I think nevertheless that is a broad definition of 18205 for these purposes. I would like to know the legal definition of "withdraw", even if the candidates name is still on the ballot. Are you assigning an expanded definition? I believe you would have to give me solid precedent (multiple) and additional case law for me to consider this as contrary to the stipulations engendered in Sec.18205. The point is, with knowledge of bribery and influence laws, I suggested a workable proposal that could be achieved. There would be precedent for the action I have suggested, which has not been prosecuted in the past.
These are the kinds of posts and ideas we need for this thread. I want the idea hit and bashed and worked through line by line as a potential alternative.
All I can tell you is that if Ed Davis had chosen to "withdraw" from the U.S. Senate race back in 1986, his name would have remained on the primary ballot. So the indictment was over a "withdrawal" exactly analogous to a McClintock withdrawal, since Tom's name would remain on the ballot.
McC can endorse S. S and McC can both call on S to resign as Lt.-Gov. when he loses the replacement election. If B resigns, S appoints McC as Lt.-Gov. If B refuses to resign, new Gov. S moves him to a new "office" in the executive washroom, and by executive order gives all the functions that the Lt-Gov. would otherwise perform, to McC in the Lt.-Gov's office.
I happen to know that exactly this proposal went into the S and McC camps through a mutually trusted intermediary, three weeks ago.
John / Billybob
On Hannity and Colmes tonight, Bob Dornan brought up a similar point. He said that McClintock ought to "release his supporters" to vote their conscience in the recall, stopping short of dropping out outright.
-PJ