Political Bias Drives Justices' Delay of Recall

LA Times ^ | Sept. 16, 2003 | Richard Riordan

[FairOpinion]

It is truly shocking that the 9th Circuit could simply ignore what the Supreme Court had already said on this issue, in order to upset an election process that is already divisive.

In reaching its result, the 9th Circuit ignored well-settled law. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the need to give individual localities the flexibility to adopt voting systems that are best tailored to their unique circumstances, even though some counties will inevitably be better than other counties at counting. This has never been considered a constitutional problem by Supreme Court justices on either side of the ideological spectrum. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Bush vs. Gore by both the majority and the dissent. The majority explicitly held that its decision did not change the right of different counties to use different systems. Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent, reaffirmed the right of states "to delegate to local authorities certain decisions with respect to voting systems," even though there may be "enormous differences in accuracy."

Ultimately, Davis supporters and recall supporters must agree that prolonging the political crisis in this state is not in the best interest of California, especially given the tremendous fiscal problems this state is facing.

If recall is truly the product of a fringe element, then the majority of voters ought to have a right to say so promptly, so the governor can focus on doing his job, instead of trying to keep his job.

If, on the other hand, the majority of Californians want Davis out, then they have a right to say so now, so a successor can be elected.

Either way, Californians should have the right to vote Oct. 7.

[FairOpinion]

The author is Richard Riordan, ex-Mayor of LA.

I think it's a pretty good piece.

[goldstategop]

He's a liberal RINO and he couldn't care less about what Republicans think but even once in awhile a RINO like Rear End can have his head screwed on straight.

[thoughtomator]

Except for the fact that his reference to Bush v. Gore betrays either his lack of understanding of that case, or ignorance of the way it was used in the opinion in this one.

When the basic premise is junk, the rest is simply unreadable. Bush v. Gore settled no law other than the specific case of Bush vs. Gore, and anyone who read it would know that.

[thoughtomator]

Just to be clear, the 9th Cir. decision is junk as well... but there is every reason to believe they intentionally made a laughably offensive ruling in order to provoke a revisitation of Bush v. Gore.

[DoctorZIn]

Your One Stop Resource For All The California Recall News!

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

[ambrose]

He realizes this may be his best and last chance to have his little sock puppet get in.