Rejected Recall Reinstated
AP is reporting that an 11-judge panel has unanimously overturned the decision to postpone the California recall election.
This leaves the door open for the ACLU to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, which would have to then revisit the Bush v. Gore decision of a few years back. Hopefully, this will not happen. If you're going to have a recall, do it an be done with it, don't let it drag on in a nightmare of partisan legal and judicial wrangling. I had enough of that back in 2000.
Btw, the 9th circuit is notoriously liberal, so put your tin foil hats away.
[Update] The ACLU has decided not to appeal the decision. It is to be noted that the panel's decision did not rule out the possibility of post election shenanigans. So if there are more hanging chads and disenfranchised confused old Jewish women, we can still see a replay in miniature of the post-2000 fracas.
In the meantime, however, we have avoided a potentially very harmful constitutional issue, which Johno so astutely noticed the potential for in the comments. The problem of Court intervention in elections is indeed a big bag of stinking poo looking for a home. Nevertheless, we should remember that the alternative is worse. The last seriously contested election was resolved by a smoky room bargain - you can have the presidency if you end reconstruction. What similar bargains can we imagine today? The mind quails in fear.
An extra, double-plus evil possibility (though unlikely in the extreme) is total disgust in elections, leading to assumption of power or voter repudiation of the results. Court action, however distasteful, is still within the bounds of the system. We all think or even scream out load the Shakespeare quote, "First thing, we'll kill all the lawyers," but I believe that they save us from worse.
[Moreover] the Supreme Court action in Bush v. Gore merely ended the endless recounting, and restored the intent of the Florida Legislature. And Bush won every recount that was made. You can't, in a moderately honest republic, continue counting untill you get the result you want.
While the case in California was expected to result in a test of Bush v. Gore, I think it is a very different situation. Preventing a election mandated by the CA Constitution on the mere possibility of ambiguity in the election results is different than arguing over the results of an election that was actually held.
on
| § 7
§ 7 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
You're right, but it WOULD
You're right, but it WOULD force the SCOTUS to justify Bush v. Gore and take a stand on whether they [em]really[/em] meant it when they said that that case could not be used as precedent. That's a potentially devastating case as far as balance of powers go.
Exactly, John...if equal
Exactly, John...if equal protection was a good enough reason to stop the Florida recounts, why isn't it a good enough reason to stop the California recall vote?
The Supremes should absolutely be confronted with their own little poopy, political mess.
You can be sure they're sitting there hoping it won't arrive at their door.
The whole friggin' point of the SC is to set precedent; that Bush v. Gore was specifically NOT a precedent is absolutely ridiculous, and a good reason for the center and left of this country to NOT drop it.
Ross, to be perfectly honest,
Ross, to be perfectly honest, I join the SCOTUS in hoping the burning bag of poo does not arrive at their doorstep. Like I said, this could be terrible for the balance of powers, and I don't want to confront that mess.
The most dangerous thing in the world right now for the US as a nation would be a Constitutional crisis.
Even if it's warranted.
Even if it's warranted.
MERELY ended the "counting"?
MERELY ended the "counting"? The end of the counting was declared by the SCOTUS, in spite of the fact that the Florida SC saw it differently...talk about intruding on a state matter...and here's the thing...the SCOTUS made that decision on equal protection grounds. There were a lot of other equal protection problems, like the estimate nine thousand minority persons turned away from polling booths because they had the same name as convicted felons...with no recourse to get their votes counted. You can be sure the architects of that particular law saw nothing but positive consequences for their party.
Now where the hell is MY tin foil hat? It's gotta be around here somewhere.
News Flash, Johno -- we're having a constitutional crisis, but nobody came. Too busy watching the great death spiral of American discourse. Circling the drain is comforting, because you know where you're going.
Ross, you're such a pessimist
Ross, you're such a pessimist. Must come from growing up where seasonal affective disorder is as common as Malaria used to be in Panama.
Ross,
Ross,
Forgive me for overstating the case, if I am, but I think the Florida situation was a little more complicated than the SCOTUS smacking down a State supreme court. Yes, they did do that. But the Florida Supremes weren't exactly acting in a straightforward and honest fashion in their overseeing of the recount. It comes down to a question of federalism-- does the SCOTUS have the right to interefere in the function of a state, when that state's actions are directly related to the election of the President? Is there a constitutional crisis? Yes. Did the SCOTUS err in its grounds for interfering? Possibly, I sure think so. What else coulda been done? I'm not sure. Either the recounts happened again and again and again until one recount showed a win for Gore, or somebody put the brakes on. It's just a damn shame the SCOTUS chose to make such a mess when they stepped in.
As for other equal protection problems, I'm kinda furious. The California recount hinged on voting machine parity (whatever THAT bullshit is), and Florida really hinged on the Hanging Chad. These quibbling, minor, procedural issues obscure the real problems, which, as you point out Ross, are things like the disenfranchisement of voters via mis-identification. I would add to that the growing class of felonies leading to the systematic disenfranchisement of a large swath of otherwise okay citizens, a process that could prove disastrous in the future.
Ahhhh, whatever. If I knew what I was talking about, I'd be getting paid to do it.