More legal maneuvering in California

[Dinner]

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

The disenfranchisement occures when you refuse to allow someone to vote in the second election just because of the way they voted in the first election. Since they are two entirely seporate elections you cannot tie one to the other. Thus refusing to let people vote for govornor simply because they voted no on the recall would mean voters were being disenfranchised.

You might disagree but the court says you are wrong.

[Ned]

Oerdin, do you have a link to the court order itself? I have a hard time understanding just how Grey Davis could run as candidate in the recall election.

In the meantime, let's all sing along to Bye, Bye Mr. Gray Davis...

http://www.recallgraydavis.com/Song.asp

[Dinner]

Originally posted by 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?

I'm reading the front page of the Sacramento Bee. Upper left hand corner. I also don't like Davis but I like to read about the ins and outs of all the legal wrangling.

[Japher]

Our courts suk.

[Dinner]

Here's a link to the Sac Bee's web site.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/recall/story/7161380p-8108570c.html

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I'm reading the front page of the Sacramento Bee. Upper left hand corner. I also don't like Davis but I like to read about the ins and outs of all the legal wrangling.

It seems somebody seems to have something wrong here:

http://www.sacbee.com/

You sure that's what your seeing?

[Chris 62]

It says he filed suit, not that there was a ruling, which makes this comment :
"The court has ruled there is going to be two different elections occuring on the same day. "
wishful thinking or horse manure.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

You working for Davis now? If you want to talk "facts" then where do you get the 50% number?

If you want to talk "facts" read the filings in the case - they're on Lexis and Westlaw, you should be able to find them from the state supreme court's website as well.

Since there is nothing else on the election, it's doubtful even five percent of the voters would bother to vote, then skip the recall question entirely, while picking a candidate.

The section of the California Election Code challenged did not apply to those who would "no" on the recall, it only applied to those who didn't vote on the recall question at all.

The only bull**** is that coming from the Davis camp, but at least he's showing the electorate exactly what a sleazy greaseball he is.

[Dinner]

Ok, you're right. The motion was filed but the ruling hasn't occured yet. Still, I remember reading about people being able to vote no on the recall and still vote for a replacement due to there being officially two elections.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

BINGO!

It makes no sense to be able to say you don't want a recall, and then be able to vote on who you want instead. If you voted NO, you don't want anyone instead! DUH!

The section of the California Election Code challenged did not apply to those who would "no" on the recall, it only applied to those who didn't vote on the recall question at all.

Well that settles that anyway . So we were arguing over something that won't even take place... nice confusion tactic, Oerdin.

Chris: Totally correct... he filed suit, the Cali SC hasn't ruled on jack yet. Another confusion tactic by Oerdin on this issue, not that that is suprising .

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The disenfranchisement occures when you refuse to allow someone to vote in the second election just because of the way they voted in the first election. Since they are two entirely seporate elections you cannot tie one to the other. Thus refusing to let people vote for govornor simply because they voted no on the recall would mean voters were being disenfranchised.

You might disagree but the court says you are wrong.

That wan't the issue at all.

If they voted "no" in the recall, they got to vote for whoever they wanted in case the recall succeeded. The people "disenfranchised" are those who don't vote at all on the recall question.

[Chris 62]

Well, I may have been off for a bit Imran, but that doesn't mean I lost my touch.

[Dinner]

Imran: If it's another confusing thread then can you please tell me what's confusing about the first thread?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You deliberately intended to confuse and spread lies by claiming the Republicans were being sneaky and being 'undemocratic'. Both positions are highly hilarious to take.

[Japher]

Well, since we need to put the recall to a vote lets do it, and for his "replacement" include Davis, I don't really care. Hopefully people won't be dumb enough to Vote yes on the recall and then vote for Davis. Though it would be rather funny.