Replies

Whoever wrote the above email message doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

California's Election Code Section 11023 requires that: (a) Within seven days after the filing of the notice of intention, the officer sought to be recalled may file with the elections official, or in the case of a state officer, the Secretary of State, an answer, in not more than 200 words, to the statement of the proponents.

Furthermore, Election Code Section 11041 requires that: (a) ...Before any signature may be affixed to a recall petition, each page of each section must bear all of the following in no less than 8-point type:
(3) The answer of the officer sought to be recalled, if any. If the officer sought to be recalled has not answered, the petition shall so state.

That's why the recall petition contains that rebuttal statement by Gray Davis. The recall petition is perfectly legal, and has already gone through two rounds of technical revisions by the Secretary of State.

The answer of the officer sought to be recalled, if any. If the officer sought to be recalled has not answered, the petition shall so state.

Ok, I'll buy that. It does say "The answer of the officer sought to be recalled". So this is Davis' response to the recall petition.

"(3) The answer of the officer sought to be recalled, if any. If the officer sought to be recalled has not answered, the petition shall so state."

I am glad we have someone who knows the law.
So everything is OK, because the petition DOES state:

"The answer of the officer sought to be recalled is as follows:"....

I guess we had a tempest in a teapot, I got all worried, and how many others...

Thanks for setting it straight. I thought the site may have been hacked and the original petition altered to make it invalid.

OK, good, now I can send in the petition I got a couple of neighbors to sign.