Want to Vote? Answer This . . . Is The Recall Gov. Gray Davis of California Constitutional?

NY Times ^ | 07/28/03 | SHAUN P. MARTIN and FRANK PARTNOY

[goldstategop]

Funny how liberals are concerned the recall election is depriving people of their right to make an informed choice at the voting booth. This is the funniest article I've read all year. It should really be filler space in The Onion. Its out of place in The New York Times.

[dirtboy]

It should really be filler space in The Onion. Its out of place in The New York Times.

Not any more, it isn't.

[Mr. Bird]

They lost me. While I was unaware of the two question ballot process, I fail to see how it infringes on any constitutional protections. How are my voting rights infringed with this? If I support the recall, I say so and vote for someone else (or even Davis if I want to for some sick reason). If I don't support the recall, I not only get to cast my dissent, but that dissent actually means something. If there are enough like-minded voters, Davis remains. If I don't support the recall, but it wins the day, I have still been given the opportunity to choose the winner (again, I could still vote for Davis).

Does someone see a problem with this? I honestly don't see it.

[Alberta's Child]

I'm surprised California law even goes this far by using the votes of all those who voted on Question #1 to determine the winner in Question #2.

If it were up to me, I would only count the votes of those who answered "Yes" to Question #1.

[dirtboy]

Those who would prefer not to vote on the merits of the recall face a dilemma: they must either vote on the first question against their will, or forgo their chance to vote for a candidate.

Gee, let's do some math here. Let's say you are opposed to the recall. If you don't vote on the recall, your opponents don't need to counter your vote. If you do vote to retain Davis (the same outcome as if there was no recall vote at all), then your opposition has to make up one vote to counter yours. So NOT voting in protest actually is a much weaker action here. And this argument is as dumb as they come.

If you find yourself in the polling booth and realize you don't know or care enough about, say, a referendum question or a judicial race to vote on it

Gee, this is a really tough, technical question. Whether or not to give Gray Davis the boot. What a pantload.

[Chad Fairbanks]

The NYT is full of crap - it deprives NO ONE of their right to vote - if you vopte NO on the Recall, then there is no NEED to select a candidate - I mean, hello?????? Am I the only one who sees the obviousness of this?

[Mr. Bird]

Not only that, but why would someone without an opinion feel compelled to go to the booth anyway? Their argument escapes me.

[goldstategop]

Liberals like to muddy up what's straightforward. And they pride themselves on being "nuanced." Hooh Boy!

[Arkie2]

This is actually a question of California constitutional law. The New York Times concern for the sanctity of the US constitution is touching. After all, they've defended the constitution faithfully.

If a no vote means Davis gets to stay in office then that vote counts. Wonder if some Calif. constitutional scholar can clear this up?

[Redwood71]

"The problem stems from this rather circuitous phrase in California election law: "no vote cast in the recall election shall be counted for any candidate unless the voter also voted for or against the recall of the officer sought to be recalled." That is, the recall ballot must pose two questions: First, do you want to recall Governor Davis? Second, assuming a majority of voters support the recall, whom do you want elected in his place?
By law, only voters who answer the first question can have their vote for a candidate in the recall election counted. Those who would prefer not to vote on the merits of the recall face a dilemma: they must either vote on the first question against their will, or forgo their chance to vote for a candidate.

_____________________________________________________
Don't you just love it when liberal law professors start to "interpret" constitutional law?
I see it differently. It states if you did not vote for or against the recall of a candidate, which didn't happen as there was no election to determine a recall election, then you can't vote. Anyone can play with words. The difference is the State of California is giving these maroons tax dollars to do it. And since we are covering the illegals, why not have them interpret the law? Lord knows they couldn't do any worse. We need to translate what they say the same as the other.

[RWR8189]

I fail to see any role for federal interjection in this, it seems to me the whole affair is entirely an issue for the state of California.

[goldstategop]

I do. How come two U.C San Diego Law School professors can't see it like you and I do?

[Mr. Bird]

But I understand it as being much more accommodating: even if you vote against the recall, you may still cast a ballot so as to be counted if the recall option wins the day. It is extremely inclusive and deprives no one of their rights. Actually, it may deprive someone who wishes to vote for a recall candidate but wishes to abstain from voting on a recall at all. That person should lose the voting privelige because they are clearly mentally unstable.

[goldstategop]

Its a state election. There is no federal issue involved here.

[goldstategop]

People can vote to keep Davis. I don't see a problem the two legal bigshots see. Where's the dilemma? Sheesh.

[Barry Goldwater]

Makes one wonder if the Constitution is constitutional.

[Mr. Bird]

There is no federal issue involved here

Well, the Feds can involve themselves in state elections if there is reason to believe that those elections violate the rights granted in the U.S. constitution to the constituents (or a portion thereof) of that state. But these guys don't do a very good job of making that case here.

[goldstategop]

Ask the Nevada Supreme Court. They thought part of their own Constitution was "unconstitutional" when it stood in the way of their liberal judicial activism.

[Chad Fairbanks]

They can't see it, because that Ivory Tower they live in really reflects the sun and it gets in their eyes causing temporary blindness...