Rescue California

-0

Appeals Court to Reconsider Recall Postponement
An 11-judge Appeals Court panel will reconsider next week an earlier ruling by three judges that said the Oct. 7 date for the governor recall vote would disenfranchise too many voters.

September 19, 2003

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today agreed to re-examine an earlier ruling that would have delayed the California recall election, a decision that could allow the vote to take place in a little over two weeks.

The court, whose three-judge panel ruled Monday that the Oct. 7 date would disenfranchise too many voters, announced this morning that an 11-judge panel would reconsider the lawsuit.

A final ruling by that panel -- which will hear oral arguments on Monday afternoon -- could be made as early as next week. Each side will have 30 minutes to present its case in front of the panel.

The lawsuit was filed this summer by several civil rights groups and tried by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, who charged that the current punch card voting system used in six of the state's counties, including Los Angeles, was not reliable. The machines, already deemed outdated by Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, were ordered by his office to be replaced by the March 2 presidential primary.

The panel's Monday decision, which infuriated many Republicans who view the 9th Circuit as a liberal court, said that the machine's unreliability would cause certain votes to be counted differently than others, and that the election should be postponed until the March ballot.

By disenfranchising certain voters -- many of whom are in low-income and minority areas -- the recall election would have violated federal election laws, the court wrote in its ruling.

The court randomly chose 11 judges to reexamine the ruling next week, chosen from 23 of the 26 who sit on the 9th Circuit. Three judges recused themselves from the case.

Shelley, who scheduled a press conference for 2 p.m. after the court's announcement, said in a statement today that he welcomed the court's action and urged a speedy decision.

"It is very important that we reach finality on this matter as soon as possible," he said. "Regardless of what the court decides to do, voter participation will not be helped by prolonged uncertainty. … Out of respect for the voters of this state, I hope the court rules soon after it hears the case."

Shelley, who has instructed voting officials and voters to continue as if the election would be held in October, repeated that message today.

"I want to encourage voters to continue to request their absentee ballots and, if they have made their choices, to fill out those ballots and mail them in. There is still an election scheduled for October 7 and nothing the court has done changes that," he said in the statement.

Shawn Steel, a co-founder of the recall effort and former head of the California Republican Party, vowed on MSNBC to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if the new panel agrees with the earlier ruling and blocks the election.

Steel, who called the 9th Circuit "suspicious," said his group did not take it immediately to Washington only as a "courtesy" to Shelley's office, and had decided to give the court "one last chance."

On the other side of the debate, the Southwest Voter Registration Project, one of the groups that brought the lawsuit, said it hoped the new panel would back the court decision, warning that an October election would create a "log jam" because it is so rushed.

Regardless of when the election is held, a spokesman said the group continues to urge maximum participation, especially among minority voters.

In the arguments to the court this week, the state cited the nearly 500,000 absentee ballots that have already been cast as a

PAGE 1 | PAGE 2 | PAGE 3