[arasina]

Isn't the ruling by the 9th Circuit PANEL OF 3 JUDGES disenfranchising all the voters who signed the petition by delaying the recall vote until MARCH?

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 15.

(a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures.

(b) A recall election may be conducted within 180 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures in order that the election may be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled election occurring wholly or partially within the same jurisdiction in which the recall election is held, if the number of voters eligible to vote at that next regularly scheduled election equal at least 50 percent of all the voters eligible to vote at the recall election.

(c) If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate, nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.

California Constitution (Elections)

[DoughtyOne]

I believe that it is. It's a direct conflict with the California constitution section concerning recall election rules.

If these voting methods were sound to bring Davis to office for the second time, they are sound enough to recall him with.

I wish the SCOTUS could soundly slap down the ACLU on this one. This is nothing but a nuisance suit IMO. It should have been slapped down at the appealate court.