[risk]

Rreading the article is quite instructive. Some quotes:

McClintock's lawyer, Richard Ackerman, believes Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, a Democrat who opposes the recall of Gov. Gray Davis, is taking advantage of the opportunity to put a wrench in the senator's campaign.

And:

McClintock's chief strategist John Stoos declined to pin the blame on the secretary of state's office. He told WND the problem is California's Fair Political Practices Commission – an independent panel that regulates campaign financing and spending – sticking by its guns on a technicality "because they are bureaucrats first and public servants second."

It's just like a Democrat to refuse to allow unformalized bureaucratic solutions to problems. This is exactly the kind of red tape that McClintock (or Schwarzenegger for that matter) should be able to help sweep aside.

[Fresh Wind]

It's just like a Democrat to refuse to allow unformalized bureaucratic solutions to problems.

Yeah, but only if the solution helps an opposition candidate. If a Democrat were adversely affected, the situation would be different. Sort of like if a Democratic candidate were polling badly, and the party decided to replace him long after the deadline for doing this had passed. It becomes a "voting rights" issue if a Democrat is affected, and "too bad, that's the law" if it's a Republican.

[Brandon]

It's just like a Democrat to refuse to allow unformalized bureaucratic solutions to problems. This is exactly the kind of red tape that McClintock (or Schwarzenegger for that matter) should be able to help sweep aside.

Hmm. Seems to me that we are usually the ones insisting that a deadline is a deadline and the rules are the rules. McClintock has run for office many times in California; it's impossible for me to believe he didn't know the right way to do the paperwork.

[aruanan]

It's just like a Democrat to refuse to allow unformalized bureaucratic solutions to problems.

By definition there is no such thing.

[ambrose]

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/dockets.cfm?dist=3&doc_id=44791

This link will take you to the Court of Appeal website, which reads:


The petition for writ of mandamus
is denied. We will assume, without deciding, that
Petitioner was authorized by Government Code
section 85401, subdivision (a), to file an
amended "statement of intention." Nevertheless,
the record is inadequate to provide Petitioner
with the requested relief. Among other things,
Petitioner has failed to present evidence that
he tried to file, or was in a position to file,
a signed and dated amended statement of intention
in a timely manner, i.e., on or before 08/29/03
at 5:00 p.m. At best, the record contains an
unsigned and undated amended statement of
intention, in violation of Government Code
section 85200. Blease, Acting P.J. (H K)

[BJungNan]

If he did not follow procedurer in filling out the forms or whatever, that's it. Someone made a mistake. They should have been more careful.

Even if it is a political opponant being too much of a sticker for details, unless he can prove that his form was rejected while others got a pass on the same type of error, he should accept his mistake and the consequences.

Sounds like he is another Gray Davis blaming others for his mistake.