A vote, isn't really a vote;
It's a coat, that you try to promote;
A court suit (this one's really a beaut);
That's California!

The Left want delays to give Davis a chance;
The Right don't want stays, they want Tom to advance;
All Cruz can get is a glance;
But the 9th circuit stopped it;
The press wants to drop it.

But still, there's the music to play;
There're the crowds, and the signs to display;
There's a will, and they'll still find a way;
They won't go astray;
From Arnold to Gray;
It happens each day;
In Cal-i-FOOOR-nia!

Dear Mr. Mullings: If we wanted musical comedy we'd have Donald O'Connor and Debbie Reynolds read us the op-ed page of Wall Street Journal. From you we want political commentary.
Signed,
Mel Brooks

You know what happened here: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (or, as it is known in bars frequented by lawyers, the 9th Cirque de Soile) ruled on Monday that the recall election cannot be held on October 7 because some voters in California would have to use punch-card voting machines instead of the new high-tech, touch-screen, never-fail, computerized voting machines which are being installed.

Unless (the court's logic held) every voter in California gets to vote on exactly the same type of voting machine as every other voter, it just won't be fair, so they have ordered the election delayed until every county can use the new machines.

The three members of the court who heard the case said they were using, as their guidance, the Supreme Court decision which ended the - dare we say it? - quagmire in Florida after the 2000 election. What they didn't say was they were also using, as their law clerks, the staff at the ACLU.

According to one Washington-based attorney who was intimately involved in the 2000 case, the 9th Circuit decision was (to be kind) a misreading of the Supreme Court's ruling or, (to be honest) a perversion of it.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "In Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped Florida's recount on grounds that Florida lacked uniform standards on how to recount disputed votes." [emphasis mine]

Note, the Court did not say Florida lacked uniform voting machines.

The Supreme Court said, in essence: (a) a person voting on a punch-card machine in Palm Beach County who left two hanging chads, should have had his vote evaluated the same way as someone in Osceola County who left two chads hanging; and, (b) that changing the rules about what would count as a valid vote and what would not AFTER the election was over was a mildly dangerous precedent.

Thus, the Court didn't rule that everyone had to vote on the same kind of machine; it ruled that everyone who uses the same kind of machine should have their votes counted the same way.

If the 9th Circuit's ruling is carried to its next illogical level, then in a Presidential election - a national election - a voter in South Dakota who votes on one of those old pull-the-curtain-mechanical-lever voting machines should be able to sue because he didn't get to vote on a high-tech, touch-screen, never-fail, computerized voting machine like they do in California.

Lost in all the maneuvering and posturing out here over the past 48 hours was a statement by the Los Angeles County Registrar/Recorder who happens to be the actual person responsible for getting these new machines to work:

"No one even asked the largest county in the state if we had the capacity to run it in March. The answer is no."

So, the 9th Circuit has presented this prospect: Another five months of political disorder only to find out that voters in Los Angeles County are going to use punch-card machines anyway.

That's Cal-i-FOOOOR-nia!

On the Secret Decoder Ring page today: A pretty good page today, actually. An interesting Mullfoto; a link to the 9th Circuit opinion (long!); a really nice war poster, and a decent Catchy Caption of the day!

--END --
Copyright © 2003 Richard A. Galen

---

                                                                       

Current Issue | Secret Decoder Ring | Past Issues | Email Rich | Rich Who?

Copyright �2002 Richard A. Galen | Site design by Campaign Solutions.