Forget my other post, perhaps the info could be useful here:
|
Posted on Wed, Aug. 20, 2003 | |
|
|
|||
|
RECALL REVIEW Justice Department still assessing Monterey County's consolidation of precincts The U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday approved Oct. 7 as an acceptable date for California's recall election, but federal officials are still reviewing whether Monterey County can reduce the number of polling places and whether Proposition 54 can be on the ballot, a department spokesman said. The decision is one step toward cementing Oct. 7 as the recall election date, but it is not the final word. The Justice Department's Office of Civil Rights has yet to decide on two voting rights issues raised in federal lawsuits currently before the courts. Monterey County, which has a special designation under federal law because of a history of low minority voter turnout, remains at the center of the legal battles. "At this point we are in the same holding pattern we were in last week," Monterey County Counsel Charles McKee said Tuesday. The Justice Department decision on Tuesday approves a request submitted Aug. 4 by California's elections chief to set the statewide recall vote for Oct. 7. The state had to make the request because of the special status of Monterey and three other counties. Any changes to elections in the counties require federal approval to avoid addition of any barriers to minority voters. "We have pre-cleared the setting of the date for the gubernatorial recall election," said Jorge Martinez, a Justice Department spokesman based in Washington, D.C. However, the Justice Department has yet to weigh in on two other issues that could affect the recall date. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel threatened to delay the Oct. 7 election after hearing the two voting rights lawsuits last Friday, one of which has several Monterey County activists as plaintiffs. Until the case is resolved, Fogel ordered Monterey County to cease certain election preparations, including the mailing of hundreds of absentee ballots to overseas voters. The next hearing is scheduled for Aug. 29. The lawsuits contend that Monterey County's decision to consolidate its precincts and to hire fewer Spanish-speaking poll workers could disenfranchise minority voters and therefore requires pre-clearance from the Justice Department. "That matter is still under review," Martinez said. "We have to look at what the proposed plan is and whether the proposed changes will deny or abridge the right to vote based on race, color or membership in a language minority group." The lawsuits also target Proposition 54, a statewide initiative that would bar California from collecting most racial data. The initiative, essentially aimed at eliminating affirmative action, originally was scheduled for a vote next March, but was moved up when the recall qualified and created an earlier statewide election. Opponents say the shortened campaign timeline could affect voter turnout. The Justice Department is also still reviewing the inclusion of Proposition 54 on the October recall ballot, Martinez said. "We need more information and clarification from the state," he said. The California Secretary of State's Office is working with the Justice Department to obtain pre-clearance on the inclusion of Proposition 54, said Hallye Jordan, spokeswoman for the state Attorney General. Representatives of the groups that filed the lawsuits said Tuesday they were still hoping to get Proposition 54 pushed back. "We're glad that the Justice Department would still consider not pre-clearing it in order to give voters more time to digest this very confusing initiative," said J.C. Flores, spokeswoman for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in Los Angeles. MALDEF filed one of the lawsuits along with local activists William Melendez, Aurelio Salazar and Juan Martinez. The other lawsuit was filed by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights. Diane Schachterle, coordinator for Proposition 54, said lawyers affiliated with the measure were monitoring the situation. She said she did not understand how Proposition 54 could be singled out without the entire recall ballot being put into question. "If it's unfair for the community to vote on one issue, doesn't it follow that it would be unfair for them to vote on the entire election?" she asked. Phil Paule, director of Rescue California, one of the groups leading the recall effort, said Tuesday he was confident the election would take place on Oct. 7 as scheduled. "We feel that we will prevail in all the pending legislation still out there," he said. "I feel that the elections officials in Monterey County have the capability of conducting an election that will allow every voter to vote." Dan Laidman can be reached at 646-4346.
FYI What happened? Federal officials said California can hold its recall election Oct. 7. Will the election happen then? Probably. What could change? Two federal voting rights lawsuits, one rooted in Monterey County, still could change the ballot or delay the election. |
|||
"Judge rebuffs ACLU bid to push vote to March; Ruling turns away concerns over punch-card ballots": Bob Egelko has this report in today's issue of The San Francisco Chronicle.
In response to my post yesterday about how the Ninth Circuit's ruling on appeal could very well depend on which three judges are assigned to hear and decide the case, a recent former law clerk to a Ninth Circuit judge today emailed to observe:
Because it's a preliminary injunction appeal, it will in all likelihood be heard by a motions and screening panel. This month's panel consists of Chief Judge Schroeder and Judges Hawkins and Tashima. They can, of course, kick it to the next available merits panel, but by then it might be too late.Of course, if the appeal is not taken until next month, presumably the composition of the motions and screening panel will change. The current panel is neither the most liberal nor the most conservative panel that could have been drawn from the judges serving on that court, although I think that most would rank the panel left of center. Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins participated in my Web log's "20 questions for the appellate judge" feature in June 2003, and you can access his interview at this link.