The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal court most overruled by the Supreme Court, delayed California’s recall election until March. According to the Mercury News, Governor Davis lucked out:
The 9th Circuit is the most liberal and maverick federal appeals court in the country…
…the outcome of a case can depend on the makeup of the three-judge panels selected at random. However, legal experts have taken note that the ACLU drew what one law professor called a ``dream panel'' -- Judges Richard Paez and Sydney Thomas, appointees of President Clinton who are widely regarded as liberal to moderate, and Pregerson, a Carter appointee and liberal firebrand who has openly questioned the death penalty and California's ``three strikes'' law.
The decision is on hold until it is clear if the 9th Court will be overruled yet again. I am troubled by this ruling in many ways. I am not a Californian and I really don’t care who wins the recall election. However, I am concerned over two issues.
First and foremost, the recall election is a State election with very little direct impact on the Federal government. Yes, I know California is our largest state and is a very influential state with a lot of indirect impact on the rest of us. However, I do not see a compelling national interest that justifies the involvement of Federal Courts. The 9th Circuit Court should have stayed out of it and left it up to the Californian courts (which had already ruled that the elections should take place). So three liberal judges are ignoring both the wishes of the Californian people (who gathered enough signatures for the recall election in accordance with Californian law) and the rulings of Californian judges who represent Californians. This decision epitomizes everything that is wrong with liberal judges.
Secondly, the reasoning of judges rewards incompetence. With the help of the main plaintiff – the ACLU – these three judges said the recall election has to be delayed until March when better vote-counting equipment was installed in parts of California. So, Governor Davis has been in office for more than one full term. As governor, he is ultimately responsible for ensuring his state can conduct fair elections. He does such a bad job as governor that people launch a recall election. And the Ninth Court says Davis gets at least six more months in office because he was too incompetent to ensure fair elections? No wonder these loons are the most overturned justices in the land. Forget about Davis, let’s recall the Ninth Court.
Joseph,
Yes, most States do have a Secretary of State, who is elected by the people - to conduct and supervise elections. Ambitious types who hope to use the experience as a launching pad to higher office usually fill this position. For example, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris parlayed her name recognition (from the Florida election controversy) into a seat at Congress. Likewise Michigan Governor Gramholm was previously elected as Michigan’s Secretary of State. However, even though the Secretary of States are usually elected, they still report to the Governor (at least in most states, I'm not 100% sure about California). Thus, unless California is much different than the norm, Governor Davis still bears final responsibility.
Jennifer Gramholm is a great example of how Secretaries of State report to their Governor. She, a Democrat, served as Secretary of State under a Republican Governor. She took flack for implementing his wishes in the Democratic primary. She answered, correctly, that she was just doing her job. The citizens of Michigan agreed and elected her. (BTW, Gramholm is very competent and personable. Hillary Clinton is probably glad that Gramholm is a native Canadian or she would probably run for President in 2008).
Your point about street protests is interesting. If the courts keep interfering in the will of the people, who operate from within the system, but keep getting frustrated by activist judges, it well may. Now that would be a sight - citizens protesting for their civil rights in California...
Kolibri,
Thanks for the comment. I don’t think you are overlooking something obvious, but I think I can give a better emotional analogy. Our States have a tradition of local government largely independent from Federal laws except in certain cases that are laid out in the often ignored Constitution.
Those who care about the principle (vs. caring about a particular candidate) are upset that the Federal government is interfering with a local election. My proposed analogy would be if some judge in Brussels postponed an election for, say, the mayor of Berlin because they weren’t happy with how the election would be done. I dare say most Germans would be upset. (Then again, seeing how many Europeans are rushing toward a strong Federal government, maybe not – but this is the closest analogy I can create).
To answer your specifics:
1) There are many differences between this case and the Gore vs. Bush case. The most obvious is that the Federal government has a compelling need to regulate the election of its leader. Thus, federal courts have jurisdiction over federal elections. Federal courts have no jurisdiction over local elections unless they suspect corruption. No one has charged the Californian polls with corruption, just incompetence. Thus, there is a strong legal argument that the Federal Courts should stay out of this. I agree with the argument.
2) If the Supreme Court intervened, it would probably just say that the 9th Court had no jurisdiction. From what I’ve read, there are also some legal problems with the 9th Court’s reasoning, but I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll ignore these.
3) The precedent here is awful. According the ACLU (the main plaintiff), elections must be perfect before they can be held. So let’s keep all politicians in office since a perfect election is virtually impossible. This is justice? Only according to the ACLU… And only when they think a liberal is going to lose.
4) I agree with you about the six months being a long time. But who is responsible for implementing the changes? The Davis administration. Do you think they are in a hurry? What happens if they come back in six months and say they need another six months? It makes the will of the people – who legally petitioned for the recall election – a laughingstock.
Hopefully point 4 alone will illustrate why the ninth court needs to be overturned.
You missed the most obvious difference, AQ - that the Federal court in Bush v Gore made the State of Florida enforce its own constitution while the 9th court is forcing California to be in violation of its. The California constitution requires that an election be held within, AT MOST, 180 days of a successful recall campaign.
Here in Germany there are limits to the issues a single state can choose to enforce or not to enforce in its constitution.
Not to enforce equal voting is off limits. So it doesn't look strange to me for a federal court to intervene. Well, perhaps a different understanding of federal tradition at work here.
What about paper ballots? http://www.techcentralstati... It works well enough for us and could probably be implemented quickly...
"Originally posted on 09/16/03 at 22:51:52 as the 2nd comment in this thread, removed and reposted for technical reasons"
Hmmm. To quote something I've read a couple times during last two hours: I respectfully dissent.
I'm no expert on the US justice system. But there is hardly something more important for a democracy to function than the election process(es). Without doubt this matter would be decided by the federal courts here in Germany. If I am overlooking something obvious, please tell me.
On the issue itself, the ruling seems to be completely consistent with Bush vs. Gore in the Florida recount decision. The supreme court will have a hard time to overrule this one without contradicting itself.
On the other hand, six months seems to be an awful amount of time to update the voting equipment. Can't they do it faster? If I understand the ruling of the 9th Court correctly, it doesn't say something about an election prior to March, should the conditions improve in time.
I agree with Mickey Kaus at http://slate.msn.com/id/208... in his P.P.P.P.P.S statement - switching back to punchcards in all counties would also solve the problem. Equality is obviously rated a lot higher by the courts than accuracy in this matter.
Yours truly,
Kolibri
In response to the Admiral's No.3: What should happen if an administration distorts the voting process to such a degree that it will be reelected in spite of the will of the majority? Not that this happens right now (at least not in California, you'll find plenty of examples elsewhere around the world), but take it as a thought experiment.
The federal courts are not to intervene, I guess the federal executive and legislative organs aren't either. The state courts don't act or aren't followed. Is it up to the people to revolt? Or does this non intervention policy have limits?
In response to Khobrah: If there is a conflict between two provisions in a constitution, (at least) one of them has to be bent. The plaintiffs argue with constutional rights as well.
I guess one of the smartest moves the Davis administration could make right now would be to embrace the recall effort and find a way to conduct the election in accordance with this ruling ASAP. Upgrade the equipment in the lagging counties, use paper ballots statewide or just bring everybody together in one place and count raised hands. Anything that shows they accept the rule of the people and are not afraid of the challenge.
But the temptation to just "win some time" is probably a big one for most politicans...
Kolibri, as I stated earlier, one of the few times federal intervention is justified is when the local courts are corrupt (also defined as when local courts ignore their own laws).
This was their justification for intervening in Florida - the Florida Supreme Court ignored their own laws. In this case, the California courts were enforcing their own laws, which require the recall election to take place, and the 9th court violated local law.
In your thought experiment, if a local administration is corrupt, then the Feds should step in. However, as you also stated, this is not the case in California.
Dear Jennifer Granholm,
Today: 09/22/04 our company had received a notice of not filing a wage detail report for the past quarter 2004, & up to the past 2 years, from the State of MI. We have filed every quarter, of these UIA 1017 forms. After the State of MI wasting all the paper and ink expense, not to mention our company time on hold for the proper phone # and dept. changing 8 times... then finally to the (I was told): "New Department" which is to handle these things... The Personel at Ph # 313-456-2760 told me that: Oh Yah, everybody got sent one of those... just disregard it... your account is fine... Now why are we (State of MI Tax Payers)spending all this wasted Money and time for a New Department in the State of MI, to continue the waste of Letters, Postage, Money in office materials, St. employees wages to mail, and Our Company time Loss?
I Voted for you to help us to protect against such needless spending in the State. Why is this still going on? We are a small company, and we can not afford the taxes as it is... Now we have to pay more each year for this kind of waste?? I don't understand. PLease feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience...
Signed,
Greatly disappointed in the System... again..
Connie
Bess
email: gmgconnie@aol.com
Actually, under the California Constitution, we have a separate office of Secretary of State, elected directly statewide, to conduct and supervise elections. Sec. Shelley is a Democrat but has done a fair job so far. I do expect him to aggressively argue for an October 7 election.
I don't think that I'm alone in feeling that if the political establishment blocks the citizens' legal participation in this recall election, we're just going to have to take it to the streets.