More legal maneuvering in California

[Dinner]

I thought this one was pretty good. As most of you know Govornor Grey Davis will have to face a recall election in the next two months and as many as 60 candidates have lined up to run for his office. Having so many candidates running for govornor means that it is very possible, even likely, that if Davis is recalled his replacement will have a very small percentage of the total vote.

Lately Davis's legal team has been feverishly trying to figure out how to save the Govornor's political career and keep him in the Govornor's seat. It appears they might have just found the loop hole which will allow them to do just that. You see the California Supreme Court has ruled that the recall and then the replacement vote are two seporate elections so it is possible for a person to vote no on the recall but still vote for who they'd like to be govornor incase the recall succeeds (a right wing republican group had argued that anyone who voted no on the recall didn't have a right to vote for the next govornor. Luckily, the court throw the Republican plot to disinfranchise half the state's voters out). So what does this mean to Davis? It means that legally Davis can officially run as a replacement for his own recall since the recall and the election are two seporate elections.

Polsters are saying that dispite Davis's low poll standings in the polls he might actually get the most votes because the other 50 candidates will split the other votes up in so many ways that Davis would win the election. What do you guys think? Will Davis be recalled and then win the election to replace himself?

This is to damn good!

[Chris 62]

Actually, the state recall law PRECLUDES the incumbent from being on the replacement ticket, THAT is what he is sueing to have changed.

[Japher]

I think the key word in the law is "replace"

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually, your characterization of the "Republican plot to disenfranchise half the voters" is incorrect. The existing statute provided that if people do not vote on the recall question at all (i.e. they don't vote "no" nor do they vote "yes") then any vote for a replacement candidate would be invalid.

The Davis hacks sued to challenge that provision (part of what they're doing is looking for avenues to challenge the election result on appeal, part of what they are doing is looking to simply delay. None of what they are doing relates to voter enfranchisement.) so that anyone who failed to punch, or mispunched, the question on the recall still pick a candidate, even though they didn't vote on the recall question at all.

They are not two separate elections per se - they are two separate ballots on the same election, i.e. independent questions to be decided by the voters.

Davis can not run as a candidate - his campaign has already taken the position that as he is not a "candidate for elective office" that campaign finance and contribution limit rules don't apply to him, so he's been soliciting six-figure donations (in violation of the state cap of $21,000.00 for personal contributions for candidates for elective office).

Recall the greaseball!

[Chris 62]

"(a right wing republican group had argued that anyone who voted no on the recall didn't have a right to vote for the next govornor. Luckily, the court throw the Republican plot to disinfranchise half the state's voters out). So what does this mean to Davis? It means that legally Davis can officially run as a replacement for his own recall since the recall and the election are two seporate elections. "

This doesn't make sense.
If people voted on a recall, they are voting against Davis, why would he need to be on the replacement ballot?
Nobody would be "disenfranchised", but it is a blantent attempt by Davis to bamboozle the electorate.
I can't see how anyone could claim they are losing their vote, if you want Davis, you vote NO to the recall, or is this beyound the ability of California Democrats to comprehend?

[Japher]

if you want Davis, you vote NO to the recall, or is this beyound the ability of California Democrats to comprehend?

Half of them can't even read!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Hey, Yank.

The California Dem party knows that more than half the registered rank and file want the bastard out, so they're trying to make as much confusion as possible in the issue.

So much for the "moral high ground" *****ing about Florida.

[Chris 62]

Hey Reb, you left us hanging at the joint, need to pop in more.

The kruat syster has taken to putting me on ignore, I always beat that bum, now he can't even face the music anymore.

[MichaeltheGreat]

My new office setup will have five comps in it, so I'll have one exclusively for running BS like 'poly and FFZ.

Right not, I've got too many windows going at once to keep track. I'll be over there a bit later though.

[Dinner]

None of what they are doing relates to voter enfranchisement

Attempting to set up a system where 50% of the legal voters will not be able to cast votes upon who will become govornor is the very definition of disenfranchisement. Parse words all you want but that fact will remain the same.

to the state Supreme Court for seeing through the bull****.

[Japher]

If you vote "no" on the reelection you have voted for Davis, so where is the disenfranchamacallit?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Chris 62
This doesn't make sense.
If people voted on a recall, they are voting against Davis, why would he need to be on the replacement ballot?
Nobody would be "disenfranchised", but it is a blantent attempt by Davis to bamboozle the electorate.
I can't see how anyone could claim they are losing their vote, if you want Davis, you vote NO to the recall, or is this beyound the ability of California Democrats to comprehend?

Chris: I will break it down for you. The court has ruled there is going to be two different elections occuring on the same day. Legally, Davis can run for the second election even if he loses the first election. Will he win either election? Who knows but I thought this issue was interesting enough to warrent a thread hear at poly.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Attempting to set up a system where 50% of the legal voters will not be able to cast votes upon who will become govornor is the very definition of disenfranchisement. Parse words all you want but that fact will remain the same.

This seems to have you confused, so let's try it again.
If you want Gray Davis, you vote "NO" to recall.
Nobody is removing anything.

Reb, no problem, I know how it is.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Chris: I will break it down for you. The court has ruled there is going to be two different elections occuring on the same day. Legally, Davis can run for the second election even if he loses the first election. Will he win either election? Who knows but I thought this issue was interesting enough to warrent a thread hear at poly.

Can you show me this ruling?

I'd like to see yet another example of the 9th circuit court over-writing state law to suit partisan politics.

[Chris 62]

This is what I see on the wire:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=511&e=4&u=/ap/20030804/ap_on_el_gu/davis_recall

That is NOT what you are saying Oerdin, are you getting a different story?