...If you think the California voters are mad at the Governor, that will be nothing compared to their fury if the Judges delay this election.
Well, they did. Of course, it'll be appealed. BTW, what's your take on this "devastating to Arnie" article to be published in the LA Times? Why don't they just publish it now? Or are they waiting for the Repubs to officially get behind Schwarzenegger and then drop their bomb?
Federal Court Postpones California Recall Election
Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court postponed California's Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election, ruling the historic vote can't proceed as scheduled because some votes would be cast using outmoded punch-card ballot machines.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals withheld ordering the immediate implementation of its decision, allowing a week for appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ted Costa, head of the Sacramento-based Peoples' Advocate, one of the groups that put the recall on the ballot, said an appeal is certain. "Give us 24 hours. We'll get something off to the Supreme Court," he said. Another option is to appeal to a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit. Monday's order was issued by a three-judge panel.
In what was the last of about a dozen legal challenges to the attempt to unseat Gov. Gray Davis, the Ninth Circuit on Monday said it is unacceptable that six counties would be using outdated punch-card ballots, the type that sparked the "hanging chads" litigation in Florida during the 2000 presidential election.
The appellate panel agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union that the voting machines were prone to error and that Gov. Davis's fate could be decided later. By that time, the counties have promised to replace their punch-card machines under a court order in separate litigation.
The counties include the state's most populous region, Los Angeles, in addition to Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara and Solano. They represented 44% of the state's registered voters during the 2000 election.
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 U.S. Supreme Court.
"In sum, in assessing the public interest, the balance falls heavily in favor of postponing the election for a few months," the appeals court said.
It wasn't immediately clear how the decision would affect the campaign in California's first voter-driven election to unseat its governor. One possibility is that the Ninth Circuit, the nation's largest and most liberal federal appeals court, might move the election to the next regularly scheduled primary, on March 2.
The Davis camp, and major Democratic and Republican candidates hoping to succeed him, have been waging an all-out campaign blitz of broadcast messages, fund-raisers and appearances throughout the state.
The appeals panel overturned an Aug. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson of Los Angeles, who said he wouldn't delay the recall election. Judge Wilson said doing so would be acting against the will of California's voters.
In July, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley said more than 900,000 signatures of registered voters were collected to force a recall, and by law, he had about less than three months to call the hurry-up election.
State law also required Mr. Shelley to move from the March ballot to the recall ballot the only two voter initiatives that qualified for the ballot. Voting on those measures is also delayed under the ruling. One measure, Proposition 53, allocates state funding for schools and roads. The other, Proposition 54, prohibits California public governments and schools from tracking employees or students by race.
In other lawsuits, civil-rights groups unsuccessfully fought to move Proposition 54 to the March ballot to give minorities more time to study it. In addition, some counties, to cut costs and conduct the election on a hurry-up schedule, were reducing the number of polling places, a move civil-rights groups said would disenfranchise minority voters in areas with low voter turnout. |
