I have been against the recall since day one, but will everyone on the left please quit calling this an unconstitutional power grab. Clearly, it is constitutional. Clearly, Davis is scum. Not so clear, however, is how wise the recall provision of the California consititution is or how wise it is for judicial interference in elections BEFORE they occur.
Reader Interactions
11Comments
Comments are closed.
Robin Roberts
If one acts within the rules and according to the law, Democrats are outraged.
Says a lot about them.
Kimmitt
I don’t know where the “unconstitutional” part came in, but most folks I know consider it a perfectly constitutional power grab — just a fairly obvious abuse of the system.
David Perron
Hmm…now I’m at a loss as to what Kimmitt’s distinction between “abuse” and “proper use is. More to the point, how is it abuse? The California Constitution provides for recall of the governor, and the California populace availed themselves of that provision. I’m not sure how that constitutes abuse; perhaps you can enlighten me.
Dean
David:
Isn’t it obvious? When the Democrats mount recalls, use the courts to block elections, etc., it’s proper use.
When the Republicans do it, it’s abuse.
The sad part is, that’s not even sarcasm—in Kimmitt’s case, I think that he really does perceive it that way.
Andrew Lazarus
What if we had the recall, and it was very close, and the losing side wanted a hand inspection of the punch card ballots. Now, that or something like it was the law in over 30 states, but the Supreme Court ruled this was unconstitutional. Under those circumstances, I don’t see how we could have the recall, or any other election.
I can’t remember any Democratic-led recalls, could the previous posters help? Some rabid Republican dog-catcher somewhere?
Robin Roberts
The Supreme Court said no such thing Andrew.
Kimmitt
Abuse is in the eye of the beholder, of course. One man’s misuse of a system designed to allow the voters to throw out a guy for impeachable offenses which were not prosecuted is another man’s harnessing of the will of the people against a lousy governor.
It’s hard not to be cynical about this process.
Robin Roberts
Its not hard to be cynical about people who invent purposes and standards for an electoral provision of California law from whole cloth. The recall in California law wasn’t a substitute for impeachment – it was adopted during a period of Progressive changes to California law intended to make democracy more direct. Another change from the same era was the initiative process. Claiming the recall had some implied standard is pure invention.
The current recall of Gray Davis is – to the contrary – exactly what the recall provision was for. The removal of an official who is plainly unsuited for office in the opinion of the voters by whatever standard the voters wish to apply in the circumstance.
M. Scott Eiland
“One man’s misuse of a system designed to allow the voters to throw out a guy for impeachable offenses which were not prosecuted”
Like ninety percent of all criminal cases, it ended in a plea bargain. Considering the likely jury pool should Ray have proceeded with the prosecution, he did rather well. I seem to recall Bubba’s tame judge slapping him with a pretty hefty monetary penalty (note that I didn’t call it a fine, though it might as well have been) for wasting the time of the court with that deposition, too.
Andrew Lazarus
Robin, check out Justice Stevens, esp footnote 2 on page 3. With the diverse voting systems in use here, including several different types of punchcard, there’s no doubt that whatever recount rules we have don’t meet the Bush v. Gore rules against subjective standards.
Now, I admit that’s an unintended consequence. That’s not surprising, since the per curiam decision in Bush v Gore made clear it was for “this time and this train only”. If Equal Protection is to be taken seriously in election rules (which had truly never been dreamed of until the Bush Legal Team worked it out), then the Ninth Circuit’s decision can not be incorrect.
Robin Roberts
That isn’t what you claimed the Supreme Court said above, Andrew. Your statement was “…and the losing side wanted a hand inspection of the punch card ballots. Now, that or something like it was the law in over 30 states, but the Supreme Court ruled this was unconstitutional.” The Supreme Court never said that hand inspections were unconstitutional.
And citing to Stevens’ dissent in Bush v. Gore is his opinion, not the Supreme Court’s.