DAVIS WINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is another explanation for concern that minority representation can be affected, even assuming that individual voters are equally competent.
Consider the following scenario:
The mythical state of Aztlan consists of two counties:
County of Kalifornistan consists of 1 million voters who are 95% socialist due to a large minority population.
Freeper County consists of 1 million voters who are 95% non-socialist.
Proposition Z is on the ballot (allowing drivers licenses for domesticated pets ) and is supported by 95.5% of Kalifornistan County and 5% of Freeper County.
A perfectly accurate vote count will result in the following:
------------- Kalifornistan Freeper Total For Z 955,000 50,000 1,005,000 Against Z 45,000 950,000 995,000
This would result in Prop Z becoming the law of Aztlan.
Consider now that Kalifornistan County uses a flawed system which causes votes, regardless of the voters intention, to be discarded 1.1% of the time.
The new election results would be as follows:
------------- Kalifornistan Freeper Total For Z 944,495 50,000 994,495 Against Z 44,505 950,000 994,505
In this second case, there is no necessity that there be any voter incompetence. The mere fact that ballots get randomly discarded in the "minority" county regardless of voter preference results in a changed election outcome.
These kinds of results are dictated by the mathematics of the situation and only gain relevance because of how close some recent elections have become.
The analysis above in no way justifies the postponement of an election. Every county in Aztlan ( or in Kalifornia ) has an obligation to ready itself for binding elections on constitutionally dictated schedules.
If the federal government wishes to meddle in the election process, they can buy all the election equipment they want, or dictate to the state that such equipment shall be bought. The only thing they should not do is reward the incompetency of our incumbents with additional incumbency. This way lies tyranny.
The successful recall of Davis in October was all-but-assured. Indeed, Bustamonte's "no/but vote for me anyway" strategy was in deep trouble, even with the fraud (punch-card) machines ready to manufacture votes at full-tilt. Both Arnold and Tom were making headway on the alleged front-runner. The Dems were unsuccessful in stopping this impending disaster in every venue short of the 9th Circus. They even were set to lose on Prop 54 (the ruling also mentioned Prop 53, but I have no idea of what that is about).
Knowing that their fraud machines were about to be legislated out of existence (they'll be illegal in March just in time for the Presidential primary), they decided to use them one last time in an unconventional method before the one court they could count on; have the ACLU sue in federal court claiming "unequal treatment" of votes from these fraud machines, knowing the case would eventually get to the 9th Circus. The clowns didn't disappoint them, giving them everything they could ever hope for (no recall election or election on Prop 54 this year).
This, if not overturned, puts the recall election and campaign right into heart of an election where DemonRATs and only DemonRATs have a stake in things (there's no Pubbie Presidential primary, you've got the 9-or-so Mental Midgets on the 'RAT side, and there's no state primaries that I know of). Combined with the expected 2 or so months of renewed motor-voter fraud (the illegals can start getting drivers' licenses on January 1), there's no way that the recall or Prop 54 "Yes" gets more than 40% (which would make Bustamonte's plurality of 47% in the second half of the recall election null and void).
All the pro-recall people are all upset over the decision by the 9th Circuit Court to block the October 7th election. But those first impressions may be wrong.
So here's my fearless prediction, after pondering the political implications and after reading the decision itself.
The Court's decision has a veneer of plausibility, since the previous (Republican) Secretary of State, Bill Jones, had already conceded in a consent decree that voting machines used in many California counties were defective and had to be replaced. Back then everyone basically agreed that it would take time to replace them. It couldn't be done in time for the 2002 election, but it was feasible for the March, 2004 primary. Nobody really expected a statewide election to take place during the interim, although it was theoretically possible (not just from a recall, but by the Governor calling a special election for some initiative or bond measure).
In other words, everyone agreed that the public interest in holding a regular election in 2002 outweighed the public interest in postponing elections until better voting machines were available.
So does the public interest in holding a recall election in October, 2003 outweigh the public interest in postponing this election until better voting machines are available?
This is the weak spot in the 9th Circuit Court decision. The judges tap-danced hard on this one, arguing that the recall might have been postponed till March anyway:
The operation of this exception produces arbitrary results; because the signatures were certified seven and a half — instead of six — months in advance of the March 2004 election, this exception does not apply, and the deadline falls in early October. In essence, granting a preliminary injunction would put the election only one and a half months after the longer six-month time period provided for by the California Constitution.But the whole point of a recall, and the reason it was written into the California Constitution the way it was, is that the people must have the power to quickly rid themselves of an elected official when they believe the situation warrants it. Otherwise why not just wait until the end of that official's regular term? Six months from certification is the outer limit allowed in the California Constitution for scheduling the recall election.
The 9th Circuit Court has a much better case for booting Propositions 53 and 54 (the Racial Privacy Initiative) from the October 7th ballot, and the Court explicitly says so:
The case for postponing the election is even stronger with respect to the votes on Propositions 53 and 54. The two propositions on the special election ballot were originally scheduled to be placed on the ballot of the March 2004 election. Indeed, on July 15, 2002, more than a year ago, then Secretary of State Bill Jones issued and signed a certification placing the initiatives on the March 2, 2004 primary election ballot. ...So here's what I believe is likely to happen. For the next few days everyone is going to froth at the mouth over the 9th Circuit Court's action. Recall supporters will be livid, and recall opponents will be cautiously delighted. Then the U.S. Supreme Court will step in and rule that the public interest in holding a recall election without delay, as prescribed in the California Constitution, outweighs the public interest in waiting for better voting machines. The U.S. Supreme Court will specifically note that the 2002 elections took place using the same voting machines.There is no urgency in obtaining a public vote on the propositions. Proposition 53, to establish the “California Twenty-First Century Infrastructure Investment Fund,” would require specified percentages of the California general fund revenues to be set aside for acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, modernization or renovation of local infrastructure. The first year affected by the proposition would be 2006.
Proposition 54 would amend the California Constitution to prohibit state and local governments from using race, ethnicity, color, or national origin to classify current or prospective students, contractors, or employees in public education, contracting, or employment operations. The initiative has an effective date of January 1, 2005.
But, the U.S. Supreme Court will agree with the 9th Circuit Court that there is no urgency in voting on Propositions 53 and 54, and that those should be postponed until March, 2004. Doing it in that way will take the sting out of the USSC decision; it will appear very measured and reasonable and "judicial", and will be hard to paint as just another Republican coup by a partisan right-wing court. After all, it makes it far more likely that both propositions will be defeated in a Democratic-weighted primary election. Especially for liberals who are horrified by Prop 54, that is a very big deal.
If the USSC follows the above scenario, it will be an HUGE defeat for the Democrats. Gray Davis might have had a chance to survive if the recall election itself was postponed till next March, during a hot Democratic primary. If nothing else it would be a reprieve, and who knows, by then the horse could learn to talk. But an October recall election is a political death sentence for Davis, and everybody knows it. The Democrats' only hope was to motivate their base of minority voters to get to the polls. A lot of that motivation drains away if there's no Prop 54 to vote against.
It's also a HUGE defeat for Bustamante. He was counting on anti-Prop 54 sentiment to help turn out Latinos and blacks. He was going to transfer $3.8 million of heavily-criticized contributions into the campaign to defeat Prop 54 (featuring himself in the TV commercials). Now what will he do with the money? No matter what new scheme he comes up with for spending the money, it will look dirty and it will further raise his negatives.
And what of the propositions themselves? Both were iffy even in an October election. Prop 53 is bad policy, in that it locks in future state spending. True, the state's infrastructure is decaying, but our bigger problem is huge budget deficits and uncontrolled state spending. Prop 53 would virtually guarantee future tax hikes, and I think the voters will be quite skeptical. Prop 54 is mainly a symbolic measure. It's loaded with loopholes in order to survive the inevitable court challenges. And its sponsor, Ward Connerly, practically conceded defeat a few days ago. So moving the propositions to March probably won't matter.
The 9th Circuit Court (and especially these particular judges) has a reputation for being extremely liberal, partisan, and results-oriented rather than following the law and U.S. Supreme Court precedents. In this case I think they've overplayed their hand. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly slapped the 9th Circuit Court down, and is likely to do so again.
Liberals may come to rue this court decision as the final nails in Davis' and Bustamante's coffins.
-PJ
This is what you get when you allow the politicalization of the judiciary to warp justice.
This is what happens when the Fed Courts usurp powers not enumerated to them in the U.S. Constitution via the 14th Amendment... an EXPANSION of judicary powers through convoluted reasoning to rule with sophistic logic citing the infamous "Establishment Clause"..the "Commerce Clause"..Santa Claus or the "whatever we say it means today clause". The Courts claim divine dominion over the States and their People..
The conservatives have allowed the liberals to apply a PC ideaology litmus test which results in the appointment of the new royal branch of government the "judicial legislature" whose elite members are annoited for life just like a king.The Republic is dead long live the Republic.