For those of you who thought you would have to wait until next season to know the outcome of California’s gubernatorial recall election finale, you’re in luck.
The producers (the court) have decided to let it air on Oct. 7, the original scheduled date.
I know I’m pleased with the 9th Circuit Court’s decision to overturn its earlier ruling to postpone the election – I just don’t know if I could have waited until March.
Why was it postponed in the first place?
Well, because some people (the ACLU) thought that some voters would be disenfranchised because of the archaic voting method used in seven counties.
Oh, you mean punch cards.
Yes, punch cards … remember the dimpled chad fiasco.
I mean they were fine for last year’s regular gubernatorial election, but this one is different; the democrats might lose.
God forbid!
Okay, so this is how it all went down.
On Monday, September 15, a three judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court ruled in favor of the ACLU, stating that inadequate voting techniques is enough to push the election date back until all counties have upgraded their systems. The court then stayed the decision for 7 days to allow for appeals.
Last Friday the full court decided to rehear the case on Monday in front of an “en banc,” legal jargon for a full review – (don’t quote me on that, I’m not pre-law).
Anywho, this “en banc” consisted of 11 judges, the most the court will allow to hear a single case.
The bench allowed each side 30 minutes in which to present their case.
Ding, ding!
Round one: The ACLU made claims that with the inferior voting equipment used in the counties of Los Angeles, Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego and Santa Clara one out of every 25 votes would be thrown out; therefore disenfranchising 40,000 voters, most of them minorities (hence ACLU’s involvement).
The Union also cited the Supreme Court ruling of Bush v. Gore that the Florida 2000 presidential election ballot recount was not consistent and the outcome could not be guarantee. TAKE THAT!
Round two: The Secretary of State Office then argued that the margin of error for punch cards was the same as that of other voting devices, and that delaying the election would disenfranchise almost 600,000 voters who already submitted absentee votes.
Oh yeah, and that the Calif. constitution states that a recall election must take place within 80 days of the certification of the recall petition.
In yo face … you haven’t got A-C-L-U-e! (I’ve always wanted to say that, although I happen to agree with them on a lot of issues.)
And the winner is … the state.
But wait, could there be a rematch?
No, the ACLU said it will accept defeat and not appeal to the Supreme Court.
So, what does this mean for our candidates?
In a poll released Sunday by the Public Policy Institute of California 53 percent of voters are for the recall, with 42 percent voting no.
Tom McClintock received 14 percent of the votes polled, fellow republican Arnold Schwarzenegger with 26 percent, and Dem. Bustemante cruises into the lead with 28 percent.
Bustemante, joins the ACLU to sulk in the loser’s corner, after losing a lawsuit in which he was accused of violating campaign finance reform policy by transferring $3.8 million donated by seven different Indian tribes from an old account to a new one. Bustemante claims the funds were donated before the cap was set on corporate donations, which is true, but he still transferred them into his new campaign account which is apparently illegal.
(On a side note, Calif. gubernatorial candidate Cruz Bustemante might not have a political future because of his past affiliation with Mecha – a controversial Latino organization that produced the leaders of the Chicano civil rights movement at Bustemante’s school. While hip-hop artist Busta Rhymes was once part of the influential rap group “Leaders of the New School,” that produced an album titled “Future Without a Past”.)
Well, I for one am glad the recall election date of October 7 is back.
The suspense would have killed me … yeah right.