|
Grex > Agora46 > #121: California's Governor Gray Davis facing recall election | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 264 responses total. |
scg
|
|
response 226 of 264:
| 
Sep 11 20:11 UTC 2003 |
re 222:
The California recall vote is indeed a special election created just
for the recall. There are a couple of other ballot proposals on the ballot,
but they would have waited until later were it not for the recall election.
|
jep
|
|
response 227 of 264:
|
Sep 11 21:26 UTC 2003 |
I hope Michigan's replacement-after-recall procedure is more sensible,
too. I hope it takes more than -- what, 66? - signatures to get on the
ballot, for example.
I hope the replacement election takes place after the recall is
complete. Better yet, I hope that there's a succession procedure where
the lieutenant governor, House or Senate leader, 2nd leading vote
getter from the previous election, or *someone* provides for an
immediate replacement. I'm indifferent to whether there's a new
election after that replacement slides into the job.
I hope Michigan's recall procedure requires at least as much support as
does electing the governor in the first place. You ought to have to be
pretty awful to get recalled.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 228 of 264:
|
Sep 15 17:38 UTC 2003 |
From: <BreakingNews@MAIL.CNN.COM>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:20:05 -0400
Subject: CNN Breaking News
-- Federal appeals court delays California gubernatorial recall election.
|
tod
|
|
response 229 of 264:
|
Sep 15 17:39 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 230 of 264:
|
Sep 15 17:40 UTC 2003 |
That would only apply to North Carolina. ;-)
|
tod
|
|
response 231 of 264:
|
Sep 15 17:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 232 of 264:
|
Sep 15 17:57 UTC 2003 |
I thought Georgia was heavy in goobers.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 233 of 264:
|
Sep 15 20:16 UTC 2003 |
(Yeah, but, Goober and his brother Gomer lived in North Carolina.)
|
klg
|
|
response 234 of 264:
|
Sep 16 02:53 UTC 2003 |
Might anyone know the amount of time that would elapse between the
certification of the CA election results & the assumption of power by
the newly elected governor - assuming Davis were to be recalled?
|
scg
|
|
response 235 of 264:
|
Sep 16 05:57 UTC 2003 |
It's supposed to be immediate, but I don't know whether that means the next
day, or the next minute, or what.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 236 of 264:
|
Sep 16 15:44 UTC 2003 |
It would have to wait for the results to be certified, probably by a board
of canvassers. We can expect the necessary people to be present at that
meeting.
|
gull
|
|
response 237 of 264:
|
Sep 18 14:55 UTC 2003 |
It's starting to look likely that the legal case over the use of
punchcard systems in the recall election will reach the Supreme Court.
This case uses reasoning from Bush v. Gore; it will be interesting to
see if the Supreme Court upholds the same logic when the shoe is on the
other foot, politically. If they vote to allow this election we'll know
once and for all that the Bush v. Gore decision was a political, instead
of a legal, decision.
|
klg
|
|
response 238 of 264:
|
Sep 18 16:17 UTC 2003 |
Not so fast, please, Mr. gull:
Thanks to Best of the Web, Opinionjournal.com:
Disunity on the Angry Left
By ordering the cancellation of next month's California election, the
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has gone too far even for some
members of the Angry Left. Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School has an op-
ed in today's New York Times that distinguishes the case from Bush v.
Gore, which the Ninth Circuiters mischievously cited as their chief
precedent.
"The present decision attacks states' rights at their very core,"
Ackerman writes. "The short election period is central to California's
political integrity. Its constitution places a limit of six months on
this extraordinary process. By extending the election beyond this
period, the court condemns the state to an extended period of political
paralysis." Ackerman even argues that the ruling is an infringement on
political speech:
[It] disrupts the core First Amendment freedom to present a coherent
political message to voters. Worse yet, the decision disrupts the First
Amendment interests of the millions of Californians who have
participated in the recall effort. State law promised them a quick
election if they completed their petitions by an August deadline. Now
their effort will have to compete in March with the candidates for the
Democratic presidential nomination. A campaign focused on California
issues may be swamped by national politics.
What makes this extraordinary is that Ackerman is one of academia's
shrillest critics of Bush v. Gore; as we noted in April 2001, he went
so far as to liken that ruling to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
His willingness to rise above partisanship stands in stark contrast
with the New York Times editorial page . . . .
|
i
|
|
response 239 of 264:
|
Sep 19 03:22 UTC 2003 |
While everyone gets all excited about this, my impression is that the
decision is, in effect, getting an automatic appeal to a higher court,
and the judges who made it knew very well that that would happen. Also
that California was blowing off a *prior* binding agreement with the
Feds by rushing this election through with the old chadware system.
"It'll be appealed either way, Bob, so just flip a coin."
Is there any real reason (beyond judicial aversion to grubby details)
why they can't hustle in some less flakey voting hardware and run an
election fairly soon?
|
bru
|
|
response 240 of 264:
|
Sep 19 13:55 UTC 2003 |
the cost and logistics of training people to use a new system?
|
gull
|
|
response 241 of 264:
|
Sep 19 14:15 UTC 2003 |
Lead time may be an issue, too. I doubt voting machines are mass
produced in large quantities. They're probably built on demand.
|
i
|
|
response 242 of 264:
|
Sep 20 12:33 UTC 2003 |
Re: #240/241
Since the Chad-o-Matic voting stuff is in it's last days anyway,
they'll have to train folks on the new stuff soon regardless.
Getting the Office of the Undersecretary of the Department of
Red Tape to speed up is often pretty easy when you can apply a
lot of heat and light.
Voting machines spend 'most all their lives in storage, waiting
for an election day. I'd bet that stuff could be borrowed if
really needed.
Yes, getting a move on will cost more somewhere. But how high
is the cost to California's economy of having the uncertainty
hanging over everyone's heads for several extra months?
Probably vastly more.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 243 of 264:
|
Sep 21 06:11 UTC 2003 |
Why is there any cost of California's economy from "uncertainty"? The
legislature and governor are still doing their jobs.
|
klg
|
|
response 244 of 264:
|
Sep 22 01:08 UTC 2003 |
Why, yes. There most certainly would be. Risk averse capitalists will
avoid establishing/expanding their CA businesses pending the outcome of
the recall.
(The problem, Mr. rcurl, has been due to the fact the the legislator and
governor have not been "doing their jobs." Had they been, there would
most certainly not have been a recall movement!)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 245 of 264:
|
Sep 22 05:42 UTC 2003 |
Democracy is not alone run by "Risk averse capitalists".
This was a contrived recall paid for by a right-winger. It's primary
effect may be another recall if Davis is recalled and a Republican is
elected. The recall cannot be good for California, economically or
politically. California is now the laughing-stock of the nation. You
think this is a good environment for investment?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 246 of 264:
|
Sep 22 07:32 UTC 2003 |
California spends a lot of time being the butt of the nation's jokes,
particularly where politics is concerned. I doubt they care about
the affront to their dignity.
And the recall campaign may have been begun by Darrell Issa but no
matter how wealthy he happened to be there's no way one man could have
moved the recall effort this far along without substantial public
dissatisfaction with Gray Davis and the job he's done.
|
klg
|
|
response 247 of 264:
|
Sep 22 16:07 UTC 2003 |
(Apparently, in CA only the communists should be able to exercise their
consitutional rights.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 248 of 264:
|
Sep 22 18:21 UTC 2003 |
"Substantial public dissatisfaction" for causing a recall amounts to only
18% of the electorate.
I didn't say the recall is unconstitutional, only that it did not have
a substantial basis for being initiated, even though it met the legal
requirement.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 249 of 264:
|
Sep 22 21:11 UTC 2003 |
If you're right that only 18% of the electorate supports Davis' recall
then he has hardly anything to worry about, wouldn't you agree?
|
klg
|
|
response 250 of 264:
|
Sep 23 01:57 UTC 2003 |
Isn't that approximately the same percentage of the vote George Bush got
in 2000 (and look what happened)?
|