REVISITED: CALIFORNIA RECALL VOTE CANNOT GO FORWARD AS PLANNED (THANKS FLORIDA)!

NOTE: Because of the really interesting dialogue that is taking place in the "Comments" area of this posting, and because I have nothing new to post today, I am reissuing this post, which originally appeared yesterday afternoon. Please read all of the "Comments" and then make your own. It's a very interesting conversation!

This just in... A Federal Court has ruled that the state of California's Gubernatorial recall election cannot go forward as planned because six counties in the state would still be using the punch-card balloting system, which we all remember from the last presidential election. The decision will most likely be appealed, but in the meantime, if the ruling holds, the election could be delayed until March of 2004. I don't know about anyone else, but it's about time that something good came out of that 2004 presidential election!

Let's hope the US Supreme Court doesn't act in a brash manner like it did in Bush v Gore. Someone should challenge not the constitutionality of the recall but the stupidity of it. It doesn't make sense any way you look at it. Bill Clinton has it right with the comments he made at an LA church yesterday. This mad effort by a bunch of sore losers (aka the CA Republicans) is outrageous, really.

That's funny that anyone would quote of all people, Bill Clinton. I remember the best quote ever from that guy ... "I did not have sexual relations with that women, Ms. Lewinsky." Or better yet, "I did not tell the entire truth to the Grand Jury."

Now that I think about it, Bill Clinton is a great person to quote!

Yeah Billy, I much rather quote Dubya who instead of creating 2mil+ jobs like Bill Clinton lost 2mil+ jobs. Yeah...much better role model. Bill Clinton did nothing for us. What was Lee thinking?

Billy, and anyone else who cares to follow along:

Is it really your belief that if someone lies they should no longer be listened to or quoted? Sure, Bill Clinton lied about his relations with Monica Lewinsky, and who knows about whom or what else, but in my book that doesn't mean that he can't be doesn't have anything of value to say ever again.

Think about all of the lies that are told every day, be them either where you've work, played, studied, or lived. If you ruled out listening to anyone who ever lied about something, there'd likely be no one left to listen to or quote (is my guess).

For what it's worth... Mikal.

Frankly, Mikal, I am dismayed at your stance on California's recall issue. Your gleeful and overt partisanship appears myopic in that it does not recognize the potential power such a judiciously practiced mechanism has in assuring accountability of our elected representatives.

If, like California, all other states and our nation had in their statutes and laws the ability for its people to gather signatures and vote by referendum whether or not to terminate the tenure of its representatives, those elected would necessarily and precariously vote on matters important to the body politic rather than those of special interest groups incongruent with the will of the people. Congressmen, governors, and presidents should feel a sense of unease at all times, not unlike any other working person or business owner, that their specific job performance is constantly being evaluated by their employer or the marketplace, knowing full well that their constituents will swiftly hold them accountable for egregious misdeeds.

Representative republic forms of government are by far soothed by democratic referendums more than than they are injured. Their inertial effect will undoubtably empower the people, cleanse apathy and restore our crumbling freedoms.

Sorry Dave-oÖ try selling your indignation somewhere elseÖ no do-overs allowed, especially ones funded by sore losers. Once you elect an official, unless s/he runs off with public funds or gets caught with kiddie-porn, you're stuck with her or him. The system has checks and balances. In the state of California itís called the State Assembly, and it has representatives from all over the state as a part of its membership.

Dave, I canít believe that YOU donít get itÖ itís the governor of State of California weíre talking about here, not some gal you married a month ago in Vegas. You of all people should know this. As my friend Bill said recently said, in football, when the team stinks it up on the field of play, you fire the manager, but you don't fire him because it snows and you canít see the first down marker anymore.

You wrote that representative forms of government are by far soothed by democratic referendums more than they are injured. While I donít necessarily disagree with that, whatís going on out in California is just down right WRONG. Whatís going on out there is that the economy turned sour, so the stateís residentís are going to get rid of their governor. And here's why the economy turned: its dotcom bubble burst (obviously on the orders of Gray Davis). The airline industry collapsed (just as the governor planned). Oh, and thatís rightÖ the United Statesí federal government also decided to fight a couple of wars overseas (playing right into Gray Davis' hands). And letís not forget that the former Chair of the Board of Regents at the University of Houston (our friend Ken Lay over at Enron) gamed the energy market and ripped the State of California off for billions and billions of dollars. So clearly you can see the problem: Gray DavisÖ. the same Gray Davis that this ìjudiciously practiced mechanismî that you speak of is going to be put into play to assure accountability from.

And the obvious solution is a recall election that pits Gary Coleman against Arnold Schwarzenegger? Not that I'm saying I love Gray Davis (hellÖ I really donít much about the guy except for the media and his foes say about him). But Dave, come on, he won a fair election, and he's entitled to serve out his term. Maybe he's a crappy governor, but he was the one elected by those voters who bothered to show up at the polls. Their efforts shouldnít be undone by the guy he beat fair and square, along with disgruntled shoppers signing a petition on their way out of grocery stores.

And in case youíre wondering Dave, thereís no overt partisanship at play here on my part. There are still a lot of people out here in the heartland and elsewhere with sour grapes over the last presidential election, myself included, and you donít see any of us out collecting petitions to replace George W. Bush with Bernie Mac!

Unlike Gore v. Bush, the decision of the 3 person 9th Circuit has peemptively assumed that the punch card ballots will be problematic and therefore unconstitutional. If one is to believe this premise, you must also believe that ALL previous elections resulting from punch card ballots are invalid.

Current law in California allows for a recall of the Governship. You wrote in the 4th paragraph "he won a fair election, and he's entitled to serve out his term." Not true in California. The law says that you are NOT ENTITLED to serve out your term if the electorate decides to hold a referendum to recall you. This recent court ruling does not address whether or not the notion of a recall is right or wrong rather finds a dubious technicality in which to base its judgement. This is MORE wrong and effectively changes the rules while the game is being played. It's one thing to view the instant replay over and over trying to make the right decision but yet another to make call the noseguard offsides before the snap because he did it so many times in the first half.

Mikal, I do get the idea that it's California. This fact, in my mind, validates my position even more. BECAUSE this is California, the largest economy in the union, it puts on notice all of the other rapscallions the people have elected only to find out they lied, cheated and spent oceans of dough just to get into office. So we're stuck with them? A bad president or senator can do A LOT of damage in 4 to 6 years, current inclusive.

As far as the economy, I won't disagree with you and your sample of reasons for the failing economy. However wouldn't that invalidate Christina's statement (and similar statements) that Bill Clinton created 2 M jobs but Bush lost 2 M? If your assertion is true that governors (and by extension, presidents) are not directly responsible for economic woes, is it valid to blame or credit them in order to support one's argument?

Your quote of "and the obvious solution is a recall election that pits Gary Coleman against Arnold Schwarzenegger" while seemingly in jest unfortunately is a mere false dilemma fallacy of distraction missing entirely other candidates. In my opinion, Terry McAuliffe was foolish to forbid other big gun Dems to run for the top seat in California. Diane Feinstein most likely would have crushed all of the other candidates and may have put her on deck for the first female president thereby thwarting Sen. Clinton's chances. Personally, since I don't live in California, I don't support any of the candidates since they won't represent me for anything save when they ask for my federal tax dollars to pay for their state pet projects. If Mr. Bustamante wins, so be it. The people have spoken which is the whole point.

Your last paragraph opens up a great aspect of this discussion. If it was legal to gather a petition and vote on a recall for the the president I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts that Democrats would be lining up 12 wide around the Capitol. So I ask you ... if it were legal to recall President Bush using the exact same methods, percentages, etc. as those going on in California, would YOU sign that petition for a recall referendum?

I would... I think Bernie Mac would make a helluva president.

I find it rather ironic that once again, the Repubbies are trying to remove someone from office for no serious reason. Bill Clinton, Gray Davis, is a trend starting... ?

(P.S. And if anyone says Bill Clinton lying about having sex is a serious issue affecting the American economy and welfare of it's citizens, he/she needs a major reality check - if I must use a quote from the 80's.)

In my most humble and unbiased opinion: If errors occur in a governmental process of any kind (and the errors (confusion) are noted before a Constitutional mandated vote, as in the CA Governors re-run); ALL process should halt and a complete review accomplished. It seems to me the ìmediaî is making a mess of this whole thing. A Broadway Show on the Left Coast. ìLeftî can have many meanings in this instance!

There's a funny thing about Democrats ... they all share the same brain and spout off at the mouth before receiving it from the last idiot. Mr. Clinton didn't just tell a simple white lie. He lied to the Grand Jury! There's a difference.

Now with all this recall business. I hate to remind you, Democrats, that this isn't the first time something like this has come up. A recall has been tried over 30 times in the past - twice against Ronald Reagan, four times against Pete Wilson. And now that it's tried against a Democrat, Gray Davis, and has actually succeeded, Clinton calls it 'a power grab.' Isn't that what Ms. Lewinsky did, Mr. Clinton!?

Christina, I find it interesting you credit government with the creation or loss of jobs. Now that's an interesting take - I didn't realize this was China. You then assert that perjuring oneself under oath to a grand jury is nothing serious. Gray Davis has seen the near total loss of confidence in his leadership abilities by the electorate - that's not serious? To quote McEnore: "YOU can't be serious!"

By the way Mikal, you had me confused when you say in your blog, "...at something good came out of that 2004 presidential election". I think you mean "2000" not "2004". Freudian slip, perhaps?

FYI - this afternoon, the full 9th circuit court agreed to re-hear this case.

The real issue here was not some sort of judicial activist court meddling in state elections. The court had *previously* issued an order for all counties to eliminate the punch card system by March 1st. Therefore, when presented with a *special* election, the court had to decide whether to let the election proceed with the outdated machines (it had ordered to be modernized) or wait until that order had been completed and new machines were ready to go. They decided to postpone the special election based on an enfranchisemnt argument and in light of the Florida fiasco (which had led to the court's earlier and unrelated decision to modernize all state voting machines). In that sense, this was a very sensible decision - not an unfettered act of judicial activism.

This ruling was issued in the context of a larger ruling about modernizing voting machines to ensure the fair and accurate counting of all votes. This is not a small amount of voters - the 6 counties involved account for about 44% of voters (according to an MSNBC report).

I think the whole idea of ballot initiatives is wrong. This nation is a republic not a democracy. If politicians and judges had to weigh ever vote that they made on whether or not they might be recalled the nation would be in worst shape than it is now.
Where would our civil rights legislation be now, would President Kennedy had the courage to propose the legislation? Where would the civil union laws in Vermont be if the judges were elected and had the threat of recall over their heads?
How many laws that were passed defining marriage as between a man and women were passed as the result of ballot initiatives?
No, I think that recalls are bad politics. Let the politician serve out their terms and then either reelect them or vote in somebody new.

Billy, I've said it once, twice, maybe three times it will sink in. Lying about having sex or lying about Weapons of Mass Destruction - um, any idiot can tell you which affects me more as a U.S. citizen.

Yes, there have been many recall attempts in the history of this country. It is, however, a method the Republicans have recently been using as a means of gaining control.

Oh, Purdue, well that explains a lot then.