Here is the full story from the "Times", LL.
Full Appeals Court May Hear Arguments on California Recall
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 - A federal appeals court said today that it might review Monday's decision by a three-judge panel that called for a postponement of California's gubernatorial-recall election.
In a brief midday order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asked the parties in the case to file briefs ``not to exceed 15 pages or 7,000 words'' giving their views on whether the case should be heard by the full court.
The briefs are due by 2 p.m. Wednesday, Pacific time. The court is expected to decide quickly whether to review the three-judge panel's decision and, if it does review it, to hand down a ruling very soon.
For the moment, the panel's ruling on Monday remains intact, though at the same time it issued the decision, the panel stayed it for seven days to give backers of the recall time to appeal. That is, the Oct. 7 recall election would still be postponed, unless the full Ninth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court overturns it. If the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit does sustain the panel's ruling that the election be postponed, those who want it to be held on Oct. 7 are likely to pursue their case in an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
With several dozen judges, counting those on senior status, the Ninth is the largest of the federal circuits. A case is typically heard by 11 judges.
Today's chapter was only the latest in an extraordinary episode in American politics.
When the panel ruled on Monday, backers of the recall immediately expressed a determination to appeal, and even Gov. Gray Davis tempered his enthusiasm for the ruling, noting that there was no guarantee that it would withstand inevitable challenges.
The panel of the Ninth Circuit agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union and other plaintiffs that holding the election on Oct. 7 as scheduled would be wrong because some votes would be cast on outdated punch-card machines, making them less likely to be counted.
``This is a classic voting rights equal-protection claim,'' the panel declared, holding that voters using punch-card machines would be denied their equal rights in violation of the Constitution because that technology is obsolete and unreliable.
Still, the court stayed its ruling for a week to allow proponents of the recall time to appeal to the full court - or higher - ``if they so desire.''
And depending on what the full Ninth Circuit does, an appeal to the highest court appears likely. ``Give us 24 hours,'' Ted Costa, head of the Sacramento-based Peoples' Advocate, one of the groups behind the recall, told The Associated Press after Monday's ruling. ``We'll get something off to the Supreme Court.''
If Mr. Costa and his allies do not like the outcome in the Ninth Circuit, they may apply to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the United States Supreme Court, who hears applications from the Ninth Circuit.
Justice O'Connor could act on the application herself, setting aside Monday's ruling or allowing it to stand, or she could refer it to the full Supreme Court without acting on it, in which case the justices might reconvene from summer recess in emergency session to hear the case.
And if the parties applying to Justice O'Connor did not like her response, they could seek out other justices for relief and possibly a hearing before the full court.
Thus, it is possible both that the Oct. 7 recall election will go on or that it will be postponed, most likely until March 2, the next regularly scheduled primary election day in California. Whatever is to happen will probably be determined soon, since the courts are known to act quickly when there is an overriding necessity.
But for the moment, at least, the action remains in the Ninth Circuit. Its panel's decision was heartening to Democrats and Governor Davis, who has been fiercely battling the drive to recall him and has argued that the election timetable is too short.
The ruling on Monday was a triumph - temporary or otherwise for - the American Civil Liberties Union and the other parties arguing that the recall campaign was a hasty, ill-advised way to decide Governor Davis's political fate.
The court referred repeatedly to ``hanging chads'' and ``dimpled chads'' and other previously arcane terms that became household words in the legal battle over Florida ballots in 2000 that vaulted Gov. George Bush of Texas into the White House by a tiny margin over Vice President Al Gore.
The three-judge panel, overturning a Federal District Court ruling of a few weeks ago, said it recognized the seriousness of delaying an election, and did not do so lightly.
But the impact of having millions of Californians vote with outmoded technology, and thus being less likely to have their voices heard, was just too serious, the panel held.
The counties involved include the state's most populous region, Los Angeles, in addition to Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara and Solano. They represented 44 percent of the state's registered voters during the 2000 election.
nytimes.com |
