Jump to content


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

Details in this thread

9th Circuit: Election must go on

California Recall Election 9th Circuit decision 2003

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 23 September 2003 - 11:00 AM

Barring Supreme Court action, the election is on for its original date, October 7th.

I'll get a link to the decision and more information ASAP.

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 23 September 2003 - 11:02 AM.

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.

#2 Appreciate

Appreciate
  • Islander
  • 4,651 posts

Posted 23 September 2003 - 11:03 AM

Wow!  Rov you beat both CNN and MSNBC!  Impressive!!!

And my most salient feeling: Whew, now we'll get to put the whole thing behind us.  That's a craven reaction, but a true one...

Kath
"Any dolt with half a brain/Can see that humankind has gone insane
To the point where I don't know if I'll upset the status quo
If I throw poison in the water main..."
- Billy (aka Dr. Horrible) in My Eyes from the AWESOME Dr. Horrible's SingAlong Blog

#3 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 23 September 2003 - 11:04 AM

Appreciate, on Sep 23 2003, 09:03 AM, said:

Wow!  Rov you beat both CNN and MSNBC!  Impressive!!!
When the revolution comes, it will be blogged. ;).

Quote

And my most salient feeling: Whew, now we'll get to put the whole thing behind us.  That's a craven reaction, but a true one...

Kath

I concur. Uncertainty is bad for everyone.
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.

#4 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 23 September 2003 - 11:06 AM

Here's a link to the actual decision:

http://www.ca9.uscou...pdf?openelement

Reading now....

EDIT:

-- The court cites Reynolds v. Sims as a precedent for a federal court not interfering with state elections. That's far more applicable than Bush v. Gore

-- They specifically state that "reasonable jurists may differ".

-- The decision is only 13 pages. That's amazingly short, as these things go. The previous 3-judge decision was about 90. The first and last page are really just filing information; several pages are just the facts of the case. The actual legal reasoning is maybe 5 pages. Amazing.

Quote

"Interference with an election is extraordinary and interference with an election after voting has begun is unprecedented".
Very good point for absentees.

-- The court points out that delaying the election would be expensive; this falls under 'public interest'.

They cite a case I've never heard of-- Takash v. Superior Court-- as precedent for the subissue of whether initiatives should be delayed. The bottom line is "no".

The reasoning is pretty firm. The decision does, however, leave open the possibility of legal action *after* the election (if voters are in fact disenfranchised)

Quote

"At this time, it is merely a speculative possibility, however, that any such denial will influence the result of the election".

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 23 September 2003 - 02:37 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.

#5 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 23 September 2003 - 02:36 PM

I think this is a solid ruling.

The recall process is not discretionary on the time limit for setting the election once the recall process has been initiated.  Moreover, stopping an election once voting has started is just a no no.

So good call.
Posted Image

#6 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 23 September 2003 - 02:41 PM

I'm a bit late to the uptake but the ACLU has decided not to appeal to the SCOTUS (which is really just as well, since there's no way they would have heard the case anyway).

That's the endgame. Barring something astonishingly unlikely, the election goes forward.
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.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: California, Recall Election, 9th Circuit decision, 2003

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users