate tonight no matter

how brief the celebration may be. :D

[Zhade]

130. I get off work at 10:30 tonight, otherwise I'd LOVE to!

I work 1200-2230 Fri-Mon, with a 3-day weekend every week (!), so my off time is often at odds with friends'. Le sigh.

However, I'm totally open to meeting up with people! I love hanging out with fellow progressive neocon-haters.
:evilgrin:

EDIT: I'm free tomorrow, though! :D

[ronnykmarshall]

133. I'm always at Marix

for brunch on Saturday. Great place to meet up and plot the overthrow of the government. AND great maragritas!

[newyorican]

18. HAHAHAHA, turn on FOX!! They're eating their own livers!!!

Liberal Judges!!! BWAHAHAHA


Take that Karl...

[Zech Marquis]

19. hahahahaa bend over and take THAT, you neo con Nazis!!!

Now Arnuld looks even dumber o going on Orpha :evilgrin:

[Melinda]

21. "Secretary of State is enjoined from conducting the Oct. 7th Election"

The 9th circuits order is stayed for 7 days so the parties can appeal -- any appeal would go back to the same 3 judges OR the entire 9th circuit court OR to the SCOTUS w/O'Connor sitting over review.

Way, way cool.

[leftyandproud]

28. don't ya just love those "activist" judges??

hehe...screw the freepers...we win! ;)

[realFedUp]

53. I like judges who judge fairly

and the punch card system court decision had been made.
It was just a matter of reasserting that decision

[realFedUp]

23. Just remember how much this has cost the state of CA

to print the ballots, voter guides, postage, all for
an election paid for by Republican losers.

[benfranklin1776]

34. Yes something to remind the voters of whenever

AHNALD blathers on about financial responsibility. I hope this effectively ends his farcical attempt to hijack democracy.

[ronnykmarshall]

51. Just mailed my ballot

My guess is if the delay is upheld, then my ballot will be voided.

[Zhade]

131. Yeah. "Thanks", fascists, for making ME pay to make my own vote worthless!

NT!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

24. EXCELLENT NEWS!

This CA voter is thrilled right now! :)

[catmandu57]

26. I don't think this is good news for ahnold

This gives people time to turn over all the rocks, and see just what they would have been buying. I just hope they don't install diebold machines.

[mac56]

29. It also screws up any plans he had to make another movie soon.

nm

[Zhade]

132. Too late.

12 polling places in Santa Monica alone are/were slated to use touch-screen voting machines for early voting.

Interestingly, I just learned yesterday that there's a public comment meeting in Sacramento on October 9th - two days after the recall election, before today's excellent ruling. So now, there's a good chance of having that meeting before the recall, if it still happens, and time to address the issue prior to the primary in March.

Which reminds me: anti-BBV activists, do we have any ideas for monitoring of elections, assuming the fight to get rid of these machines will take a long, long time?

[Davis_X_Machina]

31. the Supreme Court .... try to distinguish Bush v. Gore

<Nelson Muntz>

HA-HA!

</Nelson Muntz>

Who says appellate law is never funny?

[realFedUp]

58. and those chickens are coming home to roost

Not only will state Republicans get screwed by moving
this to March, but maybe we'll even get a recount in Florida
(not really, but Bush v Gore will be scrutinized again)

[realFedUp]

32. Really bad news for Republicans

Ya have to love politics.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

33. Yes!

This is good news! A stay til March would mean a much larger Dem voter turnout (Dem primary). Hate to see it dragged out, and I have been optimistic about Davis' chances on Oct. 7, but this is good news.

[nomaco-10]

35. Repubs couldn't win, now they can't steal it....

using punch card voting machines in poor neighborhoods. A great day for Californians and a great day for bringing awareness about voting machines. Wonder if Bev and others had a hand in this.

[Nederland]

43. It might be the opposite

The ruling seems to imply that since paper ballots are prone to high error rates it would be preferable to wait until the computerized voting systems were in place...

[realFedUp]

50. The Inkadot system seemed to be the way....

Yes, just heard that in LA County and probably others,
the Inkadot system will replace the punch cards...still
an optical scanner system until all counties have
touch screens.

[TacticalPeek]

52. There may be a nasty twist here, to be avoided.

I believe this was filed objecting to punch cards, as opposed to (pretty much) touch screen technology; poor vs rich, kinda.

So no real hooks to hang voter-verified-paper-ballots on yet, except by implication. It is a step toward recognizing voting method as relevant to voting rights, I think.

[nomaco-10]

62. Any and all info that gets out to

the public in regards to voting methods and efforts to stop election theft is helpful. Punch card litigation today may lead to verified paper trail voting tomorrow.

[Vikingking66]

39. well, aint this a howdy do?

Ah, sweet sweet justice.
Now if we could only pull something off in Texas...

[realFedUp]

54. CNN's BS

looks unhappy about this decision.

[newyorican]

57. Foxnews has a bad case of "panty bunch"

:D

[realFedUp]

63. LOL-Major wedgies for Republicans today.

Don't ya just love justice for all.

[calimary]

115. Dear God, there go those gop sphincter muscles!

Karma's a bitch, ain't it?

[mac56]

64. Has anybody stuck their head in to see how the Freepers are handling this?

nm

[newyorican]

70. here...freeps with their nads on fire.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/982861/posts

[ronnykmarshall]

86. LOL!

I don't normally view that shit, but it's fun to see them with a bug up their collective ass. (after they remove their heads)

[DemVet]

55. This is a Repube ploy.....

to get computer touch screen ballots into action. Outmoded voting machines my butt. This is a sneaky-assed plot with W stamped all over it. x(

[realFedUp]

65. This isn't what they want

And a lot of people will vote by absentee ballot next time.

[chadm]

143. I agree

This is an attempt to rig elections forever by turning the process over to the likes of Diebold.

[T Roosevelt]

56. But this could be a problem

"A federal appeals court postponed California's Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election, ruling the historic vote cannot proceed as scheduled because some votes would be cast using outmoded punch-card ballot machines."

Hmmm...

[papau]

59. CNN link - note the order is "stayed" for 7 days to allow appeal

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

[truthisfreedom]

61. washington post link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13550-2003Sep15?language=printer

[Rose Siding]

66. Here's a link to the opinion

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/24CB44D4ABF7AFD088256DA2005DA6D6/$file/0356498.pdf?openelement

[ronnykmarshall]

67. AM radio jerks

are probably have fits right now. I can only image what those two assholes, John and Ken or Larry Elders :puke: will be spewing this afternoon.

[calimary]

117. All three of them can get lockjaw for all I care.

I used to like John and Ken. Then they turned fascist. And they're still on that damned Limbaugh/Dr. Laura station.

[ronnykmarshall]

134. KFI is fascist radio.

John and Ken are total pricks. I miss Gill Gross and Michael Jackson on the old 570. There is NO lefty radio in LA on AM.

[Melinda]

69. Courts Ruling; TEXT:

On October 7, 2003, California voters will be asked to cast a ballot on some of the most important issues facing the State, including an unprecedented vote on the recall of a governor. However, forty-four percent of the electorate will be forced to use a voting system so flawed that the Secretary of State has officially deemed it “unacceptable” and banned its use in all future elections. 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. Compounding the problem is the fact that approximately a quarter of the state’s polling places will not be operational because election officials have insufficient time to get them ready for the special election, and that the sheer number of gubernatorial candidates will make the antiquated voting system far more difficult to use.

Plaintiffs allege that the use of the obsolete voting systems in some counties rather than others will deny voters equal protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution. They seek to postpone the vote until the next regularly scheduled statewide election six months from now, when the Secretary of State has assured that all counties will be using acceptable voting equipment, and all the polls will be open. We agree that the issuance of a preliminary injunction is warranted and reverse the order of the district court.

*edited to add this gem from the ruling:

In this case, Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Clause claim mirrors the one recently analyzed by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). As the Supreme Court held in that case: “Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”

[KamaAina]

72. State officials are planning to appeal? WHY?!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20030915/ap_on_el_gu/davis_recall_709

State officials, who conceded in court documents that the punch-card voting mechanisms are "more prone to voter error than are newer voting systems," were likely to appeal the case to the nation's top court.

Aren't all the state officials Dems? Isn't that why the Repukes want this so badly? Why would they appeal when they could just let it happen in March -- when millions of Dems, and no Repukes, will be voting in the Presidential primary?!

[jiacinto]

73. They have to

They don't have a choice. They have to proceed with the recall and defend it even if they may not support it.

[KamaAina]

85. Why, then, did the article say they were "likely to" appeal?

Sloppy reporting, no doubt: par for the course here in dumbed-down, Leave No Future Short-Order Cook Behind America :(

[newyorican]

75. Brit Hume looking pretty pissed

Saying the court doesn't have jurisdiction.

Mr. Irritable Bowel Syndrome

[nomaco-10]

77. Yep, I was watching. They are not amused by this. LMAO

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

81. Court has no jurisdiction on a federal matter? Funny, they did in B v G.

[realFedUp]

96. Tweety's looking tweaked too.

doing the pundit pout!

[realFedUp]

101. Tweety trying to make hay out of Bustamante and Gray relationship

What a dick.

[jiacinto]

76. SC won't hear it

They didn't hear the NJ GOP's case last year.

[Imajika]

89. jiacinto

"They didn't hear the NJ GOP's case last year."

That is because it was not a Federal court that made the ruling. The New Jersey Supreme court properly decided a state issue in New Jersey. In this case a Federal Court got involved which makes it much more likely that the US Supreme Court takes the case.

I don't know if they will, but it is possible.

Imajika

[jiacinto]

153. They won't

After Bush V Gore they will not touch elections related cases.

[shirlden]

82. If this goes to the Supremes

they will have to let the election go on. After all they allowed a presidential election to be decided with these same machines, they can not now reverse that for California.
How this will all play out (for us or against us) is anyone's guess at this point. Anything that draws attention to our cruddy election system is good.


:bounce:

[Melinda]

90. No, you are wrong on this...

Look at Bush v. Gore again.

From the opinion:

Plaintiffs argue that the use of defective voting systems creates a substantial risk that votes will not be counted. In addition, they claim that the use of defective voting systems in some counties and the employment of far more accurate voting systems in other counties denies equal protection of the laws by impermissibly diluting voting strength of the voters in counties using defective voting systems. In
short, the weight given to votes in non-punchcard counties is greater than the weight given to votes in punchcard counties because a higher proportion of the votes from punchcard counties are thrown out. Thus, the effect of using punchcard voting systems in some, but not all, counties, is to discriminate on the basis of geographic residence.

This is a classic voting rights equal protection claim. As the Supreme Court explained in Bush, “‘the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.’” 531 U.S. at 105 (quoting Reynolds, 377 U.S. at
555). Further, the “‘idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government.’” Id. at 107 (quoting Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 819 (1969)). As the Court stated much earlier in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 8 (1964), “To say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would . . . run
counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government . . . .”

[Imajika]

87. My first reaction...

...is that this is a terrible decision. The 9th Circuit should have stayed out of it. This is nearly as disgraceful as when the US Supreme Court stepped in and gave the Presidency to Bush in 2000.

How is this a federal issue? Did not California use these voting machines just last year when Davis was reelected? How have circumstances changed?

I'm sorry, but this is a case of left leaning judges siding with Democrats (in this case the ACLU), no different from when the right leaning Supreme Court sided with Republicans when it trumped Florida law and decided to make Bush President.

It seems the Federal courts believe they now have a green light to interfere in State elections. The US Supreme Court started this when they took Bush v Gore. The Supremes should not have taken that case. Now the 9th Circuit feels it has license to butt in to a State election matter that does not even involve a House member, Senator or President.

This follows on a terrible precedent set by the US Supreme Court. I fear we will see more of this sort of nonsense.

Imajika

[nomaco-10]

93. No, the repubs set the precedent in 2000

Ordnarily I'd agree with you and you're sense of fair play and jurisprudence, but 2004 changed all that for me. I am no longer that democrat whose mantra is "why can't we all just get along". You know what, because we just can't, the differences are too vast and the stakes are too high. If we get a repuke govenor in Ca, and even more devasting, 4 more years of bush*, we'll be wishing we'd done more to stop them any way we could.

[realFedUp]

99. you are wrong

this is a decision actually based on a decision the court
had to make about the differences in the different voting
systems and the fact that the more disfunctional system:
the punch card system was in poorer counties, making
their votes counted less.

You are wrong.

[Imajika]

104. Really?

"this is a decision actually based on a decision the court had to make about the differences in the different voting systems and the fact that the more disfunctional system: the punch card system was in poorer counties, making their votes counted less."

I would bet that nearly every state in the Union has different voting techniques and machines in different parts of their state. Does that mean all voting should be delayed until this is rectified? Why do the 2002 elections count in California? The counties in question had the punch card ballots at that time, while much of the state had more advanced technology?

I live in Virginia, we have different voting machines all over the State. Should elections be postponed until every voting machine is the same?

This is a case of left leaning judges siding with the Democrats. No different than when the right leaning Supreme Court sided with Bush and the Republicans.

The US Supreme Court set a terrible precedent, and this is the result. That the Supreme Court made a historic blunder by taking Bush v Gore does not make this 9th Circuit ruling any better.

You watch. Federal Courts all over will start getting involved in what should be a State issue. This is not a good decision.

Imajika

[Melinda]

109. Yes, really.

Couple reasons led CA to this place. You ask:

>"Why do the 2002 elections count in California?"<

Simple answer: HAVA was not enacted into law by Congress until 10/2002. Required date to comply is 2004.

>"Should elections be postponed until every voting machine is the same?"<

According to the previously stated decision of the CA Sec. of State, they should be in CA until compliance w/HAVA. The court used the Sec's previous actions (uniform voting equipment in all CA counties by 03/04) and opinions as one of the basis for today's ruling -- look at this part of the courts opinion again:

"However, forty-four percent of the electorate will be forced to use a voting system so flawed that the Secretary of State has officially deemed it “unacceptable” and banned its use in all future elections."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

119. Not to mention that given the districts where punchcards are used,

if anything, it more likely than not means Davis won by an even larger margin. Newport beach uses opti-scan with a far lower margin of error.

[realFedUp]

92. Arianna thinks this is good news

I don't see how this is good news for her, unless
she drops out and goes back to writing.

[Cush]

94. FOX NEws

is talking to the head of CA's GOP Chairman

[nomaco-10]

98. I've been watching it too. They are foaming at the mouth. HILARIOUS

[realFedUp]

97. you can just see the e-mails flying

between the White House and David Dreier.

[nomaco-10]

100. This whole thing is not about faulty

voting machines, it's about delaying the recall election til March, a good stradegy by the dems in my opinion. The great by product of all this will be, finally BBV may get the media attention it deserves. It's a win win situation for us.

[ronnykmarshall]

102. BBV?

'splain, Lucy 'splain!

[mac56]

137. BBV = "Black Box Voting"

Electronic voting systems that do not provide a paper trail (e.g., touchscreen).

[ronnykmarshall]

138. Thanks, Mac!

[slackmaster]

120. I've never had a problem with the voting machines in San Diego Co.

They've always worked perfectly for me. Never a dangling or hanging chad in 27 years of voting.

[chadm]

123. get a clue

www.blackboxvoting.com. Its about how the votes are counted.

[ronnykmarshall]

124. Get a CLUE??

What a NICE way to get your point across.

[slackmaster]

148. That is not the justification cited by the 9th Circuit

Here's a link to the actual decision:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/24CB44D4ABF7AFD088256DA2005DA6D6/$file/0356498.pdf?openelement

Call me a Luddite, but as a computer systems integrator and administrator I prefer paper ballots because they are visible without electronic gadgetry. They have mass and take up space. They can be guarded by multiple people who can keep an eye on each other, and unless consumed in a fire or flood they can always recounted manually if something goes wrong with the process.

[realFedUp]

103. Clinton on

At a school that's being renamed for him. Yeah!

[goobergunch]

105. Good!

This is probably good for us, because the recall will be on the same ballot as the Democratic primary...hugely increasing our turnout. I do worry that the recall could overshadow the presidential primary in the national media.

As for appeal...en banc is most likely, but I wouldn't rule out a SCOTUS review.

[realFedUp]

106. McClintock says he thinks Supreme Court will reverse this decision

yeah, he better hope otherwise he's out.

[GRClarkesq]

107. Bad for Arnold

Arnold cant duck questions until March. His only hope was a quick election without too much time to look him over. May be good for McClintock, especially since he seemed to gain some ground in the last LA Times poll. Conservatives keep looking for just one reason to vote for Arnold and he keeps dissappointing, with more time to consider that may just switch to McClintock.

I have no idea how this helps/hurst the recall. Davis seems like a dead man still walking around most of the time. Bustamante could use this time to improve his campaign.

[Nottingham]

108. Whoo Hoo! I love to see Brit Hume Pout!

:bounce:

[BadGimp]

111. The Rethuglican Ace in the Hole: SCOTUS

"I've got to believe that if this decision stands, the U.S. Supreme Court will intervene for the people of California," added GOP strategist Dan Schnur." FAUXnews

[peterh]

112. Hmmm…already sent in my absentee ballot…

I guess I’m a bit ambivalent about this farce getting delayed. On the one hand, the public hopefully will have more time to educate themselves on the idiots running and what a travesty this whole thing is, yet, to be subjected 24/7 to this circus for another 5 months could send voter apathy to new depths. And then there’s the cost, it might be minor in light of everything else that’s being spent, but to toss all the existing ballots and re-issue won’t be cheap either.

Fuck it….let’s just get it over with and move the focus back to the fuckhead in D.C.

[Judi Lynn]

113. New Reuters article

(snip) California court halts Arnie's election bid
Mon 15 September, 2003 20:09 BST



By Gina Keating

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - In a political bombshell, a U.S. court has halted California's recall election -- in which Arnold Schwarzenegger is running -- due to problems with punch card voting machines.

"The Secretary of State is enjoined from conducting an election on any issue on October 7, 2003," a three-member panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in its 66-page opinion that sent immediate shockwaves through the state.

The court has left seven days for appeals. (snip/...)

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=373281§ion=news

[Democat]

155. Right wing media bias exposed in that Reuters article

Why do they mention Arnold in the first sentence and not any Democrat?

"Liberal media" again.

[Ganja Ninja]

116. The longer all this drags on the better.

The better it is for the Democrats. People don't have a very long attention span so if it's delayed till march most people will say to hell with it why bother.

[slackmaster]

159. That's apparently what the people who sought the delay are thinking

Not a safe assumption IMO.

I think the delay is a major mistake that will mobilize additional voters against the ACLU and the Democrats who sought it and therefore Democrats and Davis supporters in general.

For people unfamiliar with the California election system, we have a partly "open" primary in which independent voters (known here as Declined To State or DTS) can choose to vote in the primary of any party that accepts votes from DTS voters. Presently all the major parties do accept DTS voters, who now account for about 15% of registered voters in California. That number is growing all the time mostly out of frustration with the Republican and Democratic parties.

The Democratic Party does not need millions of angry DTS voters deliberately disrupting the selection of a candidate for President. If they all vote for someone other than the front-runner out of revenge it could affect the national results.

[Booberdawg]

160. Whaaaa???

Wait - as I read that first sentence again - I think you're saying it will mobilize voters against the ACLU AND AGAINST the Democrats who sought it AND THEREFORE AGAINST Democrats and Davis supporters in general. Is that correct?

I don't agree though - just the opposite is likely to happen and the momentum is in Davis's favor now. Higher voter turnout in the general primary election in March only favors the Democrats/Davis. There are over a million more registered Democrats than registered Republicans in CA. Which, I presume do not include DTS voters.

I don't know why voters turning out in March specifically for either the primary candidate or the recall vote would be a disruption for the other. What do you mean they could vote for "someone other than the front runner out of revenge it could affect the national results?" It's a STATE primary and a STATE Governer, and one might vote (usually does) for someone other than the "front runner" for reasons other than revenge.

[slackmaster]

161. Yes, I'm saying the "delay at all cost" strategy carries that risk

Higher voter turnout in the general primary election in March only favors the Democrats/Davis.

With only 52% of Democrats saying they plan to vote No on the recall according to the last Field Poll I read, it may not make much of a difference.

There are over a million more registered Democrats than registered Republicans in CA. Which, I presume do not include DTS voters.

DTS plus Republicans equals more than 50% of registered voters. Democrats are a plurality and not a majority. Here is a link to the latest registration stats:

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ror/regstats_08-08-03.pdf

It's a STATE primary and a STATE Governer...

AND the election of who California Democrats think should be the nominee for President of the United States in 2004. The California Democratic Party will accept votes from DTSers in the primary election. DTS voters could all choose to vote in a manner that would be disruptive to the national party. Don't bet the farm on that not happening.

[Booberdawg]

163. 52% say no NOW. And that is after a continuous GAIN

in 6 months it ONLY GETS BETTER. I will just agree to disagree on this point.

The link you gave me came up blank. But I don't know why DTS voters in California would be any different than Independant voters in ANY state. There is just as much chance they could vote AGAINST the recall as for it. It's not appropriate to count them as a gain for the Republican side.

My argument is the same for the primary candidate. Of course I know what a state primary is, we have one in Iowa too for heavens sake and we also have registered Independants. Again I do not accept an argument that DTS voters are so shallow that would vote to get revenge for the recall being delayed. That is just nonsense. And again you are assuming that all these DTSers are siding with the Republican point of view, and I reject that argument as well.

So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree all the way around.

;-)

on edit: finally got that link to work - acrobat was updating

[slackmaster]

164. You're probably right, I like to be aware of worst-case scenarios

I think some of the optimism posted here borders on irrational exuberance if not hubris. Maybe it's my self-doubting Protestant upbringing or maybe I've become jaded by reading too many financial disclosures, but counting on any trend in chaotic data to continue into the future carries risk of being wrong.

There is plenty of time for Davis to make mistakes. The same can be said of Arnold Schwarzenegger of course.

[Booberdawg]

165. I'm pretty cynical myself

Especially when it comes to the current administration and Republicans in general. I could be wrong, but I've been watching this and I've grown a bit more optimistic about what is going on in California lately because I've seen the momentum going in Davis's favor and action being taken by the Dems out there.

Sure, anything could happen in 6 months. But gawd, can Schwarzenegger possibly stand 6 months of scrutiny? Jeezus Christ, the man is an idiot?!?!?

Still have to see if the USSC takes it up. Conventional wisdom says they won't. We'll see.

:hi:

[onehandle]

121. This could be bad....

Davis was doing well. Bustamante was doing well. With that much extra time McClintock is more likely to pull out. This will take away from the Presidential candidate's air time.

I've been feeling pretty good about Davis's chances for the last few days...now....

Ah, well. At least Davis has the Big Dog in his corner.

[chadm]

122. This is all thanks to Bev and team!!!!!

HOLY SHIT.

[chadm]

145. scratch that.

[underpants]

129. Was this the same judge who delayed the Ben&J.LO wedding?

:shrug:

[ronnykmarshall]

136. You are BAD!!

:silly:

[chadm]

142. Wait?

This is because of punch-card voting? They want to install new machines first? What masters are these judges serving? The whole punch-card-as-problem thing was a Republican ploy to get rigged machines installed...presumably Diebold machines.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

146. It is my understanding that Shelley favors a paper trail.

Is that not correct?

[ronnykmarshall]

147. Yes.

That was my understanding during the race in 2002.

[scottxyz]

156. "They're hoisting the Supreme Court on its own petard"

I laughed when I read that quote from a San Fran law professor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/national/16LEGA.html?ex=1064289600&en=1d7150c6f5a60b27&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Bush v. Gore Outlives Its Limited Warranty for Use in California
...
"They're hoisting the Supreme Court on its own petard," said Vikram Amar, a professor at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.

[scottxyz]

157. Could someone post the link to Bev's intro to BBV

Several people on this Cali recall thread have pointed out how this court decision can support Bev Harris and the other activists who are trying to prevent the paperless, insecure, easily riggable "Black Box Voting" systems from being used in elections.

Several other people have posted questions as to what "BBV" is all about.

This would be a great chance to let more DUers know about the BBV situation.

Could someone post a link to Bev's earlier posting (I think it was in General Discussion) which contained an intro to the BBV issue?

In the meantime, people can also look at
www.blackboxvoting.org

[TrogL]

162. CBC announcers were trying not to laugh

Described the situation as "a circus" and "utter chaos" and made a lot of mention of Florida and Bush vs. Gore.