Appeals
court reinstates Oct. 7 recall vote in California
SAN
FRANCISCO (AP) -- With stunning decisiveness,
a federal appeals court Tuesday unanimously
put California's recall election back on
the calendar for Oct. 7, sweeping aside
warnings of a Florida-style fiasco two weeks
from now.
The
American Civil Liberties Union, which had
sought a postponement, said it would not
appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, removing
the final legal roadblock to the recall
and setting up a 14-day sprint among the
candidates in the historic election to remove
Gov. Gray Davis.
The
11-member panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals swiftly overturned a decision
issued last week by three of the most liberal
judges on the court.
The
three judges had postponed the election
until perhaps March to give six counties
more time to switch over to electronic voting
systems from the error-prone punch-card
ballots that caused the recount mess in
Florida during the 2000 presidential election.
The panel repeatedly cited the Supreme Court's
Bush v. Gore decision that effectively decided
the 2000 election.
The
more conservative 11-judge panel acknowledged
that allowing the election to go forward
now could cause some votes to go uncounted.
But the panel said that the candidates,
the voters and the state have already spent
a huge amount of time and money on the assumption
the election would be held Oct. 7.
If
the election is postponed, the court said,
''it is certain that the state of California
and its citizens will suffer material hardship
by virtue of the enormous resources already
invested in reliance on the elections proceeding
on the announced date.''
''In
short, the status quo that existed at the
time the election was set cannot be restored
because this election has already begun,''
the court said in a ruling issued less than
20 hours after the panel heard arguments.
The
judges acknowledged the possibility of lawsuits
after the votes are in and counted, saying
the ACLU is
''legitimately
concerned that use of the punch-card system
will deny the right to vote to some voters
who must use that system.''
But
the court added: ''At this time it is merely
a speculative possibility, however, that
any such denial will influence the result
of the election.''
The
11 judges -- none of whom were on the original
three-judge panel -- based their decision
on the California Constitution, not any
precedent set by Bush v. Gore.
Among
other things, the court cited the time and
money that have been spent to prepare voter
information pamphlets and sample ballots,
mail out absentee ballots, and hire and
train poll workers.
It
noted that candidates have raised money
and ''crafted their message to the voters
in light of the originally-announced schedule
and calibrated their message to the political
and social environment of the time.''
Also,
it said that if the election is postponed,
the hundreds of thousands of absentee voters
who have already cast their ballots ''will
effectively be told that the vote does not
count and that they must vote again.''
|
