They've (temporarily) postponed the recall election until March, prolonging the circus and giving Davis a much better shot, by having his fate decided by hordes of Democratic primary voters. It's another attack of the chads!

We'll see if the SCOTUS weighs in to preempt this nonsense.

[Update at 2 PM PDT]

The ever-perspicacious Eugene Volokh asks a great question:

Assuming that punch card ballots are generally less reliable than the alternatives, why should we think that using punch card ballots in several counties in Oct. 2003 would be less reliable than using the alternatives for the fist time in those counties in Mar. 2004?

Let's summarize:

Once again, Democrats use the "inherent faults" punch card in an attempt to win (or at least delay losing) an election.

But hey, they were fine last November, no?

To follow up on Steve's point:

Why didn't the ACLU or anybody else sue in 2002 to postpone the elections, if the punch-card system was in place at the time?

If they are unacceptable now, shouldn't they have been unacceptable then?

Unfortunately, I don't think there's thing 1 SCOTUS can do about it, the 9th circus is following to the letter the precedent SCOTUS itself set in Bush v. Gore by using the punch cards and the 14th instead of the obvious article 2 issue the Florida Supremes set up by rewriting the laws after the fact. it's an f'ed up decision, but it's rooted in f'ed up precedent.

> the 9th circus is following to the letter the
> precedent SCOTUS itself set in Bush v. Gore by
> using the punch cards and the 14th instead of
> the obvious article 2 issue the Florida
> Supremes set up by rewriting the laws after the
> fact

According to the WASHINGTON POST, the court's reasoning is as follows:

"The choice between holding a hurried, constitutionally infirm election and one held a short time later that assures voters that the 'rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied' is clear. . . . These issues are better resolved prophylactically than by bitter, post-election litigation over the legitimacy of the election, particularly where the margin of voting machine error may well exceed the margin of victory. The Supreme Court's admonition in [the Florida case] bears re-quoting: 'The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees.' "

(damn...how do I return to the "Post a Comment" window after previewing my posting?)

Anyway, isn't this really a common-sense decision? Considering the Florida problems and the fact much better court-mandated voting equipment will be in place by March 2004, why not simply wait a little longer?
---
I note the districts affected by this (=major urban areas) appear to be heavily Democratic ones.
A March 2004 election would certainly be more representative of the true will of the people since voter turnout most likely will be higher thanks to the California presidential primary.

I don't think it is fair to Davis if only a small but determined fraction of GOP voters bother to go to the polls in October, and if he is forced to resign because of that.

MARCU$

Elections are won based on the highest number of votes of those who ACTUALLY SHOW UP. Having a representative sample has nothing to do with it. If you can't motivate your base to show up and support you, then that's life. You deserve to lose!

But we now have the Post-2000 election realities. Any time the Dems think they're going to lose, they'll find a sympathetic court to intervene.

The Florida Supremes ignored the law, as did the New Jersey Supremes in the 2002 race. Now the 9th Circus has done the same here.

My prediction, since the day Gore gave his concession speech, was that regardless of how big W's margin is in '04, they'll be in court in every close state.

It's really a logical extension of their legislation strategy. If you can't get a law passed upholding nationwide abortion rights, get the court to create a right. If you can't get your guy elected, get the court to make it "more fair."

Bob

By right clicking on the preview window. There's a menu.

Another cynical prediction...

Since this ruling depends on the new machines being in place, if it's still looking bad in February for Davis, expect the rollout of new machines to be delayed.

Bob

Marcus,

The answer to your wquestion is that it skews the answer to the question. People who care about the issue at hand will show up to vote, no matter the date. If you hold it during the primary, you are in essence saying that you think you cannot win on the merits of the question (should Davis remain as governor), because your electorate does not care to show at the polls to answer that question. Instead, you artificially boost your turnout by holding the question at a time of a presidential primary, and hope that your constituency votes a straight ticket.

Considering the Florida problems and the fact much better court-mandated voting equipment will be in place by March 2004, why not simply wait a little longer?

Because the law stipulates that a recall election be held within a certain period of time after the signatures are certified. The "Florida problems" were unique to Florida--there's actually little evidence that punch cards are intrinsically a bad method of voting, and as was pointed out, no one complained last fall.

I note the districts affected by this (=major urban areas) appear to be heavily Democratic ones.
A March 2004 election would certainly be more representative of the true will of the people since voter turnout most likely will be higher thanks to the California presidential primary.

I don't think it is fair to Davis if only a small but determined fraction of GOP voters bother to go to the polls in October, and if he is forced to resign because of that.

But it's fair to people who want to remove him if the election is held on a day that Dems will be thronging to the polls to choose a presidential nominee (there is no effective contest for the Republican nomination, since Bush will be effectively unopposed)?

The rationalization for preferred outcomes never fail to amaze. As in Florida (and New Jersey) this was a blatant political act by a Democrat-sympathizing court.

Why cannot I shake the feeling that what is really going on here is that these yahoos are laying out a long term stategy to mess with the national elections?

According to Reuters, "300,000 voters have already cast absentee ballots." Are these to be sealed, thrown away or what?

Apparently the ACLU is using an argument based on the 2000 supreme court decision that "hand recounts of ballots created equal protection problems because the votes might be tabulated differently"

While I agree with the court completely on this issue, I'm trying to figure out how the ACLU is applying this principle?

Are they presuming that the vote will be tight and the losers will force the issue like Gore did? So what if they do attempt to do so... doesn't this decision already decide the issue?

I don't get it and hope the appeal takes place.

If the 9th circuit overturned a decision which result in the breaking of law, namely California state law says that a recall election *must be* held within 60 to 80 days... would this be sufficient reason to recall the judges of the 9th circuit? Hmmmm?

Sigh.

Actually, Glenn Reynolds has a perfectly sensible solution: scrap the outdated voting machines and use paper ballots instead like they are doing in all civilized countries! Those "one armed bandits" are a disaster waiting to happen -- particularly in an election such as this.
---
One more thing: I hear there are 135 candidates on the official voting list AND THE NAMES WON'T BE LISTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER. Why the hell is that?

> According to Reuters, "300,000 voters have
> already cast absentee ballots." Are these to be
> sealed, thrown away or what?

Sealed, presumably.

MARCU$

If they aren't alphabetical, what order will they be in?

What is wrong with crosses on bits of paper? Most places are happy to wait up to a day for results (even under FPTP systems) and a couple of days under the Single Transferable Vote.

The names are in a different order in different counties (and perhaps even different precincts).

The ordering scheme starts with a jar of 26 ping pong balls, each labelled with a different letter of the alphabet. The order that they're pulled from the jar determines their relative order, but the starting point for each county is different.

THE NAMES WON'T BE LISTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER. Why the hell is that?

So as not to give an unfair advantage to someone who's name happens to start with "A." It's assumed that people with names higher on the ballot are more likely to be found and get more of the vote of those who are undecided.

Is there any evidence that this has a significant effect on the outcome of ballots?

It seems overly PC and designed to increase complexity needlessly.

Yep, it matters; see http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/researchnews/archive/califgov.htm.

Also see http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/recall/story/7420600p-8363721c.html on the fate of already-cast absentee ballots -- that is, destruction; and http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/insider/archives/000592.html on the inability of the new voter machines in LA to handle a combined recall/primary election in March.

We called it the "Donkey Vote" in elections I dealt with. In turnouts of 1-2000, there were always 10-20 who just voted in ballot order for Committee Elections (elected by STV). These were Oxford students, so it's nothing to do with stupidity. Jay has the scientific dope, but I thought you'd like the anecdotal evidence as well.

Iain, my experience of student elections is the slate effect is also much stronger when you've the STV in the way.

With a field that large frankly I'd expect the main part candidates first and the minor ones then later - but that might be just my prejudices coming out.

With a field that large frankly I'd expect the main part candidates first and the minor ones then later - but that might be just my prejudices coming out.

Who would decide which were which, and be willing to fight about it in the inevitable court battles?

All candidates are equal under the law.

Since I posted my last comment I've done a great deal of reading and I see what I missed before (and the 9th circus probably deliberately overlooked) The "equal protection issue" in Bush v. Gore wasn't the different means of counting ballots, but the different means of handling recounts (i.e. dimples in Broward count even though you can't dimple a card unless you put more than one in a time, Palm Beach counting some precincts and not others, etc.) it's a subtle distinction and if I almost missed it, the majority of sheep out there won't catch it either and if SCOTUS makes the distinction here, they'll be branded as partisan hacks and it'll all end up grist for the DNC mill. (assuming they don't just duck the issue like they did in Jersey) This, I think, is the real reason the ACLU made the suit, not because they expect to win, but they want to be seen as victims of Evil Republicans stealing elections. That it's complete BS won't matter. You tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth and the networks and CNN, the NY and LA Times, and NPR can shout louder and more often than Fox, the WSJ and Rush.

Here's a gem over at

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/

"... in 1864 this country held an election for president and Congress in the middle of the greatest war of the 19th century. How many voters were potentially disenfranchised by military action that day? By the way, that is the only instance in all history of a country holding an election in the midst of a civil war. But a few potentially hanging chads is justification for canceling the California election? Disgraceful does not begin to cover this decision."