Appeals court blocks Oct. 7 recall election (FYI Laz - I didn't write this!)
Chronicle staff and wire report Monday, September 15, 2003
(09-15) 11:21 PDT -- A federal appeals court blocked California's Oct. 7 recall election Monday, throwing the fate of the unprecedented election into question.
The Ninth U.S. Court or Appeals ruled that the vote cannot take place because almost half of the votes will be cast on unreliable problematic punch-card machines. The decision was granted an immediate 7-day stay to give the losing sides to appeal.
The three-judge panel said that the use of the problematic machines is exacerbated by the sheer number of candidates vying to succeed Governor Davis if he is recalled.
The ballot includes the recall issue as well as two propositions.
The challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union was the last of about a dozen legal attempts to delay the recall election.
The judges said it is unacceptable that six counties would be using outdated punch-card ballots, the type that sparked the "hanging chads'' litigation in Florida during the 2000 presidential election.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 ACLU that the voting machines were prone to error and that Davis' 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 percent of the state's registered voters during the 2000 election.
"In sum, in assessing the public interest, the balance falls heavily in favor of postponing the election for a few months,'' the court said.
Ted Costa, head of the Sacramento-based Peoples' Advocate, one of the groups that put the recall on the ballot, said the group's attorneys will appeal the ruling.
"Give us 24 hours. We'll get something off to the Supreme Court,'' he said.
State officials, who conceded in court documents that the punch-card voting mechanisms are "more prone to voter error than are newer voting systems,'' said they had to review the ruling before deciding whether to appeal to the Supreme Court.
A Davis spokesman said the Democratic incumbent will campaign as usual.
"The Ninth Circuit panel has ruled and delayed the election due to voting rights concerns, but its word is not final," said Peter Ragone, a Davis spokesman. "We will continue to campaign for the October 7 elections until the issue is resolved in the courts."
It was not immediately clear how the decision, if it survives, would impact the campaign in California's first voter-driven election to unseat its chief executive. The court stayed imposition of its decision for a week to allow time for appeals.
One possibility is that the nation's largest and most liberal federal appeals court might move the election to the next regularly scheduled primary on March 2.
All three judges on the 9th Circuit panel that ruled Monday were appointed by Democrats.
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 San Francisco-based appeals panel overturned an Aug. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson of Los Angeles, who said he would not delay the recall election. Wilson said it 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 had about less than three months to call the hurry-up election.
State law also required 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 also has now been delayed.
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.
The case is Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, 03-56498.
Appeals court blocks Oct. 7 recall election
Chronicle staff and wire report Monday, September 15, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(09-15) 11:21 PDT -- A federal appeals court blocked California's Oct. 7 recall election Monday, throwing the fate of the unprecedented election into question.
The Ninth U.S. Court or Appeals ruled that the vote cannot take place because almost half of the votes will be cast on unreliable problematic punch-card machines. The decision was granted an immediate 7-day stay to give the losing sides to appeal.
The three-judge panel said that the use of the problematic machines is exacerbated by the sheer number of candidates vying to succeed Governor Davis if he is recalled.
The ballot includes the recall issue as well as two propositions.
The challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union was the last of about a dozen legal attempts to delay the recall election.
The judges 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 ACLU that the voting machines were prone to error and that Davis' 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 percent of the state's registered voters during the 2000 election.
"In sum, in assessing the public interest, the balance falls heavily in favor of postponing the election for a few months,'' the court said.
Ted Costa, head of the Sacramento-based Peoples' Advocate, one of the groups that put the recall on the ballot, said the group's attorneys will appeal the ruling.
"Give us 24 hours. We'll get something off to the Supreme Court,'' he said.
State officials, who conceded in court documents that the punch-card voting mechanisms are "more prone to voter error than are newer voting systems,'' said they had to review the ruling before deciding whether to appeal to the Supreme Court.
A Davis spokesman said the Democratic incumbent will campaign as usual.
"The Ninth Circuit panel has ruled and delayed the election due to voting rights concerns, but its word is not final," said Peter Ragone, a Davis spokesman. "We will continue to campaign for the October 7 elections until the issue is resolved in the courts."
It was not immediately clear how the decision, if it survives, would impact the campaign in California's first voter-driven election to unseat its chief executive. The court stayed imposition of its decision for a week to allow time for appeals.
One possibility is that the nation's largest and most liberal federal appeals court might move the election to the next regularly scheduled primary on March 2.
All three judges on the 9th Circuit panel that ruled Monday were appointed by Democrats.
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 San Francisco-based appeals panel overturned an Aug. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson of Los Angeles, who said he would not delay the recall election. Wilson said it 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 had about less than three months to call the hurry-up election.
State law also required 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 also has now been delayed.
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.
The case is Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, 03-56498.
banner headlines from: www.sfgate.com |
