Why am I not surprised? They will overturn the decision next week. Maybe order some extra poll watchers, etc, to make it look good.
Appeals Court Will Reconsider Recall Delay
By DAVID STOUT - NEW YORK TIMES
ASHINGTON, Sept. 19 — A federal appeals court in San Francisco today effectively dissolved a decision by three of its member judges to postpone the Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall vote in California, meaning the election is on again, unless the full court or the United States Supreme Court rules otherwise.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it would rehear the case on Monday, at 1 p.m. Pacific time in San Francisco.
The Ninth Circuit said a majority of the court's active judges had voted to review the three-judge panel's decision. There are 26 active Ninth Circuit judges; a panel of 11 judges will hear the case on Monday.
The Ninth Circuit announcement made no comment on the merits of the case. But the fact that a majority of the judges wanted to take another look at the panel's decision could be a good omen for the forces that want the recall vote to go ahead as scheduled on Oct. 7.
Some political analysts believe that Governor Davis's chances of holding on to his office will improve if the vote is not held on Oct. 7. They theorize that the more time that goes by, the more the anger that has driven the recall movement will dissipate. Others believe that a delay will hurt him because over the next few months he will have to deal with thorny state issues like the budget.
Governor Davis, who has taken no position on how a delay in the election may affect its outcome, offered a measured response to the latest news from the Ninth Circuit, and said that in any event his antirecall campaign was gaining momentum. "I have assumed from the outset that this election will be on Oct. 7," he said. "My attitude is, let's just get this election over with."
The anti-Davis forces have contended that the recall vote ought to take place on Oct. 7, as expressed by the hundreds of thousands of Californians who signed petitions to put the issue on the ballot.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of a number of minority groups to postpone the election on grounds that too many people, especially members of minority groups, could be disenfranchised because the punch-card voting machines used in several counties with large minority populations were vulnerable to malfunction. The A.C.L.U. opposed a rehearing by the Ninth Circuit and said that if any court was to review the three-judge panel's ruling it should be the United States Supreme Court.
Whoever loses before the 11 appellate judges may try to get a hearing before the United States Supreme Court, with the first step to ask Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to undo whatever decision the Ninth Circuit ultimately reaches.
But instead of doing that on her own, Justice O'Connor would probably refer the matter to the full Supreme Court, which would be expected to decide fairly quickly whether to review the Ninth Circuit decision or let it stand.
Even veteran Supreme Court watchers can be surprised by the justices, but two factors may make it less likely that the justices would review the California decision.
One is the special case that is already on the justices' workload, the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which was argued before the full court in a special session on Sept. 8. The law is so complicated that the arguments took four hours, versus one hour for a typical case, and the justices may not be willing to add another highly charged case to what is supposed to be their off-season.
A second factor that seems to make it less likely that the court would take up the California matter is the relatively lack of urgency. Governor Davis's critics notwithstanding, the state has a functioning government in place, and Mr. Davis's future could be decided March 2, a regular primary election day in California.
Besides Chief Judge Mary Schroeder, the members of the panel that will hear the case on Monday are Judges Alex Kozinski, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, A. Wallace Tashima, Barry G. Silverman, Susan P. Graber, Mary Margaret McKeown, Ronald M. Gould, Richard C. Tallman and Johnnie Blakeney Rawlinson. Except for the chief judge, the panel members were chosen by lot.
Eight of the 11 judges were appointed by Democratic presidents — 7 by Bill Clinton and one by Jimmy Carter — and 3 by Republicans — 2 by Ronald Reagan and one by the first President Bush.
nytimes.com |
