Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Californian recall election delayed

Election California Recall 2003

  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#1 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 12:45 PM

The Californian recall election was delayed, by a federal court because the courts felt that the punch card system is flawed. Some 44% of the California voters use the same punch card system that was used in Florida.

The court ruling is here:
http://i.a.cnn.net/c.../cal.recall.pdf

CNN’s Version of the story here:
http://www.cnn.com/2...elay/index.html

Sparky::

Edited by emsparks, 15 September 2003 - 12:53 PM.

Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#2 Christopher

Christopher
  • Demigod
  • 32,891 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 01:01 PM

Normally I'd say this thread belongs in Orbis Terrarum instead of General Media, but given the composition of the California governor's ballot, it's hard to say.... :D
"You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right." -- xkcd

"The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas." -- "H. G. Wells," Time After Time


Written Worlds -- My homepage and blog
Facebook Author Page

#3 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 01:14 PM

Christopher, on Sep 15 2003, 06:01 PM, said:

Normally I'd say this thread belongs in Orbis Terrarum instead of General Media, but given the composition of the California governor's ballot, it's hard to say.... :D
I'm Sorry I messed up...
Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#4 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 01:18 PM

Ah, the ACLU. I wonder if they'd have bothered had it been a Republican being recalled.  :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#5 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 01:25 PM

Supreme Court, here we come!

Quote

In what was the last of about a dozen legal challenges to the attempt to unseat Davis, the three-judge panel said it's unacceptable that six counties would be using outdated punch-card ballots, the type that sparked the "hanging chads" litigation in Florida during the 2000 presidential election.

Whtt about last year? Did the ACLU complain about it then? Did the courts stop the election? What if there are still punchcards in use in '04? Does Bush get to stay, by default?

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 15 September 2003 - 01:34 PM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#6 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 01:32 PM

Moving to OT. And merging threads.

:cool:

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 15 September 2003 - 01:33 PM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#7 Kimmer

Kimmer
  • Islander
  • 6,388 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 01:36 PM

So the same freeking system that was good enough to get (*^%^$ Davis elected, is not good enough to get him recalled? :angry:

This so ticks me off!!!! I wish the 9th circuit would take a flying leap into never-never land.:angry:

Drew, you are soooo on the money with your comment.

I ***HATE*** this freeking state and cannot wait to move out. Of course, since that is just over a year away, my house won't be worth **** by then. :angry:


Quote

The ACLU brought suit, saying the punch- card system could disenfranchise voters in six counties, including Los Angeles, the state's largest.

Translation: Davis might be recalled and they don't like it! :angry:

Quote

"In sum, in assessing the public interest, the balance falls heavily in favor of postponing the election for a few months,"

Public interest????? This state will be in such bad financial state it won't even be funny. Wonder how this court is going to feel when CA files bankruptcy? :angry:

Quote

"It's in the court's hands," Ragone said. "We are taking measure. We'd be pleased by anything that leads to greater enfranchisement in the state of California."

Quote

From:The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000.
enfranchise

TRANSITIVE VERB:

Inflected forms: en·fran·chised, en·fran·chis·ing, en·fran·chis·es

1. To bestow a franchise on. 2. To endow with the rights of citizenship, especially the right to vote. 3. To free, as from bondage.

Give me BACK my right to vote, and let me vote to be from the bondage of this crappy state government. DISenfranchised is more how I feel. :angry: :angry:

Gads, I am sooooo angry! :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

#8 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 01:38 PM

It's okay. Bill Clinton will save us. :cool:

Quote

Clinton had spoken passionately against the recall during the Sunday morning service, mixing Scripture with politics in a 40-minute address at the First African Methodist Episcopal Church, the city's oldest black congregation.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#9 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 01:43 PM

kimmer, on Sep 15 2003, 01:36 PM, said:

I ***HATE*** this freeking state and cannot wait to move out. Of course, since that is just over a year away, my house won't be worth **** by then. :angry:
There are a lot of houses for sale in my neighborhood. :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#10 Kimmer

Kimmer
  • Islander
  • 6,388 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 01:57 PM

Drew, on Sep 15 2003, 11:43 AM, said:

kimmer, on Sep 15 2003, 01:36 PM, said:

I ***HATE*** this freeking state and cannot wait to move out. Of course, since that is just over a year away, my house won't be worth **** by then. :angry:
There are a lot of houses for sale in my neighborhood. :cool:
There are 5 in a 2 block area. I'd love to know why they are all suddenly moving out.

BTW, if you lived on the coast of Oregon, we could be neighbors ... but don't you live in the cold country?


kimmer - still steaming

#11 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 02:00 PM

I don't have the energy to read the decision right now, but if the basis of it truly IS that the ballots which have been used in COUNTLESS CA elections (let's not even talk about the rest of the country) and will no doubt be used in future elections make the election suspect then I have to say....

BZZZZZZZZZZZT.

If however the basis is that there will be significantly less resources for manning polling places and therefore enough fewer such places to compromise the election well then, that *might* be different.

I really DON'T want the SC to get involved in this.  I can't STAND the idea of nine lifetime APPOINTEES of the judicial branch of the government having that much say in this.

Oh well,

the circus continues.

Am I the only one that has "Send in the Clowns" running through my head?

Lil
Posted Image

#12 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 02:07 PM

kimmer, on Sep 15 2003, 01:57 PM, said:

BTW, if you lived on the coast of Oregon, we could be neighbors ... but don't you live in the cold country?
Depends on what you mean by "cold."  :cool:

I live in the part of the country where an engine-block heater is necessary if that's what you mean.  :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#13 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 02:52 PM

The Rush Limbaugh take, Democrats say the punch card system is to difficult for minorities to use, are the Dems calling minorities stupid?


Lil, from what I heard on the radio today, they are making them get rid of the punchcard system before they allow another election.

I've never voted on anything else. The system was new when I was 18, and a big step up from the old lever system. There is not to much wrong with it, although I have seen ballots that were confusing. You vote for x amount for one office, half of the candidate were on page two, and I think they all lost because people were picking the X from page one.
Can't Touch This!!

#14 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 02:54 PM

All this amid reports from CNN that people in California are losing not only interest in the recall process, but faith in its integrity.

Pushing it back turns it from being someone's punchline to sheer irrelevancy.

Next they'll be saying that low voter turnout means that the public interest hasn't been served. Or something equally absurd.

The sad part is, I agree with Drew. If it was a Republican being threatened with recall, I honestly doubt anyone in the ACLU would be pointing out the flaws in the voting system.

After all, it was good enough for Florida right up until it didn't work.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#15 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 02:56 PM

Skimming the decision, the crux does appear to be the machines... with the caveat that everything will be Just Fine™ in time for the 2004 election.

It's also hard to take the decision seriously, as it frequently uses the word "VotoMatic". While it's a company name, they're on to something. Arnold would be the Govomatic. Ooh, or "jurispudencematic". "Vetomatic"? Sorry, sorry...

Let's see... it details the laundry list of problems with punch cards.

Apparently, California law does give the Secretary of State the power to "withdrawal his approval a voting system"... which has the effect of canceling the election.

According to the decision, 44% of the electorate will be subjected to a system that is 250% more likely to have errors... which, if accurate, means the disenfranchisement of 40,000 voters.

Ironically, Bush vs. Gore is cited: "The right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise"

A lot of this relies on Gray vs. Sanders (which established that somebody's vote should count the same no matter where they live.. no weighting the vote, aside from the electoral college). Essentially, the argument is that by having a known inferior system in some areas, that important principle is being violated.

The consequences of this "logic" are chilling: No county can ever advance or change its voting technology, unless every other county does it at the exact same time.  Ther'es no way that can stand up.

The decision actually goes so far as to mention the punch card errors that no doubt occurred in 2002.

"Indeed, the error use of punchard voting in the 2002 election actually increased in the 2002 California gubernatorial election...."

WHAT THE HELL?!?!?!?!?  You *admit* Davis was elected by a faulty system, and use that very faulty election to justify delaying the one to remove him!

*retrieves a bottle of Tylenol. Ah, much better...*

Arg... this section is too long to type the whole thing, but you can't copy/paste.

Paraphrasing:

They concede that the constitution requires that the election be held sixty days after the certification. The argument seems to be that since the election would have been held in 2004 if the recall had been filed just 90 days later, it's okay to delay it more <If there's an election within six months, the recall and the election are consolidated>. This, however, violates the CA constitution.

However, if the 9th circuit's interpretation is right, the voting rights issues probably trumps that clause. Maybe.

"The California Constitution already permits up to a six month delay to advance the State's interest in efficiency and convenience; the requested injunction would result in only a seven and a half delay to cure a substantial constitutional violation."

Again, citing Bush:

"The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees."

By page 57, they get to other concerns.

"There are also some unique pragmatic problems associated with this election that may be alleviated by a short postponement. For example, because of the short timetable established for the election, approximately a quarter of California's polling places-- 5,000 to 20,000-- will not be ready for use and voters will be forced to vote at a different voting place."

Another issue brought up is that the punch ballots will be really, really, hard to use with so many candidates. That's probably true.

Another issue brought up is that members of our armed forces may not have had time to get absentee ballots.  

Another point brought up is that California sec of state didn't mail the 'voter information pamphlets' in time; in theory, they have to be made public 100 days before the election, and mailed 40 days before. The state mailed them 33 days before the election. This strikes me as rather trivial.

Further, the court employs a double standard; earlier, it says that voter education won't help reduce punch ballot error. Then it says that voter education wasn't done soon enough. Either it matters or it doesn't. Pick one.

Conclusion: It looks like the recall as it is *will* violate some state law. But the state constitution trumps that. The real issue is indeed whether the polling place issue and the punch cards are serious enough to violate the CA constitution.

Mmmmmmmm...... federalism.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#16 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 03:01 PM

I too agree with Drew (don't FAINT anyone) that if it were a republican being recalled the ACLU wouldn't have bothered.

Which is not to say that someone else wouldn't have.;)

Lil
Posted Image

#17 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 03:03 PM

The word "disenfranchisement" is hereby banned from this thread.  :cool:  Come up with a new battle-cry, please.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#18 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 03:08 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Sep 15 2003, 03:01 PM, said:

I too agree with Drew (don't FAINT anyone) that if it were a republican being recalled the ACLU wouldn't have bothered.

Which is not to say that someone else wouldn't have.;)
Oh, probably. :cool: I just find the ACLU's sermonizing to be wholly hypocritical.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#19 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 03:13 PM

^

I guess my point is that neither side is without its partisans or hypocricy.

:)

Lil
Posted Image

#20 QuiGon John

QuiGon John

    Gone

  • Islander
  • 4,158 posts

Posted 15 September 2003 - 03:49 PM

Wow... you know, you should never think things can't get any more screwed-up... you're invariably speaking too soon. ;)

There are obviously a lot of issues here, but my gut reaction is that this is a bogus decision, inspired more by politics than by the merits of the case.  (I felt the same way about the Supreme Court's decision in the 2000 election, actually: The bad taste in my mouth in both cases is due more to my perception that the case hasn't been properly considered than to the decision itself.)

Anyway, we'll see how this turns out.  At least it's never boring...  :wacko:



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election, California, Recall, 2003

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users