Replies

Actually, I would be surprised if they actively affirm this.

On that we completely agree. I would not expect a ruling to sustain the 9th Circuit. I would anticipate either a summary affirmation or a ruling that overturns for one reason or another. Maybe I didn't make myself sufficiently clear previously. While, on its face, I think the 9th Circuit ruling consistent with Bush v Gore, I do not think it consistent with the actual intent of the SCOTUS. If the Supreme Court actually agrees to review, then I think they will clarify Bush v Gore and overturn.

However, I think odds favor the Supreme Court not wading into the morass at all. From their perspective, this is the sort of one-time circumstance which doesn't require the establishment of enduring precedent. Yeah, we might think it's imperative that the recall take place in October rather than March, but in the grand scheme of things, it's a rather trivial distinction in the nation's history.

In short, I think the SCOTUS will not see fit to intervene over such an incidental point of law, when the underlying principles [voting machinery and equal standards] are still in a state of flux. I could very well be proven wrong...

I agree. I don't think the SCOTUS will take this case.

Also, not only is the case law on voting standards undefined and evolving - while this case involves a relatively singular set of circumstances without enormous distinction - but the SCOTUS may very well simply want to avoid revisiting the hyper-politicized acrimony of Bush v Gore...

However, I think odds favor the Supreme Court not wading into the morass at all. From their perspective, this is the sort of one-time circumstance which doesn't require the establishment of enduring precedent. Yeah, we might think it's imperative that the recall take place in October rather than March, but in the grand scheme of things, it's a rather trivial distinction in the nation's history.

It might be if the time frame that should have precluded the March date were not enshrined in the California constitution, and if the first court that decided in this manner were a state court instead of a federal one.

In short, I think the SCOTUS will not see fit to intervene over such an incidental point of law, when the underlying principles [voting machinery and equal standards] are still in a state of flux. I could very well be proven wrong...

For the sake of California, I certainly hope so.