Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Recall Delay 17

Journal by pudge

I am outraged that the liberal Ninth Circuit would dare say that voting machines that were good enough to elect Gray Davis are not good enough to recall him. Those judges should be recalled too.

OK, that's what I imagine many of you thought I might say, being a conservative Republican and ex-Californian who voted for Bush and supports defeating Davis. But no, I essentially agree with the decision.

I've not read the decision, but I've read about it, and as I understand it, the court asserts that certain balloting systems which have -- since the most recent election -- been legally determined as inadequate. It would be one thing if the reliability of the systems were not already judged as inadequate, but that has already happened. At this point, it is a matter of fact.

When the Bush campaign filed in federal court in November 2000, I was annoyed. I thought it was none of the federal court's business. That is, until I read the filing, when I was swayed by the simple argument that to recount some people's votes, but not others, or to apply different recount standards to different votes, would violate the Constitution.

And now we see the same basic thing happening in California. There are differences, of course.

The Supreme Court in 2000 did not say any balloting systems were unconstitutional, for example. However, that is unrelated to this decision here, as they have already been ruled as inadequate in a separate case.

Further, the Supreme Court in 2000 did not stop a vote, and likely would not have. But just because they did not in 2000, does not mean this court should not. The court is required to weigh competing principles: that of allowing the people to vote on their chosen day, and that of protecting the rights of a minority of voters. While the first principle is an important one, it is not significantly damaged, in my opinion, by making them wait, if the reason is a good one. And in this case, the reason is a fine one.

Most interestingly to me, the Supreme Court in 2000 allowed a legally defined date to dictate the boundaries in which the rights of the voters would be protected. In December 2000, the court ruled that despite potential irregularities, there was not the time to do whatever was necessary to get it "right," because the law set up the deadlines that needed to be hit. And here, the court is saying the opposite: that the legal deadlines should be overruled to make sure people's rights are not abridged.

But the difference in decision is magnified by the difference in consequence. By delaying the recall, you are delaying an essentially arbitrary date for an arbitrary vote, and the only negative consequence anyone can forsee is that the elected governor remains the governor for another few months.

By delaying the final tally in 2000, they would have been doing something far more significant, disrupting history, precedent, and possibly the functions of government themselves. It was a step the court was unwilling to take.

The delay wasn't worth it in 2000, but in my opinion, it is now.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Recall Delay More

Recall Delay

Comments Filter:
  • Yes, but 8 million showed up to vote Davis in. The ACLU says there will be 40,000 votes thrown out due to the current antiquated system. Voter registration is 150% higher this year. I suppose if I ignore the numbers, and just take your principal argument, you're right. But we have a legal recall on the line.

    Of course, 8 million for the Davis election was an amazingly low number. And in the past 90 years, out of 12 attempts to recall, this is the first time it's ever worked. It must have something to
    • And in the past 90 years, out of 12 attempts to recall, this is the first time it's ever worked.

      Well, it hasn't quite worked yet, 'though it's looking like it will work when it does go through...

      Clinton's appearance in support of Davis seems to have boosted his polls a bit, though.
    • I suppose if I ignore the numbers, and just take your principal argument, you're right. But we have a legal recall on the line.

      I am not sure what I said that you are arguing against; are you saying that 40,000 out of 8 million is not a significant number, not significant enough to delay the recall? Well, it's a judgment call, and that is what judges are for. The court needs to decide what is worse: abridging the voting rights of 40,000 voters, or delaying the recall. There needs to be damned good rea
      • No, 40,000 is not significant, here's why. The 10,000 in Florida were disenfranchised because of two factors, one of which is not present in any California election, including this special election. 1) the voters cast ambiguous ballots, and 2) the counties that these ambiguous ballots were cast had no procedure for counting these ballots, so they were summarily tossed out, which was wrong.

        In the 6 California counties in question (all of them, actually), there are procedures for counting these ambiguous b
        • Again, whether the ballots are sufficient or not is already decided. It was decided before this case. You are arguing their systems are sufficient, but that is, as a matter of legal fact, already decided to be not true.
          • ...as I understand it, the court asserts that certain balloting systems which have -- since the most recent election -- been legally determined as inadequate.

            When were they determined as inadequate?
            • On September 18, 2001, California Secretary of State Bill Jones decertified these machines for use in California elections, effective January 2006. But the State reached an agreement with Common Cause (whose complaint precipitated the decertification) to have those systems replaced before the March 2004 election, which was, at the time, the date of the next statewide election.

              • "On September 18, 2001, Jones finally conceded that Votomatic-style punch card machines are "obsolete." Nevertheless, Secretary Jones refused to require their replacement in time for the 2004 elections, despite the requests of the ACLU, Common Cause, and other citizen groups. On December 17, 2001, Jones set a replacement date of July 2005 - over three and one-half years away."

                "The evidence developed in Common Cause v. Jones shows that that the nine affected California counties can easily upgrade their

                • The State has proclaimed as a matter of fact that they are inadequate, without need for a trial. The point is that if the State admits -- as it has -- that the machines are inadequate, how can it then move forward with using them for a statewide election?
  • Pudge,

    I think a bigger issue is the problem of confused voters. I got the San Francisco voters book in the mail today (I live in SF) and the sample ballot is formatted in such a way that is nearly impossible to understand:

    * The recall question (yes or no to recall Davis) is one tiny block of text at the top of the page that's easy to skip over as if it were another canidate! I hate to think how many votes won't be counted because people forgot to vote on the recall.

    * With more then 100 canidates, the bal
    • Frankly, I think that none of that is related to what I am talking about, though, as it is not directly related to the legal issues of whether or not certain punch-card ballots are legal for use in this election. The confusing ballot is being used not just in the voting districts that the courts are saying must be upgraded, but all over the state, and waiting until the primary election will only make it more confusing, as the problem will be compounded by a much longer ballot.

  • Most interestingly to me, the Supreme Court in 2000 allowed a legally defined date to dictate the boundaries in which the rights of the voters would be protected... And here, the court is saying the opposite...

    No problem; the Supreme Court thoughtfully explained in 2000 that their decision was a one-off.

    Do not look to the past. What we had to do to elect Bush, we may or may not do for everyone else. It's a new era now. /me waves hands This is not the precedent you're looking for.

    Unless... [washingtonpost.com]

    • Translation: "My side lost, so I think they must've done something underhanded." Waaaaah!

      But yes, they said that it would not be applied elsewhere, and to a large degree, they are right. But when the case was first brought to the federal court, when I was swayed by the argument, I thought then and there that this principle was applicable to any election.

      I think what the Supreme Court said should not be applicable to other cases -- IIRC -- was the idea that the federal government should step in for a sta
      • Don't be crass.

        BTW, here's more commentary [washingtonpost.com] on this issue:

        Now the 9th Circuiters have called Bill Rehnquist's bluff. Did he really mean all that stuff about extending the equal protection clause to voters who stood a greater chance to be disenfranchised by the absence of a uniform standard of counting votes? Was he really concerned about the tabulation disparities between one county and the next? Or was Bush v. Gore just a one-time-only decision crafted to elect a Republican president?

        ... "There's no

        • I won't be crass if you won't.

          But note that I already gave the Supreme Court a way out, should they hear the case. The ACLU can say there's no way to reverse it, but the fact that this case has nothing to do with federal law or the Constitution is a pretty good way to reverse it.

          Again, I am in favor of protecting the right to vote, and I am in favor of enforcing the decision to not use decertified ballot systems in a statewide election, but the right to vote in California is not protected by federal law.
          • OK, I found my own evidence. I misremembered the 14th Amendment, which specifically DOES mention state officers, executive, judicial, and legislative.

            So, carry on!
  • I decline to have a completely uninformed legal opinion (this is a journal entry, after all, not main Slashdot) but certainly find it a little saddening.

    As a moderate Republican, this is probably good news. The national party clearly wants nothing to do with this mess, and having it end up with "Oops, the ACLU and the liberal judges trampled your rights, so vote Republican in the next election! Oh, and the next few years are all Davis' fault!" is probably the best possible outcome.

    But Californians are going

Slashdot Top Deals

One has to look out for engineers -- they begin with sewing machines and end up with the atomic bomb. -- Marcel Pagnol

Close