Students
disagree with recall delay
By
Samantha Britland
On-line Forty-Niner
Students
express their views Wednesday, regarding
the postponement of the gubernatorial recall
election by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The
election, originally scheduled to take place
October 7 was appealed by the American Civil
Liberties Union and three additional minority
activist groups, with the argument that
40,000 voters may not be counted due to
error-prone paper ballots. The ACLU
is asking to delay the election until March
2004 when new, more technological advanced
voting machines are in place.
CSULB
student reaction to the recall delay is
varied, but students seem predominately
in favor for the election to be held on
Oct. 7 as previously scheduled. In a random
unscientific poll of 32 people, 27 of them
were in favor of proceeding with the recall
election on October 7 as scheduled. There
are mixed opinions about the recall in general,
and why this is becoming a huge ordeal.
Some
students are aggravated with the state's
budget crisis, and are not certain whether
the recall election will have any positive
impact on the state's current problems.
"Whether
or not the recall happens, there is still
no money- due to Davis' mismanagement,"
business finance major, Cameron Stewart
said. "I'm angry that [Gov. Gray Davis]
is allowing California to deteriorate to
the state that it is. He can't sufficiently
run California with the money he has."
Stewart
isn't the only student that is irritated
with California's mismanagement. Seniors
Jayson Cote and Cheryl Montuya also feel
that the recall will not change the problems
with the budget crisis, but that the people
need to do what they need to do.
"The
[recall] delay is a joke". Cote said.
Montoya
said that he feels the people, "will
hold the government more responsible [for
its actions] going forward."
Multiple
students articulated that it is obvious
the voters want a resolution. This is why
signatures were obtained and verified to
start the recall in the first place.
Political
science professor, Dr. Lewis Ringel, said
he sees the recall election as a small piece
in a series of political problems that have
occurred nationally over the last five years.
The recall of California's governor is a
major out lash by the people and could spur
additional recall elections around the country.
"In
most states the economy is terrible, and
voters are furious," Ringel said. "[This
is a] skirmish in a larger war. [There are]
a lot of angry Democrats out there- in losing
the White House election."
Ringel
said that delaying the recall until March
will bring out more voters due to the presidential
primary elections.
"The
more time, [the recall is delayed] the better
for Davis," Ringel said. "With
Schwarzenegger dodging questions, [they'll
show that] he won't answer anything, [which
will put] more pressure on McClintock and
Schwarzenegger."
When
asked about the ACLU's argument in which
the punch-card ballots are prone to errors
and miscounted votes -- the primary reason
for delaying the recall, many students said
they are annoyed.
"We
are using the same machines that got Davis
elected," junior, Melissa Bagnell said,
"[The] Ninth Circuit Court is taking
power into their own hands [and] not listening
to the people. They're backing Gray Davis.
The court is supposed to be for the people,
and this decision is not!"
Anabel
Lara, a CSULB student, agrees with Bagnell,
and also stated that, "the [ballots]
are good enough for the presidential election,
but not good enough for ours. [The ACLU]
are trying to prolong the process".
Currently,
the recall election is in limbo. On Wednesday,
the offices of Secretary of State Kevin
Shelley filed a brief requesting a rehearing
en banc, and a decision by Friday, September
19. An en banc hearing asks the court to
rehear the case before a full court, a panel
of 11 judges.
The
state's case outlines that between $30 and
$50 million have already been spent on the
election since September 8. Two million
absentee ballots have been mailed, with
over 375,000 votes already cast. Millions
of pamphlets and sample ballots have been
mailed, poll places established and poll
workers hired. In addition, the California
Constitution also requires that in the event
of a gubernatorial recall election, it takes
place between 60 to 80 days from the date
the recall signatures were verified. Postponing
the election until March triples this amount
of time set by the Constitution.
Recall
Recap
July 23, 2003- Secretary of State Kevin
Shelley certified the number of valid signatures
obtained were sufficient for a recall.
July
24, 2003- Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante
scheduled the recall Election for Tuesday,
Oct. 7, 2003
August
7, 2003- An action was filed alleging that
the punch-card voting system would violate
the U.S.Constitution and Voting Act.
August
12, 2003- Appellants file an ex-parte application
for a temporary restraining order, in instant
action pending a hearing on a preliminary
injunction. (To stop action going
forward)
Judge
Wilson- U.S. District Court, Central District
denies restraining order.
September
15, 2003- The three judge panel of the Ninth
Circuit Appeals Court reverses Judge Wilson's
order to continue the election.
September
17, 2003- Brief's submitted to request en-banc
hearing.
September
19, 2003- PENDING- en-banc hearing approved
or denied
|
