Legal politics may have shattered the momentum of the forces
trying to remove Gov. Gray Davis from office.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled on Monday to postpone the California recall election until
six counties ““ including Los Angeles ““ can replace old
voting systems prone to error.
If the ruling in the case holds, the recall election originally
scheduled for Oct. 7 could be held as late as March 2, during the
state’s Democratic presidential primary.
The case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which
argued that holding an election as soon as Oct. 7 would
disenfranchise voters in counties that use punch-card ballots
““ the same kind of ballots that sparked controversy in
Florida during the 2000 presidential election.
According to the Court, voters in counties using punch-card
ballot machines ““ which have an error rate as high as 3
percent ““ would be treated unfairly in a statewide election
involving counties with more modern voting systems.
Judges Harry Pregerson, Richard Paez and Sidney Thomas presided
over the case, and wrote that “assessing the public interest,
the balance falls heavily in favor of postponing the election for a
few months.”
Michael Wintemute, an official from the California Republican
Party, said though the Court ruled in favor of the ACLU, he was
confident that the decision would soon be overturned.
“My assessment that this, like any other decision by the
9th Circuit, is a magnet for reversal by the Supreme Court,”
he said.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is notorious for having
its cases overturned. According to statistics compiled by the
Center for Individual Freedom Foundation, a non-partisan
constitutional advocacy group, the 9th Circuit was overturned more
often than any other Federal Court of Appeals during the U.S.
Supreme Court term ending in Oct. 2002.
Wintemute added that the ruling is “completely out of step
with mainstream California,” and said he is confident that
the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn the decision if it hears the
case.
Though elections experts said Monday’s decision followed
the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2000 case
Bush v. Gore, proponents of the recall effort are expected to
appeal to the Supreme Court as soon as possible.
“Give us 24 hours. We’ll get something off to the
Supreme Court,” said Ted Costa, who leads the pro-recall
group, Peoples’ Advocate.
Wintemute also said because opponents of the recall and Gov.
Gray Davis have called the November 2002 election in which Davis
was voted into office “fair and square,” there is
little justification for deciding to change the voting system
now.
“What you’re seeing here is that this process now,
for some reason, isn’t good enough to use to remove (Davis)
from office,” he said.
Bob Mulholland, a campaign adviser for the California Democratic
Party, said though Democrats feel they have been gaining momentum
in the effort to defeat the recall, the state must follow the
Court’s ruling.
“Politically, we want to go ahead,” Mulholland said.
“Legally, every state must comply with the laws and this
court case points out almost half of California voting equipment is
illegal, and that’s a problem.”
Delaying the recall vote would go against the California
Constitution, which mandates that a recall vote must be held within
80 days of the recall qualifying for vote.
Should the recall be delayed until March, it could have a
sweeping effect on state politics and the campaigns of the
candidates, such as Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante and
Republican hopeful Arnold Schwarzenegger, the two front-runners
looking to replace Davis if the recall passes.
Recall candidates will have to stretch resources initially
planned to last until Oct. 7 and may have to reorganize their
schedules to accommodate a now prolonged campaign.
In addition, Davis will most likely have to contend with an even
more divided state legislature when it reconvenes in January, as
state Republicans will most likely do everything they can to bar
the governor from passing initiatives that could garner favor among
California voters, said Allan Hoffenblum, a political
strategist.
“You’re basically going to see state government as
we know it become even more gridlocked and voters will become even
more disillusioned,” he said.
Delaying the recall vote until March would also delay the vote
on Proposition 54, a controversial initiative that would prevent
the state from collecting data on a person’s ethnicity.
With reports from Daily Bruin wire services.