Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's not about the punch cards
TownHall.com ^ | Wednesday, September 17, 2003 | by Debra Saunders

Posted on 09/17/2003 12:02:37 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

The infamous Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Monday that the very "punch-card" ballots that were good enough to elect Gray Davis governor in November aren't good enough to be used in an election that might recall him.

The three-judge panel's rationale: An Oct. 7 recall would violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because six counties representing 44 percent of the voters would use punch-card ballots, which are deemed less reliable than other ballots. The ruling noted that "the affected counties contain a significantly higher percentage of minorities than the other counties" and cited a study that found that minority voters had more problems voting using punch cards than white, non-Hispanic voters.

The panel ruled that the recall election should be postponed until March 2, 2004, when all counties should have replaced their punch-card systems. The judges also noted that former California Secretary of State Bill Jones, a Republican, "officially" deemed punch cards to be "unacceptable."

Wrong, bristled Jones on Monday. Jones noted that after Florida 2000, he pushed for California to modernize its balloting systems by 2006. The ACLU and other organizations sued the state to dump punch-card ballots more quickly. A federal judge in Los Angeles picked March 2004 as the deadline -- and the parties agreed.

"If I had thought these systems were so egregious, I would not have" suggested keeping punch cards until 2006, said Jones. He asked: If the ACLU believed that punch-card ballots disenfranchised voters, "why didn't they appeal that decision" for the 2002 elections?

The answer: As far as I'm concerned, the issue wasn't replacing the punch cards. It was that the ACLU wanted to muck up the recall election, and the Ninth Circuit wanted to help.

As UCLA law professor Daniel Lowenstein noted, "There are many elections scheduled for November 2003, including a recall election in the city of Lynwood" (which lies in one of the six counties, Los Angeles) "and I'm not aware of anyone who's objected to the use of punch-card ballots in those systems."

A former aide to Jerry Brown when he was secretary of state, Lowenstein described the Monday ruling as "one of the worst instances of judicial interference with elections that I've ever seen, and I've been active in this field for about 30 years."

Elections attorney Chip Nielsen warned that the replacement ballot systems could be worse than punch cards -- because voters and registrars aren't familiar with them. Lowenstein agreed that the new ballot systems could be as problematic as punch cards.

This is another Ninth Circuit horror story. Consider how in 1996, federal judge Thelton Henderson -- a former ACLU board member -- unilaterally overruled Proposition 209, which ended racial preferences in state hiring, contracting and admissions. Proposition 209, which was approved by voters, was based on 1964 federal civil rights law. A Ninth Circuit panel overturned the ruling on appeal. It should act likewise -- and quickly -- with this can of worms and spare California from the U.S. Supreme Court stepping in. As Nielsen noted, this decision spells "pure chaos."

While the ruling noted the need for "orderly" elections, it in itself is a recipe for disorder.

Should counties throw out the absentee ballots of those who have already voted -- or should they let every vote count? No one knows.

On the very first paragraph of the 66-page ruling, the Ninth Circuit judges misquoted Bill Jones, who never said the punch-card system was "unacceptable." (He said it was outdated.) They took a decades-old voting mechanism that helped elect the presidents who appointed them and decided that it was so unreliable as to justify their decision to postpone a scheduled election in which some citizens already had voted.

If punch ballots are so "unacceptable," they should recuse themselves, having won their place on the bench through such a discredited system. But if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for the recall.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; california; recall
Wednesday, September 17, 2003

Quote of the Day by Holden Magroin

1 posted on 09/17/2003 12:02:37 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
ping
2 posted on 09/17/2003 12:11:16 AM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
"If I had thought these systems were so egregious, I would not have" suggested keeping punch cards until 2006, said Jones. He asked: If the ACLU believed that punch-card ballots disenfranchised voters, "why didn't they appeal that decision" for the 2002 elections?

The answer: As far as I'm concerned, the issue wasn't replacing the punch cards. It was that the ACLU wanted to muck up the recall election, and the Ninth Circuit wanted to help.

===

BINGO. Anyone can see that. I think if the full court doesn't overturn this immediately, there will be a real backlash against them.

3 posted on 09/17/2003 12:13:46 AM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
If punch ballots are so "unacceptable," they should recuse themselves, having won their place on the bench through such a discredited system. But if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for the recall.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges were not voted into their current positions. The President appoints them, and, with the consent of the Congress, they "win" their place in the court.

4 posted on 09/17/2003 12:19:22 AM PDT by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for the recall.

If punchcard ballots are good enough to elect Davis, they're good enough to recall him.

5 posted on 09/17/2003 12:21:00 AM PDT by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Debra Saunders gets her conclusion wrong. Federal judges are NOT chosen in elections. If they were, most of their wooly headed Lefties would have been gone along ago. The California courts have their judges confirmed in retention election and if a court gets too ideologically extreme, voters can send judges a message by giving them the boot like they did to the Rose Bird Supreme Court here over a decade and a half ago. What's frustrating is we have few means of bring the Nine Circus to heel and they can stick it to us when they want and we have recourse in the matter - except civil disobedience? I'd like to see California go ahead with the election no matter how they rule. The Nine Circus would have to order the federal government to round up every voter and put them in a concentration camp. Let them try to enforce it.
6 posted on 09/17/2003 12:30:32 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

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

7 posted on 09/17/2003 12:59:34 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I saw Ann Coulter on Fox & Friends yesterday morning and her comment on the 9th's decision was: "They'll have democracy in Iraq before they have it in California."

It was a classic and oh! so appropo. Her one-liners are great.

8 posted on 09/17/2003 3:16:27 AM PDT by mass55th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
I think Ann will have something to say about all this in today's column. Stay tuned.
9 posted on 09/17/2003 3:18:51 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
What's frustrating is we have few means of bring the Nine Circus to heel and they can stick it to us when they want and we have recourse in the matter - except civil disobedience

This is what happens when judges are appointed to their lifetime offices instead of being elected by the people.

An independent Judiciary sounds nice in theory, but in practice it becomes despotic in its practices. The communist manifesto sounded great when reading it, but look what happened when it was put into practice.

Federal Court Justices are only human, and will react to unrestrained power just as any human would. The Ninth Circuit is a good example of what happens when humans are given unaccountable power for a lifetime. When people ask how to get rid of the Ninth Circuit they should ask by what Constitutional means did they get their offices in the first place.

In radical librealism the "independent Judiciary" is not a means to let Justices do their work free of the people's restraint, but a means of doing their work to "restrain" the people.

Because the Founding Fathers didn't "adequately" see the threat to Republicanism from an unrestrained Judiciary the people now have only Congress to check the excesses of the Federal Court. If the people are to influence the Court is must do so through the people they send to Washington. If Congress doesn't do its job then the Founders left the people the tool of "amendment" to remedy the situation.
10 posted on 09/17/2003 5:29:33 AM PDT by Noachian (Liberalism belongs to the Fool, the Fraud, and the Vacuous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Why don't they stop and think: These are the same punch-card ballots that got Gray Davis into office in the first place!

Why are the libs so much against them now...they've been putting Democrats into office in California for years.

11 posted on 09/17/2003 5:43:21 AM PDT by capt. norm (You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; ambrose; Sabertooth; lawdog; Congressman Billybob
As UCLA law professor Daniel Lowenstein noted, "There are many elections scheduled for November 2003, including a recall election in the city of Lynwood" (which lies in one of the six counties, Los Angeles) "and I'm not aware of anyone who's objected to the use of punch-card ballots in those systems."

A former aide to Jerry Brown when he was secretary of state, Lowenstein described the Monday ruling as "one of the worst instances of judicial interference with elections that I've ever seen, and I've been active in this field for about 30 years."

Lowenstein is the author of the standard casebook on election law.

12 posted on 09/17/2003 5:55:22 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Wrong, bristled Jones on Monday. Jones noted that after Florida 2000, he pushed for California to modernize its balloting systems by 2006. The ACLU and other organizations sued the state to dump punch-card ballots more quickly. A federal judge in Los Angeles picked March 2004 as the deadline -- and the parties agreed.

So this wasn't just a case of a judge approving a compromise agreement that the parties reached among themselves. The judge selected the compromise. And the Ninth Circus just refused to find that that compromise settled the law of the case for the recall.

13 posted on 09/17/2003 5:57:18 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm
You know, imo, maybe we all need to reconsider the punch card ballot.

I mean...except for those who've been spelunking for the past three years, is there anyone really, who hasn't heard about a CHAD? We've just completed about three whole years of educating the old, the young, the ignorant, the supposedly intelligent, the imprisoned, our illegal aliens, etc. on how to use a stylus and a ballot card.

IMO, all this is, is a deflection from the newer voting systems which are being rigged and programmed by Democrats, to steal yet another election, right as we sit here and debate.
14 posted on 09/17/2003 6:06:19 AM PDT by getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL ("...The Land of EnCHADment")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
That's exactly what the author said:

They took a decades-old voting mechanism that helped elect the presidents who appointed them ...

...they should recuse themselves, having won their place on the bench through such a discredited system.

She never said they were directly elected.

15 posted on 09/17/2003 6:37:08 AM PDT by wildandcrazyrussian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson