Surprisingly enough, I haven't heard a single person from the left saying that courts shouldn't decide elections, which seemed to be the official party stance in 2000.
Dude, the courts aren't deciding anything. They just pushed the election back a month to ensure the best equipment is used. Unlike in 2000, they're not going to appoint the next leader.
do you really honestly believe that's what happened?? do you really not see the argument on the other side at all?
It's still a matter of jurisdiction. If you argue the courts had no business in Florida with regard to elections, why is it OK for them to get involved in the California recall election, regardless of reason?
First, I don't think the courts *should* get involved. I'm glad the Democrats are finally fighting back, though. However, I see *why* the courts delayed the election. Originally, the voting machines weren't going to be needed until 2004. Since the recall election is clearly in 2003, the voting places weren't ready.
Courts have NO BUSINESS stepping in and stopping vote counts. None. They circumvented the will of the people for political reasons and that was absolutely 100-percent wrong. Had all the Florida votes been re-counted (or even consistently re-counted in key counties), Gore would have won the electoral college in addition to the popular vote. I didn't even vote for Gore, but he should be President right now. What, you expect the 54 million people who voted against Bush to meekly accept that their votes were trampled underfoot? You can call it politics, sour grapes, whatever you want, but the person with the most votes *did not* win. And that is simply unacceptable. And that Republicans accept this because "their guy" won shows just how partisan things are.
How can you be glad that someone is doing something you disagree with? You don't think the courts should be involved, yet you're glad the Dems are involving them? This sounds awfully similar to what is going on in CA right now. You honestly believe that? Nearly every independent source I saw after the election indicated that Bush would have won the re-count regardless.
Nothing but a desperate move by Davis and the liberals in California, No one gave a flying **** about the out-dated voter ballots during the last primary, I hope Davis gets run over in the street by an illegal immigrant in a volkswagon rabbit.
Just posting an update of the situation; I suppose this still has a long way to go before it's over. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34635 TOTAL RECALL Court will review decision to delay vote 9th Circuit allowing California to ask 11-judge panel to rehear case -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: September 16, 2003 5:00 p.m. Eastern © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com California's gubernatorial recall election remains on hold, but a federal appeals court said today it is considering whether to review the decision of its three-judge panel to postpone the Oct. 7 vote. California election officials and proponents of the recall have until tomorrow afternoon to file briefs on whether they want an 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to rehear the case, the Associated Press reported. The three-judge panel ruled yesterday the election must be postponed because some voters would be using outmoded punch-card ballot machines of the type that produced the infamous "hanging chads" during the 2000 presidential election. Responding to a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the judges said it is unacceptable that six counties, representing about 44 percent of the voters, would be using the error-prone machines. The ACLU contends those counties have a high percentage of blacks and Latinos who would be disenfranchised because of the higher error rate. A group supporting the recall, Rescue California, was prepared to ask the U.S. Supreme Court today to ensure the Oct. 7 election takes place as originally planned. Meanwhile, local election officials are pointing out that for 25 years, every statewide office-holder in California from U.S. senator to insurance commissioner has been elected with punch-card ballots, the San Jose Mercury News reported. In the six counties still using punch cards, officials say they have had few problems with the ballots and are confident they could run a fair election three weeks from now, the San Jose paper said. "There has never been an issue of having a poor election process due to the punch-card system,'' Jesse Durazo, Santa Clara County registrar of voters, told the Mercury News. Los Angeles County's registrar of voters, Conny McCormack, said the counties' voice was not heard in the trial because the suit was against Secretary of State Kevin Shelley. "The secretary of state doesn't conduct elections," he told the paper. "There's a huge disconnect between the people conducting the elections and the court ruling." All California counties must eliminate punch-card voting by March, according to a 2002 agreement between the state and plaintiffs in another federal lawsuit. The potential delay in the recall, possibly until the March 2004 primary election, raises many practical problems for the counties, the Los Angeles Times reported, including whether they can process a ballot for both the recall and the presidential primary and how they would pay for a costly shift in timing. McCormack said she did not think the county's new optical-scan voting system could handle all the candidates and initiatives. Election officials also are pressed with the question of what will happen to the thousands of absentee ballots that have been filled out and returned. On top of that, county officials say they had spent much of the money allocated for the Oct. 7 election and would lose most of it if the vote is held in March, the Times reported. "It would be like taking $350,000 and throwing it in Monterey Bay," said Gail Pellerin, elections manager in Santa Cruz County, according to the Los Angeles paper. As WorldNetDaily reported, an overnight survey showed a clear majority of California voters believe yesterday's court decision was wrong. Pollster Scott Rasmussen said his poll of 500 likely California voters found 58 percent disagreed with the decision. Thirty-five percent of prospective voters agreed.
then you probably won't like this either Bush’s 2004 budget proposes to cut vocational and technical education grants by 24% ($307 million). His budget also proposes to freeze funding for pell grants for low income students.
Boomerang Effect Bush v. Gore comes back to haunt Republicans in California's recall. By Sean Wilentz Web Exclusive: 9.16.03 http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/09/wilentz-s-09-16.html The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to stay the California recall election makes clear as never before that the entire effort to recall Gov. Gray Davis can only be understood in light of the Florida recount struggle of 2000 -- and of the larger efforts by the Republican Party to undermine democracy in order to seize and control power. The court's decision creates some powerful ironies for the GOP, as well as for its supporters who have argued that Bush v. Gore was correctly decided. During the Florida debacle, the U.S. Supreme Court, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, justified its halting of the vote count and its virtual declaration of George W. Bush's victory on the basis of the rights of voters and equal protection under the law. But now, on the basis of those exact same principles, the 9th Circuit has ruled that the California recall vote must be delayed. Enraged Republicans, with their radio talk-show minions out in front, are now in the position of opposing, at least in theory, the basis on which the Supreme Court handed the presidency to Bush. But the ironies, and their importance, run deeper than that. If the Supreme Court decides to accept an appeal and then voids the 9th Circuit's stay, it will become more obvious than ever that, for a majority of the justices, the naked exercise of power takes precedence over coherent constitutional principles. If the high court decides not to hear the case, or upholds the 9th Circuit's stay, it will strongly suggest that the Court has become embarrassed by Bush v. Gore and wants to avoid revisiting the relevant issues less than three years later -- and with a new presidential election looming. Either way, the political outcome will almost certainly favor the Democrats. Turning aside the stay would inflame opponents of the recall, who have been building great momentum in recent days anyway. Upholding it would delay the recall election until the date of the state's presidential primary next March. Davis' fate would thus be decided on a day when vast numbers of California Democrats turn out to vote anyway, with the pressure brought on by the state's immediate budget crisis that much further in the past and with the meltdown of the California Republican Party -- epitomized by the split between Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Sen. Tom McClintock -- that much further advanced. And for getting itself into this mess, the Republican Party has no one to blame but itself. The California recall effort, from the start, had been of a piece not just with the Florida recount but with the partisan impeachment drive against President Bill Clinton in 1998, the GOP's voter suppression efforts in the 2002 elections (directed chiefly at racial minorities) and the continuing redistricting war in Texas. In each instance, the Republicans have shown that they will mangle established rules and procedures in order to gain power -- even when, as in the cases of the 1998 impeachment, the 2000 election and now the California governorship, the GOP has not won the backing of the majority of the voters. The Republicans will stop at nothing, and use any pretext or excuse (backed up with their greatest resource, special-interest money), to prevent rightfully elected Democrats from carrying out their responsibilities in office -- or from taking office at all. The California decision, coming as it does on the heels of Bush v. Gore, makes clear the shaky legitimacy of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Immediately following Bush v. Gore, respect for the Supreme Court plummeted to its lowest levels since the Roger Taney Court rendered its blatantly political decision in the Dred Scott case in 1857. Now, thanks to renewed Republican power grabbing, the court's reputation stands to suffer another blow, no matter what it decides to do. The Republicans like to present themselves merely as hardball political operatives, a myth affirmed by a vicarious and source-reliant Washington press corps. But the Republicans' fundamental disrespect for the spirit as well as the letter of democratic and constitutional procedures is leading to a legitimacy crisis of the highest order. And, though the prospects for California's Democrats may have brightened after the 9th Circuit's ruling, there is no reason to believe that this crisis, brought on by the Republicans' relentless assaults, will not deepen through the election of 2004. Sean Wilentz is the Dayton-Stockton Professor of History and director of the Program in American Studies at Princeton University.
Maynard -- it cuts both ways...dems were saying that elections don't belong before the courts...now they're saying they do. i don't think you can single out either party as better than the other on this one.
The principles are not exactly the same. For one thing, the Florida decision came AFTER the election. So it did not infringe on political speech of the candidates. It is also screwing over all the people who were particicipating in the recall. (New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/opinion/17ACKE.html) Also, it is not clear that equal protection was violated. In Florida, different standards WITHIN counties were being applied. In California, that was not the case. It has been the norm for different counties to have different procedures, but everyone within the county is treated the same. Miami-Dade was applying different standards to its voters. (kausfiles.com) More from the nytimes article: "The decision departs from Bush v. Gore in a second way. When the Supreme Court stopped the recount, Florida's time was running out. Continuing the recount increased the risk that its electoral vote would be challenged in Washington when Congress counted all the electoral ballots. Whatever its other merits or demerits, the court's intervention protected the right of each state to make its voice heard in selecting the president. In contrast, the present decision attacks states' rights at their very core. The short election period is central to California's political integrity. Its constitution places a limit of six months on this extraordinary process. By extending the election beyond this period, the court condemns the state to an extended period of political paralysis."
MadMax, Mr Clutch...thanks for your input I really don't have much knowledge of the legalities involved here and I agree that both sides have real arguments and flaws... I was posting the article just as a FYI, not that I agreed with it 100%...just a flowing of ideas that make this bbs fun..
Mr. Clutch, you do realize that you cited an editorial by liberal Yalie prof Bruce Ackerman from the New York Times? Do you feel dirty?
