Judges Rule Oct. 7 Recall Unfair

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-09-15 02:28pm

Judges Rule Oct. 7 Recall Unfair

9th Circuit Court rules vote can't proceed as scheduled because some ballots would be cast using flawed, outdated punch-card machines, putting certain districts at disadvantage

http://www.foxnews.com/

Of course this is the 9th Circut and is overturned alot but......

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-09-15 02:30pm

Thats so fucking stupid. Put certain districts at a disadvantage? Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick.

Someone needs to do something about those dumbfucks.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-09-15 02:31pm

Howedar wrote:Thats so fucking stupid. Put certain districts at a disadvantage? Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick.

Someone needs to do something about those dumbfucks.

Not as long as the Republicans flinch when the Democrats threaten a filibuster on nominations.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-15 02:43pm

Support for the recall has declined a LOT in recent weeks - at this rate, I doubt that it will get enough support for Gov. Davis to be thrown out. And then Californians hopefully will be forced to take responsibility for their own complicity in their state's present condition, instead of fobbing it off on a scapegoat.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-09-15 03:16pm

wow! that has got to be the most blatant case of partisan election shenanigans in decades! Bill Clinton shows up, rallies the troops, and suddenly, the next day the liberal stronghold 9th dist. court throws out the election. Wow, i'm shocked. One thing for sure, this will blow up in the DNC, the legislature and Gray Davis' faces come general election time.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-09-15 03:18pm

Well, coming from Palm Beach fucking County, I say that they should've learned their lessons THREE YEARS AGO!

That, and I hope they keep the ballots, I wanna see them make even more of an ass out of themselves.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-15 04:00pm

They were in the process of getting rid of those ballots anyway, which were due to be replaced by when the elections were supposed to have happened. Kind of silly how they did it, but not wholely unexpected.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-15 05:13pm

If you can't work the ballot out, even with the help usually provided, you don't deserve to vote.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-09-15 05:51pm

People in FLORIDA are laughing at California.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-09-15 05:57pm

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:People in FLORIDA are laughing at California.

Yes, we are

. Then again, we've still got voter fraud and disenfranchisement occuring down here, so we haven't fixed everything yet.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-09-15 06:07pm

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:People in FLORIDA are laughing at California.

People in PALM BEACH COUNTY are laughing at California! That's gotta hurt :-\

Oh, and RedImperator, I finally found my district. It's number 19.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2003-09-15 06:34pm

Who has given the The Federal government the right to interfere with the internal affairs of the States? This move is in gross violation of California's constitution in the matters of election dates concerning recalls.

SEC. 15. (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer
and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the
Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from
the date of certification of sufficient signatures.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-15 09:40pm

The only thing that's unconstitutional in this case is the fact that a ruling even took place.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-15 09:41pm

EmperorSolo51 wrote:Who has given the The Federal government the right to interfere with the internal affairs of the States? This move is in gross violation of California's constitution in the matters of election dates concerning recalls.

SEC. 15. (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer
and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the
Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from
the date of certification of sufficient signatures.

The 2000 election set the precedent for federal level judicial involvement in elections.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-09-15 09:57pm

--Why not delay the vote until you can get decent voting equipment in place?
-IMHO, there shouldn't be such a thing as a recall. If a gov. off. is really that bad s/he should be impeached and than removed from office that way. Otherwise, wait to vote him/her out of office.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-15 10:02pm

Nova Andromeda wrote:--Why not delay the vote until you can get decent voting equipment in place?

Why wait? If the equipment was good enough for the last election what makes replacing it now essential?

Nova Andromeda wrote:-IMHO, there shouldn't be such a thing as a recall. If a gov. off. is really that bad s/he should be impeached and than removed from office that way. Otherwise, wait to vote him/her out of office.

Maybe, maybe not. But there is the provision for it and Davis certainly deserves it for his pitiful performance.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-09-15 10:10pm

Stormbringer wrote:Why wait? If the equipment was good enough for the last election what makes replacing it now essential?

--The fact of the matter is that it wasn't good enough for last election, duh! I have to say that their new system doesn't exactly inspire me though.

Stormbringer wrote:Maybe, maybe not. But there is the provision for it and Davis certainly deserves it for his pitiful performance.

--The uncertainty and instability brought on by a recall such as this out weights any benefits that removing someone like Davis might bring. What makes you think Californians are any more capable of electing a good governor than 10 months ago. You have to realize that all the problems in Ca. are in large part due to things beyond his control.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-15 10:14pm

--The fact of the matter is that it wasn't good enough for last election, duh! I have to say that their new system doesn't exactly inspire me though.

Funny, they worked fine the last time around.

--The uncertainty and instability brought on by a recall such as this out weights any benefits that removing someone like Davis might bring. What makes you think Californians are any more capable of electing a good governor than 10 months ago. You have to realize that all the problems in Ca. are in large part due to things beyond his control.

That's debateable, it's not helping now but it might well help in the long term.

And the reason they picked Davis was because the Republican's blackballed the one challenger capable of giving Davis a run for his money had he run. That's all changed this time around.

Not entirely, a lot of the mismanagement can be laid at his door and that of his party. And even the things he didn't have control over he didn't handle very well.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-09-15 10:37pm

Stormbringer wrote:
--The fact of the matter is that it wasn't good enough for last election, duh! I have to say that their new system doesn't exactly inspire me though.
Funny, they worked fine the last time around.

-If by worked you mean resulted in an inaccurate vote count that can lead to the problems we had in Fl. in a close election.

Stormbringer wrote:--The uncertainty and instability brought on by a recall such as this out weights any benefits that removing someone like Davis might bring. What makes you think Californians are any more capable of electing a good governor than 10 months ago. You have to realize that all the problems in Ca. are in large part due to things beyond his control.

That's debateable, it's not helping now but it might well help in the long term.

And the reason they picked Davis was because the Republican's blackballed the one challenger capable of giving Davis a run for his money had he run. That's all changed this time around.

Not entirely, a lot of the mismanagement can be laid at his door and that of his party. And even the things he didn't have control over he didn't handle very well.[/quote]
-This type of rule must be made by considering the impact over the longterm since changing the rules midstream isn't fair. Most recalls will be done for political reasons which will not be well correlated with management reasons.
-So you admit Davis is guilty of mismanagment at best? However, he isn't the only one that runs the gov. is he....

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-15 10:46pm

-If by worked you mean resulted in an inaccurate vote count that can lead to the problems we had in Fl. in a close election.

I'm not saying their perfect. But if Davis accepted the results of them last time he ought to this time around.

-This type of rule must be made by considering the impact over the longterm since changing the rules midstream isn't fair. Most recalls will be done for political reasons which will not be well correlated with management reasons.

The recall rule has been there since the 1800s as I recall. Hardly changing the rules in midstream.

And your right that it has the potential for abuse, but this one is to remove a man that ran the state into the ground. It's justified in this case. Whether it does in some future case has no bearing on this one.

-So you admit Davis is guilty of mismanagment at best? However, he isn't the only one that runs the gov. is he....

Well, mismanaging your state into a deficit bigger and the entire budget of 48 of the other states is mismanagement a collosal scale. And he leads the state, the buck stops there.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-09-15 10:51pm

Stormbringer wrote:
EmperorSolo51 wrote:Who has given the The Federal government the right to interfere with the internal affairs of the States? This move is in gross violation of California's constitution in the matters of election dates concerning recalls.

SEC. 15. (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer
and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the
Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from
the date of certification of sufficient signatures.
The 2000 election set the precedent for federal level judicial involvement in elections.

That was a federal election however. This is a state election, which means the federal court system shouldn't enter into this unless it gets sent up to the US Supreme Court.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-09-15 11:07pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Nova Andromeda wrote:-If by worked you mean resulted in an inaccurate vote count that can lead to the problems we had in Fl. in a close election.
I'm not saying their perfect. But if Davis accepted the results of them last time he ought to this time around.

--This is a truly pathetic argument, but you know already don't you.

Stormbringer wrote:
Nova Andromeda wrote:-This type of rule must be made by considering the impact over the longterm since changing the rules midstream isn't fair. Most recalls will be done for political reasons which will not be well correlated with management reasons.
The recall rule has been there since the 1800s as I recall. Hardly changing the rules in midstream.

And your right that it has the potential for abuse, but this one is to remove a man that ran the state into the ground. It's justified in this case. Whether it does in some future case has no bearing on this one.

-I include the changing the rules part because I wanted to exclude the possibility of deciding on whether a recall was justified on a "case by case" basis. There should be no recall (certainly after this one) period.

Stormbringer wrote:
Nova Andromeda wrote:-So you admit Davis is guilty of mismanagment at best? However, he isn't the only one that runs the gov. is he....
Well, mismanaging your state into a deficit bigger and the entire budget of 48 of the other states is mismanagement a collosal scale. And he leads the state, the buck stops there.

-You cannot blame the deficit entirely on Davis for reasons previously stated. The economic down turn and power crisis were simply beyond his control. Bush is more to blame than Davis for the power problems (accounting for a large part of the deficit) since he provided no protection to Ca. in the energy crisis (which was due to illegal actions by Enron et al. and deregulation which he and his party pushed for). The collapse of the state economy was also beyond Davis' control since it was tied to the national economic collapse and the collapse of the computer boom which Ca. was heavily invested in.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-09-15 11:36pm

Beowulf wrote:That was a federal election however. This is a state election, which means the federal court system shouldn't enter into this unless it gets sent up to the US Supreme Court.

The Feds do have jurisdiction if it's a civil rights matter. Thank the peckerwoods who couldn't accept that slavery was over for that. I thoroughly disagree that this is indeed one, but that's the justification they used.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-16 12:41am

This is a truly pathetic argument, but you know already don't you.

If the machines were trustworthy enough then, they're trustworthy enough now. He's just crying in his milk because he might not win.

-I include the changing the rules part because I wanted to exclude the possibility of deciding on whether a recall was justified on a "case by case" basis. There should be no recall (certainly after this one) period.

That's up to California. It serves a purpose for sure, but it is a dual edged sword.

-You cannot blame the deficit entirely on Davis for reasons previously stated. The economic down turn and power crisis were simply beyond his control. Bush is more to blame than Davis for the power problems (accounting for a large part of the deficit) since he provided no protection to Ca. in the energy crisis (which was due to illegal actions by Enron et al. and deregulation which he and his party pushed for). The collapse of the state economy was also beyond Davis' control since it was tied to the national economic collapse and the collapse of the computer boom which Ca. was heavily invested in.

Even the best run states are facing tought times. But California's problems go deeper than most states. Davis hasn't done much to change that. Of course he's far better at trash talking than the actual business of government.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-16 02:02am

RedImperator wrote:
The Feds do have jurisdiction if it's a civil rights matter. Thank the peckerwoods who couldn't accept that slavery was over for that. I thoroughly disagree that this is indeed one, but that's the justification they used.

Except there hearing this case based on a law which requires Federal approval for any changes in voting procedures. However the recall law is over a century old, there has been no change.