Appeals court blocks California recall

[zimv20]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/recall.delay/index.html

muy interesante...


A federal appeals court has blocked the October 7 California recall, but stayed its order for seven days to allow an appeal.

The ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals follows a hearing last week in which the American Civil Liberties Union sought a postponment of the vote.

The ACLU argued that election officials should have more time to replace antiquated voting machines in several California counties.

If Monday's ruling stands, the recall vote would be moved to March 2004.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Cripes, why don't they just wait until the next general election? Just like they should have done in the first place. Recalls are NOT a way to air your political stance (correct me if that's not what it's about). The election IS.

In the next town over from me, two city councillors are being recalled because they voted the wrong way (to some citiziens' minds) on a highway-planning issue. What BS.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe

In the next town over from me, two city councillors are being recalled because they voted the wrong way (to some citiziens' minds) on a highway-planning issue. What BS.

the logical extension of that is to move to a referendum-based democracy, like the swiss.

somehow, i think i trust the populace less than the politicians. hm.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe Cripes, why don't they just wait until the next general election? Just like they should have done in the first place. Recalls are NOT a way to air your political stance (correct me if that's not what it's about). The election IS.

Recalls, at least in California, is provided for by the California Constitution, same as elections.

One is done in a regularly scheduled time, the other is done when the electorate wants it. I think that having an electorate decide that they don't want you in office is a good thing.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I think that having an electorate decide that they don't want you in office is a good thing.

i seem to remember that same electorate largely opting to stay at home during the election.

so all it takes is one guy w/ a million bucks to suddenly get people interested in politics? what does that say about people's susceptability to negative advertising?

[Dont Hurt Me]

they didnt seem to mine using those same machines last election? Its just more of the same, democrats ,republicans their partys are bringing down america constantly. we get screwed everywhich way by both these guys.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
they didnt seem to mine using those same machines last election? Its just more of the same, democrats ,republicans their partys are bringing down america constantly. we get screwed everywhich way by both these guys.

I wish someone had sued over this issue after Bush v Gore. I think a lot of states have this problem, and it's just going to cause more trouble later on down the line in other places.

Better late than never.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Recalls, at least in California, is provided for by the California Constitution, same as elections.

One is done in a regularly scheduled time, the other is done when the electorate wants it. I think that having an electorate decide that they don't want you in office is a good thing.

I agree that the recall is a good thing, but it should only be used when somebody fails to uphold his oath of office, NOT just because somebody disagrees with his policies.

[mactastic]

Well, it looks like the Supreme Court is going to take this one on. In special session no less.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by mactastic
Well, it looks like the Supreme Court is going to take this one on. In special session no less.

Well, if that is the case, then whatever GWB and the republican party wants will happen.

[mactastic]

Actually we'll have to wait and see if the Supremes want to accept this. My feeling is that they will, but who knows. They will surely be asked to take it.

Either way its a boost for Davis. If the recall is held in March who knows things will be. If the Supremes step in Davis gets to play the "Evil Republicans want to overturn another election" card.

They should just hold the election already and get it over with.

[Desertrat]

Back in the 1970s, Frances Farenthold (a gubernatorial candidate against Gov. Briscoe) and the liberals in general were generally favoring the idea of a constitutional amendment providing for Initiative and Referendum.

In one of the legislative watering holes, on night, the subject came up for discussion. I think it was Molly Ivins who overheard something along the lines of, "Initiative and Referendum? The next thing you know, these damned people will want to be governing themselves!"

For all that the Texas Lege was almost 100% Democrat back then, a lot of those old mossyhorns were off to the right of Jesse Helms...

I've always been amused--and dismayed--by those who yawp about the wisdom of the voter on election day (unless their candidate or party loses) but holds the judgement of that same group in contempt thereafter--until the next election. "Hypocrisy" will do.

:), 'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

I was hoping we'd just get this stupid recall election over and done with, and move onto the process of amending the California constitution to insure that it never happens this way again.

[patrick0brien]

-All

Just a small thought:

I find it highly suspect that the ACLU/9th Circuit Court chose this particular moment in time - less than a month from the recall to act on the suspect machines.

It's the timing, not the subject alone, that I find telling.

Everybody has a political axe to grind - there are no innocents here.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-All

Just a small thought:

I find it highly suspect that the ACLU/9th Circuit Court chose this particular moment in time - less than a month from the recall to act on the suspect machines.

It's the timing, not the subject alone, that I find telling.

Everybody has a political axe to grind - there are no innocents here.

The legal challenges started immediately after the recall petitions were certified. This is the second or third stop for this case. So no, timing isn't suspect.

[KCK]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I was hoping we'd just get this stupid recall election over and done with, and move onto the process of amending the California constitution to insure that it never happens this way again.

Why would we want to change the CA constitution? WE have a governor who lied about the size of the budget problems to get re-elected. when he knew the state was in financial problems he gave prison guards a 40% raise and changed the pension plan to allow those guards to retire at age 50 at their highest annual salary. Of course this raise and pension change came after the union gave a nice donation to the Davis re-election campaign. don't believe the story that the only reason this recall is happening is that some people don't like Gray's policies. There are good reason to vote the bum out.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't believe anyone's "story" and don't need the situation explained to me. I did not vote for Davis in the last election, but still believe this recall is one of the most idiotic political exercises I have ever witnessed. When a Constitutional amendment is proposed, I will almost certainly vote for it.

[Sayhey]

The reasons for the recall are that Gov. Davis is an idiot, a fool, and a horrible politican who has political opponents that are willing to bankroll a scheme to circumvent a legal election. I guess you can tell I don't like Davis, but I'm voting no on the recall and for Bustamante - just in case this scheme works.

By the way, those counties that have the punch card ballot account for "only" 44% of the electorate. Might be a good reason to delay this mess? I don't want a replay of Florida to compound this nightmare.

[Desertrat]

Aw, now, Sayhey, don't bring up the Florida ballots. "Only Republicans survived the Titanic; they were the only ones to follow the arrows to the lifeboats." :D :D

Have any of y'all followed the unfolding controversy developing over the Diebold electronic voting machines? Maybe run Google for "Jim March" or "Jim March + Diebold". Anyhow, their security sucks and any halfway competent hacker can get in and play with the tallies.

Never a dull moment...

:), 'Rat

Edit add-on:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/09/15/electronic.voting.ap/index.html

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Aw, now, Sayhey, don't bring up the Florida ballots. "Only Republicans survived the Titanic; they were the only ones to follow the arrows to the lifeboats." :D :D

Have any of y'all followed the unfolding controversy developing over the Diebold electronic voting machines? Maybe run Google for "Jim March" or "Jim March + Diebold". Anyhow, their security sucks and any halfway competent hacker can get in and play with the tallies.

Never a dull moment...

:), 'Rat

Edit add-on:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/09/15/electronic.voting.ap/index.html

'Rat, there has already been a couple of threads on the Diebold machines, including their lack of security against tampering and the President of the Company's endorsement of Bush.

Sorry, I think the Florida experience is germane. Experts say that as much as 40,000 votes could be invalidated in some of the largest counties in the State through use of these machines. Given the closeness of this race both in the top candidates polling numbers and the overall choice on recalling Davis those "lost" votes could change the fate of California for the next few years. As a resident I would prefer to wait and do it right.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Sorry, I think the Florida experience is germane.

Apparently so. The appeals court's decision was based on the precedent in Bush v. Gore.

[KCK]

Originally posted by Sayhey

Sorry, I think the Florida experience is germane. Experts say that as much as 40,000 votes could be invalidated in some of the largest counties in the State through use of these machines. Given the closeness of this race both in the top candidates polling numbers and the overall choice on recalling Davis those "lost" votes could change the fate of California for the next few years. As a resident I would prefer to wait and do it right.

The problem isn't in the machines. The problem in in user error with people who don't push the pin in hard enough. Also people who don't check their ballot after they take it out of the machine to make sure they voted the way they wanted to vote and there are no hanging chads. No voting system is going to be fool proof for people who don't take the time to read the instructions on the proper use of the voting machine. I think part of the process of being an informed voter is knowing how to properly use the voting machine.

[Desertrat]

Well, sorta, IJ. Florida, it was what votes should or shouldn't have been tossed. Cali, it's the possible complications that *might* lead to the same questions. And I can see where the arrangement of the names and arrows could have been confusing, in Florida.

Separately: If you went back to paper and pencil, and stipulate it takes two full days to do the count: Who would be harmed besides the "sensibilities" of the mediahhh folks?

The reason I ask: In Terlingua, the Brewster County results for local elections, and how we voted for statewide or national candidates, aren't reported except in our weekly paper--which comes out on Thursday in Alpine and arrives "down south" around noon. So, for local stuff, "We don't know nuttin'," for a couple of days. But, we live through it...

'Rat

[Taft]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
I agree that the recall is a good thing, but it should only be used when somebody fails to uphold his oath of office, NOT just because somebody disagrees with his policies.

But don't we have something like that already? If a politician commits crimes or inappropriate behavior in office, there are rules in just about every constitution for dealing with it.

Thats why I don't understand the recall process. Its simply a way for a voting populace to get rid of a candidate they put in office simply because they don't like what he is doing. I don't trust the average voter to be able to make those kind of decisions. I barely trust them to elect the "right" candidate in the first place.

Taft

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by Taft
But don't we have something like that already? If a politician commits crimes or inappropriate behavior in office, there are rules in just about every constitution for dealing with it.

Thats why I don't understand the recall process. Its simply a way for a voting populace to get rid of a candidate they put in office simply because they don't like what he is doing. I don't trust the average voter to be able to make those kind of decisions. I barely trust them to elect the "right" candidate in the first place.

Taft

-Taft

Too true. In fact, it seems these last 40 years-or-so of federal elections, it's not about the 'best' candidate, it's about voting for the 'least bad'.

[Daveman Deluxe]

PowerBook G5:

It's not even so much about voting for the least bad, it's more about voting for the guy they voted for last time, regardless of his record. 90% of incumbents win reelection regardless of whether he/she followed through on campaign promises.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Well, sorta, IJ. Florida, it was what votes should or shouldn't have been tossed. Cali, it's the possible complications that *might* lead to the same questions. And I can see where the arrangement of the names and arrows could have been confusing, in Florida.

The case was based on Bush v. Gore, and apparently that was a winning argument, at least at this level of judicial review. If the Supreme Court does decide to take this case -- they'll have to explain what they really meant in Bush v. Gore. That could be interesting, since that decision left many Constitutional scholars scratching their heads.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Aw, now, Sayhey, don't bring up the Florida ballots. "Only Republicans survived the Titanic; they were the only ones to follow the arrows to the lifeboats." :D :D

Have any of y'all followed the unfolding controversy developing over the Diebold electronic voting machines? Maybe run Google for "Jim March" or "Jim March + Diebold". Anyhow, their security sucks and any halfway competent hacker can get in and play with the tallies.

Never a dull moment...

:), 'Rat

Edit add-on:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/09/15/electronic.voting.ap/index.html

I read that yesterday with interest... that's my county! Gotta love the Diebold group. I sure hope someone gets to the bottom of that one. Seems like you could get one hell of an advantage with real-time polling data coming in.

[Desertrat]

On another board, Jim March was asking the hackers there about some of the passwords and codes that Diebold uses. They were fairly contemptuous.

He's been raising a rabid-dog ruckus over it, and Diebold threatened him with civil action. He invited them to please do so; he'd love open court and discovery.

It got hot enough that the Moderators stuffed the thread into the "Evidence Locker" and suggested everybody take it to email. :)

Heck, even Dem Underground was upset over it!

:), 'Rat

[Desertrat]

Gee, Taft, that's really a doozy! "I don't trust the average voter to be able to make those kind of decisions. I barely trust them to elect the "right" candidate in the first place."

Okay, who should be allowed to vote, in the system you'd rather have? What qualifications?

And just who defines the "right" candidates? What new requirements would you put in place?

:), 'Rat

[Frohickey]

Color me old fashioned, but I still think that voting should be done in person, and with as substantial a way as possible. Punchcards are pretty substantial when compared to bits on a computer voting machine.

[KCK]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Color me old fashioned, but I still think that voting should be done in person, and with as substantial a way as possible. Punchcards are pretty substantial when compared to bits on a computer voting machine.

Funny but Jerry Brown just made that very point on Hardball. Jerry Brown said that we have been running elections for 40 years with punchcards with no major problems in CA. Jerry also is worried about moving to an electronic voting system that doesn't have any paper back-up in case a virus or some other problem affects the electronic voting system.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

Okay, who should be allowed to vote, in the system you'd rather have? What qualifications?


i don't think anyone is advocating a plan to let only some people vote. what's at issue is: is the average citizen smart and/or informed enough to participate in a completely referendrum-driven gov't?

the answer, to me, is a resounding "no". people are uninformed idiots. just turn on the radio.

but all people should be allowed to vote for candidates -- people whose job it is to be informed, w/ access to the best information, to make the best decision for their constituency and the nation as a whole.

analogies:

- i know i want good health, but my doctor is the expert

- i know what i want out of a contract, but my lawyer does all the legalese

[toontra]

Originally posted by zimv20
i don't think anyone is advocating a plan to let only some people vote. what's at issue is: is the average citizen smart and/or informed enough to participate in a completely referendrum-driven gov't?

the answer, to me, is a resounding "no". people are uninformed idiots. just turn on the radio.


zim20,

In a country where 70% of the population believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11, I have to agree with your low assessment of the average US citizen's knowledge.

Whether it's because they're "idiots", or, more likely, because they're fed a diet of undiluted media and political crap, you're in a better position to judge that me, but having just heard extracts of what Cheyney was saying, and getting away with, on Face the Media last Sunday, I can't help but think your level of journalism is in a very sorry state.

Without people asking the right questions and demanding answers from those who govern you, how the hell is the average Joe going to know what, or who, to believe.

[Desertrat]

toontra, I think you're getting into the realm of voter apathy.

There are a helluva lot of folks who have pretty much given up on our political process--at least at the higher levels of elective office. Local elections are still of interest, but then if folks aren't gonna vote for President, they won't show up just to vote for dogcatcher.

There is an attitude that no matter who gets elected, things don't really get any better. No matter which party is in control, there is an unending flow of new laws, new programs, more taxes or fees and more hassles. If your vote can't help make life better, why not just go fishing?

'Rat

[toontra]

Rat.

I'm sure your right, and that voter apathy suits the leaders of both your political parties very well for three and a half of every four years!

The problem is, the way you folks vote at national elections effects not just you, but just about every other person in the world, especially us poor buggers in the UK, as has been witnessed so dramatically over the past two years.

Perhaps we could donate you some of our more aggressive journalists for the period leading up to the next election (if any of your networks would allow that sort of probing)!!

[Dont Hurt Me]

Well all you california voters it is going to be time to vote.

[mactastic]

Yay! Lets get it on! (and over with)

[IJ Reilly]

Did anyone happen to catch the debate last night? It was a pretty raucous affair -- like mud wrestling with a moderator. Swartzenegger came off as smug, rude and full of himself, Huffington as shrill and insulting, and Bustamonte as kind of a dullard. The only two candidates who managed to escape with any sort of dignity were Tom McClintock and Peter Camajo (curiously, the two ends of the political spectrum). I'll bet that 90 minute fracas did more the help Gray Davis then anything he could ever hope to do for himself in the same hour and a half.

[Rower_CPU]

The candidates do come off like rabid dogs fighting over a piece of meat, but it still hurts Davis to have an hour and a half of what this state's doing wrong without any defense of what it's doing right.

[IJ Reilly]

I suppose, but what little of substance we did hear last night was pretty completely overwhelmed by the petty bickering, and that's the impression I think most viewers will be left with. It sure didn't make the alternatives to Davis look any more appealing then the man already on the job.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'll bet that 90 minute fracas did more the help Gray Davis then anything he could ever hope to do for himself in the same hour and a half.

that was basically NPR's analysis

[Dont Hurt Me]

interesting that you heard cut cut cut taxes on the republican side where on the democratic side bustamante was still talking tax tax tax! him & davis are the same. they have that addiction Arnold was talking about and its the same one George has!

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Did anyone happen to catch the debate last night? It was a pretty raucous affair -- like mud wrestling with a moderator. Swartzenegger came off as smug, rude and full of himself, Huffington as shrill and insulting, and Bustamonte as kind of a dullard. The only two candidates who managed to escape with any sort of dignity were Tom McClintock and Peter Camajo (curiously, the two ends of the political spectrum). I'll bet that 90 minute fracas did more the help Gray Davis then anything he could ever hope to do for himself in the same hour and a half.

IJ, I hope you're right and it convinces people to vote against the recall. I didn't think any of the five did all that well. Huffington and Arnold came off tied for the worst of the lot. Although I sure would have liked someone to follow up on what Arnold meant about a part for Huffington in his next "Terminator" movie. With all the discussion about his glee toward sticking his female co-star's head in a toliet in the last one it could have been a threat. Just the kind of guy you want in the Governor's mansion.

Anyway, it didn't change my vote. No on the Recall, not because I like Davis, but because this a horrible way to choose a Governor and a Republican power grab to boot. Yes on Bustamante because he is the only candidate with a chance to beat Arnold if this recall is successful.

[IJ Reilly]

I can't figure out what Ariana Huffington was up to at this debate. Clearly (to me, anyway) she was the smartest person on that stage, but instead of explaining herself, she seemed determined to take as many swings as possible at Swartzenegger. If she was trying to help herself, obviously she didn't succeed. If she was trying to wound him, I don't suppose she did much better. Oh, and that "terminator" comeback -- does it get any creepier then that? And some people in the audience actually laughed! But he's such a jolly misogynist... how can that be bad?