Posted on 08/17/2021 9:31:19 AM PDT by SES1066
A federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeks to stop the Gavin Newsom recall election from happening as scheduled on Sept. 14. The suit, filed by voters R.J. Beaber and A.W. Clark, alleges that the recall election is unconstitutional because it denies pro-Newsom voters equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This argument was made by Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who wrote a New York Times op-ed last week arguing that because Newsom "can receive far more votes than any other candidate but still be removed from office," it violates a "core constitutional principle that has been followed for over 60 years: Every voter should have an equal ability to influence the outcome of the election."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
So, per the Berkley Law Profs, for the recall to be 'fair', the 1st vote would just be to recall Newsom by majority vote. Then if the vote is 'yes', he is removed from Governorship and a new election is held to get the top two vote choices. Then a third election is held between the two for a majority vote to finish replacing Newsom. Which, by then will be impinging upon the 2022 election cycle which Newsom is currently a candidate for Governor.
The Feds do not have authority over a state election like this.
If he’s taken down it will be done with little help from the freepers.
Wow.
Newsom is SO reviled, the expletive-deleted can’t even win a rigged election.
WTG, Deep State!
Isn’t this a Democrat passed law?....................
This is to guarantee a RAT successor is installed.
arguing that because Newsom “can receive far more votes than any other candidate but still be removed from office,” it violates a “core constitutional principle that has been followed for over 60 years: Every voter should have an equal ability to influence the outcome of the election ... as many times as needed.”
Further you can vote against the recall and not intend to be voting “for” Newsom. A vote against is not equal to a vote for.
If this suit prevails, rank choice voting is dead.
The premise of this is BS. Newsome’s name still has the same weight in the election. Anyone who votes not recall him is voting for him automatically. If 51% of voters vote not to recall him then he wins. So this is just so stupid.
No - those that leave Q2 blank, could easily write in Newsom instead.
Funny, the arguments being made is exactly those used against RCV, except the left is making them.
Since 1913, there have been 55 attempts to recall the Governor. In that time, only two have qualified to be held.
I would think a court would consider something that was tried 55 times and successfully advanced to a ballot twice to be "settled law."
-PJ
Oh no, it's not. Depends on the situation; if a democrat is likely to lose, its unconstitutional. If a democrat is guaranteed to win, it's perfectly OK.
The Western Division covers Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties.
# Title Judge Duty station Born Term of service chief judge Appointed by 72 Chief Judge Philip S. Gutierrez Los Angeles 1959 2007–present 2020–present G.W. Bush 37 District Judge Stephen Victor Wilson Los Angeles 1941 1985–present — — Reagan 60 District Judge Virginia A. Phillips Los Angeles 1957 1999–present 2016–2020 Clinton 61 District Judge Percy Anderson Los Angeles 1948 2002–present — — G.W. Bush 62 District Judge John F. Walter Los Angeles 1944 2002–present — — G.W. Bush 63 District Judge R. Gary Klausner Los Angeles 1941 2002–present — — G.W. Bush 67 District Judge Dale S. Fischer Los Angeles 1951 2003–present — — G.W. Bush 73 District Judge Otis D. Wright II Los Angeles 1944 2007–present — — G.W. Bush 74 District Judge George H. Wu Los Angeles 1950 2007–present — — G.W. Bush 76 District Judge Dolly Gee Los Angeles 1959 2010–present — — Obama 78 District Judge John Kronstadt Los Angeles 1951 2011–present — — Obama 79 District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald Los Angeles 1959 2012–present — — Obama 81 District Judge Fernando M. Olguin Los Angeles 1961 2013–present — — Obama 83 District Judge André Birotte Jr. Los Angeles 1966 2014–present — — Obama 84 District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Los Angeles 1962 2020–present — — Trump 86 District Judge Mark C. Scarsi Los Angeles 1964 2020–present — — Trump 87 District Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha Los Angeles 1961 2020–present — — Trump ====================== senior chief 23 Senior Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. Los Angeles 1933 1979–2005 2005–present Carter 1998–2001 26 Senior Judge Consuelo Bland Marshall Los Angeles 1936 1980–2005 2005–present Carter 2001–2005 35 Senior Judge William Duffy Keller Los Angeles 1934 1984–1999 1999–present Reagan 41 Senior Judge Ronald S. W. Lew Los Angeles 1941 1987–2006 2006–present Reagan 51 Senior Judge Dean Pregerson Los Angeles 1951 1996–2016 2016–present Clinton 52 Senior Judge Christina A. Snyder Los Angeles 1947 1997–2016 2016–present Clinton 71 Senior Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank Los Angeles 1949 2007–2012 2012–present G.W. Bush
bump
The numbers must be looking bad for Newsom for them to start pulling out this crap.
desperation
The second part is to determine, if the first part declares no confidence, who replaces the turned-out officer.
So the existing structure of the California recall fits this model perfectly. The fact this is rolled up into a single ballot does not detract from the two functions.
Last I heard this rabid leftist clown was at UC Irvine. A promotion to Berkeley is altogether fitting. He is one Hugh Spewitt’s favorites, a total befuddled leftist jackass.
The issue of recall, option one on the ballot, allows for an
even chance for yes or no on the recall.
It doesn’t surprise me that the Democrats think it should be
90/10 in their favor to be fair.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.