It's baaaack...:-)
Court Reinstates Oct. 7 California Recall
Sep 23, 12:18 PM (ET)
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court Tuesday reinstated California's Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election, rejecting a three-judge panel's decision to put it off for months.
Unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in quickly, the decision means Election Day is two weeks away.
The 11-member panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the Sept. 15 decision of a three-judge panel from the same circuit. The original panel postponed the election on whether to recall Gov. Gray Davis because six counties would use outdated punch-card ballots that were the subject of the "hanging chads" battle in the 2000 presidential election in Florida.
The decision clears the way for a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could be asked to revisit its Bush v. Gore decision in the 2000 election.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the challenge, did not immediately say whether it would appeal.
The appeals court reinstated a ruling by a district court judge who refused to postpone the election. The judges based their decision on the state's constitution, not any precedent set by Bush v. Gore.
"The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs will suffer no hardship that outweighs the stake of the state of California and its citizens in having this election go forward as planned and as required by the California constitution," the ruling said.
Legal scholars had predicted the outcome. A day after the original decision delaying the vote, the court announced it would revisit the case with 11 judges - a sign the court was not happy with the original decision.
Davis, a Democrat, has been dogged by his handling of the state's ailing economy. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante is running as a fallback Democratic candidate if voters oust Davis, and Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Sen. Tom McClintock are among 135 candidates also campaigning for Davis' job.
Some observers thought a delay in the recall vote would have benefited Davis by allowing voter anger over the state's problems to cool, and because many Democrats would be attracted to the polls for the presidential primary if the recall election were moved to March.
But even Davis sounded fed up last week with the lengthy process, saying Friday: "My attitude is, let's just get it over with, let's just have this election on Oct. 7, put this recall behind us so we can get on with governing the state of California."
The 11 judges of the 9th Circuit heard oral arguments in the case Monday.
Lawyers for Secretary of State Kevin Shelley had urged the panel to overturn the three-judge panel. They said the California constitution requires recall elections to be held no later than 80 days after enough signatures of registered voters are gathered. They also said the vote should go on because more than 600,000 absentee ballots had been turned in.
The counties whose voting apparatuses prompted the litigation include Los Angeles, Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara and Solano. They represent about 40 percent of the state's registered voters.
Noting the uproar over the 2000 presidential election, the three-judge panel had ruled that an Oct. 7 recall vote would be a "constitutionally infirm election" and that not stopping it now would pave the way for "bitter, post-election litigation over the legitimacy of the election, particularly where the margin of voting machine error may well exceed the margin of victory."
Agreeing with the ACLU, the original opinion often cited Bush v. Gore, the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court stopped Florida's presidential recount. The high court stopped it because Florida lacked uniform standards on how to actually recount the votes - such as what to do with "hanging chads," the judges said.
The case is Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, 03-56498. |
