![]() |
| Office of the Chancellor / Public Affairs |
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
|
Wall St. Journal 9-16-03 Editorial: Revenge of the Chad |
|
| The same federal court that last year banned the Pledge of Allegiance decided yesterday to postpone California's recall election. The October 7 vote cannot proceed as planned, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, because some voters would be using outdated punch-card ballots. Isn't there some way to recall punch-happy appeals court justices? The case now heads to the U.S. Supreme Court, which can get a head start on its annual task of overturning the Ninth Circuit by issuing a stay and permitting the election to go ahead. With an annual reversal rate of 75% or more, the Ninth Circuit is the most reversed appeals court in the nation -- and the laughingstock of the appellate bar. None of this, however, can be very funny to the two million Californians who signed petitions to recall Governor Gray Davis and whose constitutional right to a speedy election is being abridged. The three-judge panel's further concern that there isn't enough time to prepare polling places is also bogus. Special elections never take place with as many polling places as regular ones. Perhaps the Ninth Circuit would like to invalidate every special election California has ever held? There's a good reason the California Constitution mandates that a recall election be held within 60-80 days. As the past few weeks have shown, it's not easy to run a government when an elected official is under a cloud. Governor Davis is already giving away what's left of the store, last week handing state employees 12 extra paid holidays a year. At this rate, the unbridled legislature will have mandated daily free lunches by the March 2 primary, the date the Ninth Circuit stipulates for the recall vote. No balloting system is perfect, and those the appeals court objects to are the same that were used less than a year ago to re-elect Governor Davis. So here's a suggestion for the Supreme Court: Uphold the Ninth Circuit ruling but also invalidate Mr. Davis's election last November, on the grounds the same illegal punch-card ballots were used. Then everyone would be happy.
|
|
|
These news clips are provided by the Public Affairs Department of The California State University. They are intended for the internal use of The California State University system and should not be redistributed. Questions and submissions may be sent to publicaffairs@calstate.edu. |
|