The Evil Genius Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Appeals Court Delays Calif. Recall Vote 21 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo! By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court postponed California's Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election, ruling Monday that the historic vote cannot proceed because some votes would be cast using outmoded punch-card ballot machines. AP Photo AP Photo Slideshow: Calif. Recall Election The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) withheld ordering the immediate implementation of its decision, allowing a week for appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites). Ted Costa, head of the Sacramento-based Peoples' Advocate, one of the groups that put the recall on the ballot, said an appeal is certain. "Give us 24 hours. We'll get something off to the Supreme Court," he said. In what was the last of about a dozen legal challenges to the attempt to unseat Democratic Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites), the three-judge panel said it was not acceptable that six counties would be using punch-card ballots, the type that sparked the "hanging chads" litigation in Florida during the 2000 presidential election. The judges agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) 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. "In sum, in assessing the public interest, the balance falls heavily in favor of postponing the election for a few months," the court said. The counties involved 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. State officials, who conceded in court documents that the punch-card voting mechanisms are "more prone to voter error than are newer voting systems," were likely to appeal the case to the nation's top court. It was not immediately clear how the decision would impact the campaign in California's first voter-driven election to unseat its governor. One possibility is that the 9th Circuit, the nation's largest and most liberal federal appeals court, might move the election to the next regularly scheduled primary, on March 2. 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 doing so 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, he 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 to reach voters. Voting on those measures is also delayed under the ruling. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Funny how the same punch card machines that elected Davis suddenly aren't good enough for a recall election. I don't recall anyone being concerned over voter fraud and such in that election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Air......Davis needs to be preserved....look at the cynical approach this guy took wrt driver's licenses....let Californians suffer the consequences of their choices!!...bahahahahahahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Anyone else seeing the pattern? The Dems continue to lose, so they find a sympathetic court (FLA, NJ, and now 9th Circuit) to do anything to keep their power. Give it a week, the SCOTUS will set them straight again. I am curious how the Dems spin this. Why were punch-cards okay a year ago but not now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Saw Slick Willie in an A.M.E. church with Davis. Isnt it illegal to be in church raising campaign funds which is what Jessie does but is never called on for doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Another way to look at this is that the ACLU has officially shown where it allegiance lies duh. 9th circuit ignores the ruling of the judge who said he isnt bigger the people of Cali and continues to be activist instead of interpeting laws. And the liberals have publicly insulted the minorities in those 6 areas by in essence saying the hablas and homies are too stupid to figure out a punched ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 USSC will overturn this leftist rationale IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted September 15, 2003 Author Share Posted September 15, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Anyone else seeing the pattern? The Dems continue to lose, so they find a sympathetic court (FLA, NJ, and now 9th Circuit) to do anything to keep their power. Give it a week, the SCOTUS will set them straight again. I am curious how the Dems spin this. Why were punch-cards okay a year ago but not now? They weren't. They were scheduled to replaced, I believe, before the next election (March 2004) - but this early and unanticipated election has forced some to try to block the election. Additionally, the lack of funding that will keep a large number of voting places closed was mentioned in part of the lawsuit. The media hasn't picked up on this part yet. To me, its a bigger deal than the "hanging chad" votes... BTW - I wouldn't be to fast to call out the DEMS in California, because its the GOP here ho continues to lose and has sought a special major election only 12 months after the last one -solely because they couldn't put forth a good canidate. Sour grapes my friend, sour grapes. BTW - here is the 1st part of the finding...interesting stuff... PER CURIAM:On October 7, 2003, California voters will be asked to cast a ballot on some of the most important issues facing the State, including an unprecedented vote on the recall of a governor. However, forty-four percent of the electorate will be forced to use a voting system so flawed that the Secretary of State has officially deemed it “unacceptable” and banned its use in all future elections. The inherent defects in the system are such that approximately 40,000 voters who travel to the polls and cast their ballot will not have their vote counted at all. Compounding the problem is the fact that approximately a quarter of the state’s polling places will not be operational because election officials have insufficient time to get them ready for the special election, and that the sheer number of gubernatorial candidates will make the antiquated voting system far more difficult to use. Plaintiffs allege that the use of the obsolete voting systems in some counties rather than others will deny voters equal protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution. They seek to postpone the vote until the next regularly scheduled statewide election six months from now, when the Secretary of State has assured that all counties will be using acceptable voting equipment, and all the polls will be open. We agree that the issuance of a preliminary injunction is warranted and reverse the order of the district court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 TEG I REALLY hope you aren't trying to defend the ACLU's position--which is that because people like me and NavyDave belong to a certain ethnic group or skin color(Ok, me=1/2) that we are somehow inferior and unable to operate the same punch ballots that people were able to figure out in the last election AND that stupid white folk are somehow able to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Please, This is the same bloody court that ruled that there is no individual right to bear arms in the Constitution. Funny, Tench Coxe and Daniel Webster were both contemporaries of the Constitutional Convention and made statements that it read it what it said. In fact, it was a GIVEN until certain elements in society wanted to disarm the people. This is the same court that overrules the right of Californians to exercise their political powers under the framework of their own Constitution. The tyrants in black have spoken. So let it be written, so let it be done. So now I'll repeat the phrase: "Too late to work within the system, too early to shoot the ****s." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Is this really news? I heard last week that this would happen, and then be overturned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted September 15, 2003 Author Share Posted September 15, 2003 Ghost, I don't agree with the ruling if its based solely on the punch card voting machines. I have no problem with those machines, however confusing they may or may not be to a select few. What I do have a legit problem with is the closing of polling locations. If the state is truly closing a large # of polling locations due to a lack of funding, I can see a legit complaint made. How are the disenfranchised (elderly in this case who cannot drive) going to get to voting locations? They will need to vote absentee. But will the polling locations be released in enough time for them to register for an absentee ballot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 TEG, I was not aware of closing the locations. IF IF IF polling places are closed by a greater percentage of minority areas than overall, then I would think this ruling will stand. However, if polls are closed uniformly in all areas, then it has no merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Side question for those saying we used them last time so they should be good enough this time: As I understand the problem with the voting machines it is that they are less accurate. You end up with miss punches hanging chads, ect. Now if you have ever run a large scale survey, you'll realize that a certain percentage of error is unnavoidable. I don't care if it is computerized or what not. However, different types of machines do have different error rates. In this election where a small percentage of votes is likely to make a very big deal due to the number of canidates and closeness in the polls, would it not make sense to make sure that the errors are atleast evenly spread throughout the districts? Why should a rich man's vote count more than a poor man? It's the same question asked in FL where Bush asked why a vote in county that was recounted should have a higher chance of being read accurately than someone's in a county not recounted. Now in Bush vs. Gore, the Supreme Court overturned the planned recount saying every area would have to be recounted because every area should have the same chance of getting their vote counted correctly. Now that it no longer favors them, have the Republicans that praised that ruling changed their minds? Interesting. It may be a good test for ust how politicized the USC has become. If they reject their logic behind their previous ruling, they better have a good reason. The lower court did what lower courts are supposed to do. They took the interpretation of the law as desided by Gore v Bush and applied it. Welcome to our judicial system where previous outcomes determine future cases. Also, does nobody see a potential mess with punch cards? How small are the holes or how big is the punch card to get this many canidates names on them? That's a purely curious question because I don't know the answer. I could however see that causing problems and greatly increasing the error rates in the areas still using them. Anyway, it should be an interesting situation to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Simply put. If this was a real concern, the Dems would have brought it up 10 months ago in what was projected to be a close election. They did not mention it. This is nothing more than another attempt by the left to hijack an election through the courts. TEGs point about closing polling precincts has some merit, but I havent heard a single talking head mention it. It's clear to everyone what they are trying to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Kilmer, 10 months ago, nobody thought it would happen. It was just another nutso idea that the Right would try to replace him in a non election year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 10 months ago those punch card ballots were used to elect Gray Davis. Why wasnt that an issue then?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 I read were the ACLU used as part of their argument to the 3 judge panel a "study" that was finance and provided by a manufacturer of electronic voting machines. Now really how credible is that. Or how incredible is that. IMO this attempt to thwart an election will fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Same error rate everywhere last time? If the punch card ballots were everywhere last time, the arguement used to delay the election would be valid this time and not last. I could be wrong, but as I understand it , the issue is that some areas get a better chance of having their vote counted the way they cast it. The Supreme Court said that could not be allowed in the recounts of only some areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Not all areas were using punch cards 10 months ago either. So why didnt they argue about it then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 They should have. It doesn't make it any less real of a problem now. Just curious, when was the law suit settled where the yagreed they had to update everything by March 2004? I know that one dragged on too, but I didn't follow it. This suit could just be outpouring as a result of that settlement. As an interesting side note, it looks like the optical scan equipment that many areas upgraded to may not be able to handle the large number of canidates. That's in the WP article today. To me, it just sounds like the actual voting and counting of votes may turn out to be a giant mess regardless of what the courts say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 kilmer....you're right.....hypocrisy at its finest by our self-claimed purveyors of universal virtue...THE ACLU...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted September 17, 2003 Author Share Posted September 17, 2003 fan, Does ACLU's hypocracy (I would call it a "special interest") lessen the need to eliminate the punchcard voting system? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW - here is the breakdown of voting systems by county for the last two elections (including this years)... 2003 - http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems_2003.pdf 2002- http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems.pdf What is troubling (to me) is that LA County (which is like one third of all the voting) and Sacramento County (my home) will be using a system that is known to produce a high error (rejection) rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 And the fact that they did not gbear shows EXACTLY what this is really about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted September 17, 2003 Author Share Posted September 17, 2003 So, in your esteemed logic, because the ACLU didnt act prior to the 2002 election...the need for replacing a failed voting system is non-existant. Had the ACLU acted prior to the 2002 election, in your logic, then the need to replace this system was existant and you would have supported their lawsuit. Do I have that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.