The last best hope for Gray Davis may reside with a panel of unpredictable judges

US News ^ | 9-8 | US News

[ambrose]

Nation & World 9/15/03
Wild-Card Court
The last best hope for Gray Davis may reside with a panel of unpredictable judges

By Angie Cannon
Everyone seems to take for granted that Californians will decide October 7 whether Democratic Gov. Gray Davis stays or goes. But much to the chagrin of an army of would-be Davis topplers, the fate of the recall election now rests with a maverick, liberal federal appeals court, once derided as a "court jester" by the Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this week is set to consider a challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union, which says there's a chance some votes, especially those of minorities, may not be counted because old, less accurate punch-card machines are still used in some counties.

The ACLU is seeking a delay until March, when all districts will be equipped with new, modern machines. A lower court rejected the claim last month, but the Ninth Circuit agreed to review the matter. "There are significant constitutional issues. . . . If they aren't resolved before the election, they will create problems after the election," says Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen. "And we could see a replay of Florida, with people challenging hanging chads."

How the court will rule is anybody's guess. The only thing you can expect, legal scholars say, is the unexpected. "That court has a reputation of taking on tough issues," says Uelmen, "and not being afraid of being overruled by the Supreme Court."

In fact, the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, is frequently reversed by the Supreme Court. Among its controversial rulings: Just last week, it overturned the death sentences of more than 100 prisoners in three states because judges, not juries, sent them to death row. Last summer, it declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it included the phrase "under God." In 1996, it ruled in favor of physician-assisted suicide.

The pledge ruling--requiring some state schools to drop the morning ritual--renewed a decades-old debate about splitting up the Ninth Circuit, the largest of the federal appeals courts. With 28 judgeships, the court serves more than 50 million people in nine western states and two territories.

The great divide may never happen, but today's critics of the court have some distinguished forebears. In 1984, then U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist offered an explanation for the Ninth Circuit, saying its judges "have a hard time saying no to any litigant with a hard-luck story." Gray Davis has got to hope that's still the case.

[ambrose]

ping

[My2Cents]

there's a chance some votes, especially those of minorities, may not be counted because old, less accurate punch-card machines are still used in some counties.

Translation: There's a chance some votes may not be counted because there's still a large segment of the population who are too stupid to figure out how to use voting machines.

[Jimmy Valentine]

This is right out of Wagner. Gotterdamerung! If Davis cannot win he will bring down all of California in ruins.

Spiteful, evil man!

Regards,

[Paul Atreides]

It also sounds like instructions to the Dim voters: after the election, squawk about the process like we had them do in Florida.

[ScottinSacto]

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this week is set to consider a challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union, which says there's a chance some votes, especially those of minorities, may not be counted because old, less accurate punch-card machines are still used in some counties.

Only problem is they won't be ready in March either!!!!

From SDUT today:

Voting-machine plan snags

Security issues jeopardize goal to change by March

By Luis Monteagudo Jr.
STAFF WRITER

September 8, 2003

San Diego County is running out of time to switch to touch-screen voting machines by March because state and federal officials have not yet certified the technology.

County elections officials had hoped to get the Board of Supervisors to approve spending $30 million this month to buy 10,000 machines from Diebold Elections Systems Inc. of Ohio. But that isn't likely to happen, County Registrar of Voters Sally McPherson said.

She won't move ahead until state and federal researchers test the machines and approve them for use in California.

"We need them soon," McPherson said.

The county's frustration over the issue was spelled out in two letters sent in July and August to California Secretary of State Kevin Shelly, asking him to address criticism that the machines can be tampered with to produce inaccurate results.

Shelley responded to the letters last week, saying he has confidence in the state's voting system and he will soon provide direction to election officials and voting machine manufacturers to "augment current security procedures and standards."

However, Shelley did not say when he would address recommendations from a state task force he created that analyzes the security and accuracy of the machines.

State officials said the delay is partly due to the need to get public comment on the report and to the historic recall election of the governor, which has forced elections officials in Sacramento and around the state to scramble to prepare for the Oct. 7 vote.

The machines the county would use have to meet stringent standards set by the Federal Elections Commission, and Shelley has to qualify them for use in California.

Diebold spokesman Mark Radke said the company expects to get federal approval of its machines within a week, and state approval soon after.

San Diego and other counties in the state are under a federal court order to eliminate punch-card voting systems by March. McPherson said the county can wait as late as early November before ordering the machines.

If the machines are not approved in time and the county cannot use them for the March election, the county would most likely use an optical scan system in which voters use pencils to fill in their choices on paper ballots. The county is planning to use its punch-card system for the Oct. 7 recall vote.

County elections officials selected Diebold to provide their voting machines, but the choice has been marked by a growing controversy over alleged flaws that could lead to inaccurate vote counts.

Since the beginning of the year, critics that include computer scientists have created Web sites exposing the alleged flaws and have launched online petitions urging elections officials to seek independent testing of Diebold's machines and other systems.

In July, a group of computer security researchers from John Hopkins University in Baltimore released a report of their examination of the Diebold system. That report said the system has major security lapses that would allow hackers or others to change the votes cast in the machines.

That report has been criticized by Diebold officials, who said it was based on incorrect information about how their machines work.

Since the study's release, it has become known that one of the report's co-authors, Avi Rubin, had stock options and was on the advisory board of VoteHere when he co-wrote the report. VoteHere is a company that supplies technology and programs to improve the security of vote-counting systems.

Rubin, a computer science professor at John Hopkins, said no one from VoteHere talked to him about the Diebold report before its release. Nevertheless, he resigned from the VoteHere advisory board and returned the company's stock options because of the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, the study is reverberating throughout the election community.

The governor of Maryland, which is also switching to Diebold machines, asked a San Diego research and engineering firm to study the machines. That firm, Science Applications International Corp., is expected to finish its study soon.

A company spokesman said it also has been approached by officials in Ohio about doing a similar study.

[My2Cents]

It also sounds like instructions to the Dim voters: after the election, squawk about the process like we had them do in Florida.

"B-b-b-but, I think I mistakenly voted for Buchanan!..."

[Paul Atreides]

"So what if I used the ballot correctly before, I didn't know how this time!"

[freekitty]

So they can cheat more.

[bootless]

Oh, good God! There was nothing wrong with the punch card ballots - AND they seemed to work just fine in November 2002. Shall we get a do-over for that election?

For the short of memory in the media, I guess we'll need to revisit the fact that there was nothing really wrong with the punch cards themselves. There was quite a bit wrong with the Democrat-directed push polling calls from that Texas telemarketing firm, in essence asking the Palm Beach voters, "Are you SURE you turned the iron off?"

Nakedly disgraceful. It's just their style.

[45Auto]

Yep. The whole "hanging chad" thing was absolute BS. The voters in Cal have been using these same punch-card systems for over 40 years and there has never, ever, not once, been a problem with voting. The whole thing is a set-up for the ACLU (does anyone think they do NOT take their marching orders from the DNC?) to once again, short circuit the process. This ballot will have no more than FOUR holes punched out - four. The first thing I do when removing the ballot after voting is to CHECK TO SEE THAT ALL HOLES ARE CLEANLY PUNCHED. How effing difficult is that? If people are too stupid to punch out four little holes, they are too stupid to be allowed to vote. In fact, it would be a sign that they need to put their brain on life-support, because they are nearly dead.

The real fun will begin when the very simple and easy to figure out punch card ballot is replaced with a computer screen.

[CyberAnt]

If these 3 judges stop the recall - when will the revolution start ..?? Just asking ..??

[ambrose]

Nah, people will just go back to focusing on the Kobe Bryant case.

[Happy2BMe]

"The question is or at least ought to be, how can such a small, godless, minority have such influence over our courts and legislative processes?"

Answer:

U.S. Supreme Court, 2003 - The Oligarchy*

Back Row (left to right): Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Front Row (left to right): Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

ol·i·gar·chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

[CyberAnt]

I don't think so ..!!

[ErnBatavia]

If Davis cannot win he will bring down all of California in ruins.

He began to further this very process just last Friday, by signing a previously pledged-to-be-vetoed bill allowing illegals to become legal by way of getting CDLs.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

With 28 judgeships, the court serves rules over more than 50 million people in nine western states and two territories.

There, I fixed it.

[Fizzie]

Re:, your # 10, bootless

Yep, let's just overturn the re-election of Davis, because the punch ballot was so confusing. On second thought, maybe that's how he got re-elected.

How the court will rule is anybody's guess. The only thing you can expect, legal scholars say, is the unexpected. <"That court has a reputation of taking on tough issues," says Uelmen, "and not being afraid of being overruled by the Supreme Court." In fact, the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, is frequently reversed by the Supreme Court. Well, generally the Supreme Court does reverse tough stupid unconstitutional decisions.

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[FrontlinesofFreedom]

The New Nixon? The specter of 1962 haunts Schwarzenegger's campaign.