Full Version: Crazy Recall Delayed
Tell me, in all simple logic, why this must be delayed?
A little Background info in the case:
ACLU goes to 9th Circuit Court and asks that the Recall cote be delayed because 7(?) counties in California have punch-card ballots while the rest have computer touch screen ballots. The ACLU is in this because those 7 counties are minorites. The ACLU won, now the Recall will be delayed until MARCH!
Now, i want a reason why this must be delayed is because i don't see the problem. If people can't operate a punch card, DON'T VOTE.
The problems this will cause:
1. Absentee ballots have already been sent, and it would kinda be hard to do something with them now
2. California's economy will worsen under Davis' rule
3 A whole bunch of other things
Thankfully, the group who started the recall will appeal within 24 hours
Now, here are my questions for discussion:
1. Does the ACLU's case is legit and makes ANY sense?
2. What do you think are advantages or disadvantages to this being delayed?
A little Background info in the case:
ACLU goes to 9th Circuit Court and asks that the Recall cote be delayed because 7(?) counties in California have punch-card ballots while the rest have computer touch screen ballots. The ACLU is in this because those 7 counties are minorites. The ACLU won, now the Recall will be delayed until MARCH!
Now, i want a reason why this must be delayed is because i don't see the problem. If people can't operate a punch card, DON'T VOTE.
The problems this will cause:
1. Absentee ballots have already been sent, and it would kinda be hard to do something with them now
2. California's economy will worsen under Davis' rule
3 A whole bunch of other things
Thankfully, the group who started the recall will appeal within 24 hours
Now, here are my questions for discussion:
1. Does the ACLU's case is legit and makes ANY sense?
2. What do you think are advantages or disadvantages to this being delayed?
The advantage is obviously for Gray Davis.
This shows how biased the ACLU really is.
If the ACLU's intent was to ensure a fair election, why didn't they protest these same machines being used less than one year ago? Why now and not then if the "Ghost of Florida" is the catalyst here?
We all know about the 9th Circuit (the most reversed Circuit Court in the country due to its leanings...) This is no surprise, but it remains a disappointment.
Yet another example of an uppity Court blocking the Will of the People.
EDIT: a Link to the story.
This shows how biased the ACLU really is.
If the ACLU's intent was to ensure a fair election, why didn't they protest these same machines being used less than one year ago? Why now and not then if the "Ghost of Florida" is the catalyst here?
We all know about the 9th Circuit (the most reversed Circuit Court in the country due to its leanings...) This is no surprise, but it remains a disappointment.
Yet another example of an uppity Court blocking the Will of the People.
EDIT: a Link to the story.
Thee 9th Circuit is a perfect example of why I believe that judges should NOT have lifetime tenure. You get a crappy judge and you can't get rid of him/her. Federal judges should be elected by the people, just like any paid representative (these people are supposed to represent us in the law) To frequently these judges represent either themselves or some squirrely nut group with strange ideas about crime and punishment (You can go to jail longer for having an open beer on the beach than you can for murder).
What I find truly amazing about all of this is that supposed "minority" groups aren't down right insulted by the blatant slap in the face by the ACLU and those judges. In plain English, what they are saying is that these groups are too stupid to operate a punch card system. Period!
The punch card system was good enough for last year’s election and every single one before that. No one petitioned to have the system changed for the sake of minorities. I guess the ACLU and their cronies thought minority groups were all a lot smarter back then. But of course with the threat of Davis getting recalled, you see all the sneaky and conniving tactics come into play.
When is this state, nay country, going to stop looking at minority groups as victims, welfare cases, dullards, nincompoops, etc., and start treating them like intelligent human beings that can care for themselves without the need for assistance from anyone. I sure as hell don’t need the ACLU or some judge telling me if a voting system is too complex or not. As an intelligent person, I think I’m afforded the right to make that decision for myself.
What else can the lawmakers in Sacramento do to add to the deterioration of this once great state? Only time will tell.
The punch card system was good enough for last year’s election and every single one before that. No one petitioned to have the system changed for the sake of minorities. I guess the ACLU and their cronies thought minority groups were all a lot smarter back then. But of course with the threat of Davis getting recalled, you see all the sneaky and conniving tactics come into play.
When is this state, nay country, going to stop looking at minority groups as victims, welfare cases, dullards, nincompoops, etc., and start treating them like intelligent human beings that can care for themselves without the need for assistance from anyone. I sure as hell don’t need the ACLU or some judge telling me if a voting system is too complex or not. As an intelligent person, I think I’m afforded the right to make that decision for myself.
What else can the lawmakers in Sacramento do to add to the deterioration of this once great state? Only time will tell.
In listening to CNN this morning, they were talking to people involved on both sides. It seems there could be some problems if this vote goes through in October:
1. The areas that still use the punch card system are the most populous, comprising, LA, Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego and Santa Clara. It's not as if we were only talking about 10 or 15 percent of the state still using punch cards. We are talking about nearly 50% of the voters being effected.
2. With the electronic voting, once your two choices (recall Davis, new candidate) are entered and confirmed, the system won't let you select a second, third or fourth candidate. Very little room for error there.
3. With the punch card voting, there will be one card for the recall vote, and another 5 cards for all of the candidates. As I understood it, most issues in California are separated (a different punch card per issue, or per political race?). If this is the case, and the way most of the electorate is used to voting, I can see where confusion would happen. If folks punch one name per card, on the five cards that list the candidates, all of those votes would be invalidated.
This would not have been a problem in the original votes last year for governor, because there were only two choices. Davis, and his opponent, both on one card. In addition, the state, at the time of the election was already in the process of changing this system to all electronic, with completion to be done by the March primaries. Nobody anticipated a statewide vote on anything prior to that.
All of this is not to say that it doesn't benefit one candidate more than the others. It does give Davis a chance to get his numbers up. But, if things get worse between now and March, it could hurt him badly, as well.
It also gives the other major candidates a chance to show the electorate what they've got. After all, Arnold's popularity right now really is all about his popularity as a celebrity. What I have seen of his speeches on TV, are big on rhetoric, and really short on specifics. I wouldn't vote for him right now, simply because he hasn't told me what his plan is, in any details that I can look at and verify. This gives him a chance to really think it out, and lay it out for the voters.
1. The areas that still use the punch card system are the most populous, comprising, LA, Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego and Santa Clara. It's not as if we were only talking about 10 or 15 percent of the state still using punch cards. We are talking about nearly 50% of the voters being effected.
2. With the electronic voting, once your two choices (recall Davis, new candidate) are entered and confirmed, the system won't let you select a second, third or fourth candidate. Very little room for error there.
3. With the punch card voting, there will be one card for the recall vote, and another 5 cards for all of the candidates. As I understood it, most issues in California are separated (a different punch card per issue, or per political race?). If this is the case, and the way most of the electorate is used to voting, I can see where confusion would happen. If folks punch one name per card, on the five cards that list the candidates, all of those votes would be invalidated.
This would not have been a problem in the original votes last year for governor, because there were only two choices. Davis, and his opponent, both on one card. In addition, the state, at the time of the election was already in the process of changing this system to all electronic, with completion to be done by the March primaries. Nobody anticipated a statewide vote on anything prior to that.
All of this is not to say that it doesn't benefit one candidate more than the others. It does give Davis a chance to get his numbers up. But, if things get worse between now and March, it could hurt him badly, as well.
It also gives the other major candidates a chance to show the electorate what they've got. After all, Arnold's popularity right now really is all about his popularity as a celebrity. What I have seen of his speeches on TV, are big on rhetoric, and really short on specifics. I wouldn't vote for him right now, simply because he hasn't told me what his plan is, in any details that I can look at and verify. This gives him a chance to really think it out, and lay it out for the voters.
I believe the California Constitution calls for an to be held within 80 days of an election being certified. But hey, rule of law didn't stop the Dem's in other votes did it?
Seriously, it's a toss up to me on who this might impact the most. It could give McClintock the chance he needs to win after Arnie's star fades past the terminator sound bites.
It could give Davis the time and chance he needs to beat the recall. After all, it seems he will have more newly created (but not technically legal) voters after they all go get there shiny new drivers licence.
This three ring circus just got weirder.
Seriously, it's a toss up to me on who this might impact the most. It could give McClintock the chance he needs to win after Arnie's star fades past the terminator sound bites.
It could give Davis the time and chance he needs to beat the recall. After all, it seems he will have more newly created (but not technically legal) voters after they all go get there shiny new drivers licence.
This three ring circus just got weirder.
MYTH: The reason the ACLU sued to have punchcard ballots replaced is because they believe people are too stupid to use them.
FACT: The problem is not one of stupidity at all. The reason behind the lawsuit is that the punchcard ballots were demonstrably inaccurate and many votes were not counted. California officials had already recognized that these machines were obsolete. They were decertified, and the state agreed to change them out by March, 2004. At that time, the deadline was set to come before the next election. No one knew there would be an election earlier than that; when it arose, the ACLU decided to pursue a decision - either move up the deadline so that the election this fall would be with new machines, or postpone the election until the new machines are put into place.
From the Per Curiam of the current case:
More, from the same section of the suit:
In the official decertification of these punchcard systems, California's Sec. of State said this:
Repeating a myth over and over again does not make it true - but it does make the myth seem true to many people.
FACT: The problem is not one of stupidity at all. The reason behind the lawsuit is that the punchcard ballots were demonstrably inaccurate and many votes were not counted. California officials had already recognized that these machines were obsolete. They were decertified, and the state agreed to change them out by March, 2004. At that time, the deadline was set to come before the next election. No one knew there would be an election earlier than that; when it arose, the ACLU decided to pursue a decision - either move up the deadline so that the election this fall would be with new machines, or postpone the election until the new machines are put into place.
From the Per Curiam of the current case:
QUOTE
On October 7, 2003, California voters will be asked to cast a ballot on some
of the most important issues facing the State, including an unprecedented vote on
the recall of a governor. However, forty-four percent of the electorate will be
forced to use a voting system so flawed that the Secretary of State has officially
deemed it “unacceptable” and banned its use in all future elections. The inherent
defects in the system are such that approximately 40,000 voters who travel to the
polls and cast their ballot will not have their vote counted at all. Compounding the
problem is the fact that approximately a quarter of the state’s polling places will not
be operational because election officials have insufficient time to get them ready for
the special election, and that the sheer number of gubernatorial candidates will make
the antiquated voting system far more difficult to use. (emphasis mine)
of the most important issues facing the State, including an unprecedented vote on
the recall of a governor. However, forty-four percent of the electorate will be
forced to use a voting system so flawed that the Secretary of State has officially
deemed it “unacceptable” and banned its use in all future elections. The inherent
defects in the system are such that approximately 40,000 voters who travel to the
polls and cast their ballot will not have their vote counted at all. Compounding the
problem is the fact that approximately a quarter of the state’s polling places will not
be operational because election officials have insufficient time to get them ready for
the special election, and that the sheer number of gubernatorial candidates will make
the antiquated voting system far more difficult to use. (emphasis mine)
More, from the same section of the suit:
QUOTE
In the ensuing years, additional problems were reported in the use of the pre-scored
punchcard system. After press reports of votes improperly being added to
a candidate’s tally in San Francisco in 1986 because of electrical fluctuations in the
equipment, an elimination of the votes of an entire precinct in San Joaquin County
in 1984 because of a loose chad jamming the system, the reported incorrect transfer
of 15,000 votes from one candidate to another in Orange County in 1980, and
numerous other reported problems, the National Bureau of Standards decided to
update its study. Saltman was again charged with the project. He issued an
updated report in 1988 that buttressed the earlier analysis critical of the use of pre-scored
punchcard voting devices. However, the use of the systems continued.
punchcard system. After press reports of votes improperly being added to
a candidate’s tally in San Francisco in 1986 because of electrical fluctuations in the
equipment, an elimination of the votes of an entire precinct in San Joaquin County
in 1984 because of a loose chad jamming the system, the reported incorrect transfer
of 15,000 votes from one candidate to another in Orange County in 1980, and
numerous other reported problems, the National Bureau of Standards decided to
update its study. Saltman was again charged with the project. He issued an
updated report in 1988 that buttressed the earlier analysis critical of the use of pre-scored
punchcard voting devices. However, the use of the systems continued.
In the official decertification of these punchcard systems, California's Sec. of State said this:
QUOTE
In the official decertification proclamation dated
September 18, 2001, the Secretary of State stated:
As I order this proclamation, I want to be very clear on two points.
First, Votomatic and Pollstar voting systems are old technology and
their use today can be seen as analogous to the use of typewriters –
they worked well for many years but are now obsolete in the world of
the personal computer. One of these systems was initially approved
for use in 1965. Voters are entitled to have the infrastructure of
democracy upgraded to reflect technological improvements to the
voting process. Second, it is critically important that the transition to
any new technologies be orderly and well thought out. A poorly
planned rush to implement a new voting technology without providing
adequate time for counties to purchase these systems, and to train
their staff, pollworkers, and voters on the proper use of new
equipment could easily result in great harm to the most fundamental
right of the people, the right to vote.
September 18, 2001, the Secretary of State stated:
As I order this proclamation, I want to be very clear on two points.
First, Votomatic and Pollstar voting systems are old technology and
their use today can be seen as analogous to the use of typewriters –
they worked well for many years but are now obsolete in the world of
the personal computer. One of these systems was initially approved
for use in 1965. Voters are entitled to have the infrastructure of
democracy upgraded to reflect technological improvements to the
voting process. Second, it is critically important that the transition to
any new technologies be orderly and well thought out. A poorly
planned rush to implement a new voting technology without providing
adequate time for counties to purchase these systems, and to train
their staff, pollworkers, and voters on the proper use of new
equipment could easily result in great harm to the most fundamental
right of the people, the right to vote.
Repeating a myth over and over again does not make it true - but it does make the myth seem true to many people.
QUOTE(Yannis @ Sep 15 2003, 09:39 PM)
What I find truly amazing about all of this is that supposed "minority" groups aren't down right insulted by the blatant slap in the face by the ACLU and those judges. In plain English, what they are saying is that these groups are too stupid to operate a punch card system. Period!
That too! They are saying that minorities are too stupid to be able to get rid of a chad on a punch card or they can not even operate one.
So what if minority counties have punch cards? IT DOESN'T MATTER. As long as they get to vote, there is no logical reason the ACLU needs to get their nose into this
Quarkhead:
The reason they are not counted is because of our dear friend the chad. The ACLU doesn't understand obviously the way elections work. they should know that the chad is to be completley off to be counted as a vote. They just decided to spin the issue and make a reason to prevent their liberal pals from losing their job
QUOTE(goamerica @ Sep 16 2003, 10:14 AM)
They are saying that minorities are too stupid to be able to get rid of a chad on a punch card or they can not even operate one.
The reason they are not counted is because of our dear friend the chad. The ACLU doesn't understand obviously the way elections work. they should know that the chad is to be completley off to be counted as a vote. They just decided to spin the issue and make a reason to prevent their liberal pals from losing their job
The reason they are not counted is because of our dear friend the chad. The ACLU doesn't understand obviously the way elections work. they should know that the chad is to be completley off to be counted as a vote. They just decided to spin the issue and make a reason to prevent their liberal pals from losing their job
So that's why they first brought this up before anyone even knew there would be a recall election! Those ACLU folks must be psychic!
Goamerica, I suggest you read this before continuing to defend your position. You are simply repeating the myths.
California officials ALREADY decided that the punchcard systems HAD to be replaced before the next election. They decided this BEFORE anyone brought up the idea of a "recall election." This isn't just my opinion, this is a fact. Where are the facts to back up your position on this issue? Like some others in this thread, you are merely repeating a misleading conservative analysis, based on exactly NOTHING. But hey, history has shown that if we keep repeating lies, eventually enough people believe them that we accept those lies as truths.
I asked myself this question, "Would the courts have delayed a regular election based on the same rationale?"
I tend to think not. This bothers me. The recall election is just as real as a regular election. Of course, we do not know the true answer to my hypothetical question.
The voting process will never be perfect. The best we can hope for is to use the best system we have at the time of an election. Will the system planned to be in place in March be better than what is in place presently? Probably. I expect the system they will have in 12 years will be better than what they will have in March. Should we postpone all elections 12 years?
I tend to think not. This bothers me. The recall election is just as real as a regular election. Of course, we do not know the true answer to my hypothetical question.
The voting process will never be perfect. The best we can hope for is to use the best system we have at the time of an election. Will the system planned to be in place in March be better than what is in place presently? Probably. I expect the system they will have in 12 years will be better than what they will have in March. Should we postpone all elections 12 years?
You know, I've got to say that even if this whole thing is just a big, silly political gambit on the part of the Democrats to help defeat the recall, I'm still for it. The recall of an elected official was bought by a former car thief and all-around slimeball, and I say anything within legal bounds that can help put it down (and sorry all you Republicans, but it is legal) is a good thing.
countrockula - this thread is about the LEGAL aspects of the recall delay. If you would like to discuss the POLITICAL aspects, please join us in this sister-thread: Recall Election Halted. Thanks. 
There are several punch card systems certified for use in California.
Here is the list of the systems that will be used on October 7,2003.
Here is the list of certified voting systems.
Amazingly, every one of the three punch card type system is an approved system. Approved by the Democrat Secretary of State in California. Why would he approve systems that were "unacceptable" to his predecessor? Perhaps so he could comply with the law.
The California Constitution requires that a special election be held between 60 and 80 days after the recall signatures are certified. Well, since we can't comply, I guess no election is necessary, eh?
It's bogus. This ruling subverts the California Constitution.
The voting systems are certified, the recall procedure has been properly followed. The will of the people should decide the issue. (Besides, Davis is almost in a statistical dead heat now...)
Here is the list of the systems that will be used on October 7,2003.
Here is the list of certified voting systems.
Amazingly, every one of the three punch card type system is an approved system. Approved by the Democrat Secretary of State in California. Why would he approve systems that were "unacceptable" to his predecessor? Perhaps so he could comply with the law.
The California Constitution requires that a special election be held between 60 and 80 days after the recall signatures are certified. Well, since we can't comply, I guess no election is necessary, eh?
It's bogus. This ruling subverts the California Constitution.The voting systems are certified, the recall procedure has been properly followed. The will of the people should decide the issue. (Besides, Davis is almost in a statistical dead heat now...)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 16 2003, 02:59 PM)
There are several punch card systems certified for use in California.
Here is the list of the systems that will be used on October 7,2003.
Here is the list of certified voting systems.
Amazingly, every one of the three punch card type system is an approved system. Approved by the Democrat Secretary of State in California. Why would he approve systems that were "unacceptable" to his predecessor? Perhaps so he could comply with the law.
Here is the list of the systems that will be used on October 7,2003.
Here is the list of certified voting systems.
Amazingly, every one of the three punch card type system is an approved system. Approved by the Democrat Secretary of State in California. Why would he approve systems that were "unacceptable" to his predecessor? Perhaps so he could comply with the law.
Um, actually, Amlord , I compared the list of voting machines in use, against the approved list you cited. Not one of the punch-card systems is on the approved list. They are all either computerized or optical scan systems, which pretty much proves Quarkhead's case that all of the punch-card sysrtems have been de-certified.
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Sep 16 2003, 11:05 PM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 16 2003, 02:59 PM)
There are several punch card systems certified for use in California.
Here is the list of the systems that will be used on October 7,2003.
Here is the list of certified voting systems.
Amazingly, every one of the three punch card type system is an approved system. Approved by the Democrat Secretary of State in California. Why would he approve systems that were "unacceptable" to his predecessor? Perhaps so he could comply with the law.
Here is the list of the systems that will be used on October 7,2003.
Here is the list of certified voting systems.
Amazingly, every one of the three punch card type system is an approved system. Approved by the Democrat Secretary of State in California. Why would he approve systems that were "unacceptable" to his predecessor? Perhaps so he could comply with the law.
Um, actually, Amlord , I compared the list of voting machines in use, against the approved list you cited. Not one of the punch-card systems is on the approved list. They are all either computerized or optical scan systems, which pretty much proves Quarkhead's case that all of the punch-card sysrtems have been de-certified.
The last page lists three punch card systems which are approved for use...
Coincidentally, they are the three different system that will be used...
Read it again...
Let me explain this again. The punch card is an actual physical object. It can be counted by hand, in the event of a close election. The only reason a vote could not be counted is if someone does not completely punch through the ballot. Initially a electronic count would be done. If the election is sufficiently close, or there is reason to suspect an error in the voting count, the ballots can be counted by hand. The only reason for not having a vote counted is someone is too darn stupid, even after the Florida debacle, to punch his card all the way through. Labeling something a myth does not make it a myth. The purpose of a recall election is too provide near immediate relief from poor governance.
How much intelligence does it take to punch a hole in a card?
How much intelligence does it take to punch a hole in a card?
[quote=Amlord,Sep 17 2003, 07:53 AM] Amazingly, every one of the three punch card type system is an approved system. Approved by the Democrat Secretary of State in California. Why would he approve systems that were "unacceptable" to his predecessor? Perhaps so he could comply with the law.
[/QUOTE]
Um, actually, Amlord , I compared the list of voting machines in use, against the approved list you cited. Not one of the punch-card systems is on the approved list. They are all either computerized or optical scan systems, which pretty much proves Quarkhead's case that all of the punch-card sysrtems have been de-certified. [/QUOTE]
The last page lists three punch card systems which are approved for use...
Coincidentally, they are the three different system that will be used...
Read it again... [/quote]
You're right, I missed the last page. My fault. (I hate .PDF's on the web).
I can still see confusion over how to run these punch cards through, based on my previous post on how they have traditionally been used in California (ie: one issue or political race per card).
With candidates spread across five different cards, voters unaccustomed to this format may well make a selection on each card, invalidating their intended vote altogether. In a tight race, a 2% to 3% error rate could make a huge difference.
I guess the question really is: Do you want this done quick and sloppy, or a little more slowly, but more accurately?
[/QUOTE]
Um, actually, Amlord , I compared the list of voting machines in use, against the approved list you cited. Not one of the punch-card systems is on the approved list. They are all either computerized or optical scan systems, which pretty much proves Quarkhead's case that all of the punch-card sysrtems have been de-certified. [/QUOTE]
The last page lists three punch card systems which are approved for use...
Coincidentally, they are the three different system that will be used...
Read it again... [/quote]
You're right, I missed the last page. My fault. (I hate .PDF's on the web).
I can still see confusion over how to run these punch cards through, based on my previous post on how they have traditionally been used in California (ie: one issue or political race per card).
With candidates spread across five different cards, voters unaccustomed to this format may well make a selection on each card, invalidating their intended vote altogether. In a tight race, a 2% to 3% error rate could make a huge difference.
I guess the question really is: Do you want this done quick and sloppy, or a little more slowly, but more accurately?
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Sep 19 2003, 01:46 PM)
I guess the question really is: Do you want this done quick and sloppy, or a little more slowly, but more accurately?
Nope,
The real question is whether or not the Supeme Court can infringe upon the rights of voters and the California State Constitution. The answer that they came up with was, no.
And there are no real paralells here to Florida...Californians have cleaned our machines from day one and that was the issue at hand in Florida. People punched to vote and old chads that hadn't been cleaned out prevented the new ones from popping out or caused them to hang from two or moe parts. Also it was Gore that brought his case before the Supreme court. If he and the liberals felt that the issue should have been decided by Congress, he should've taken his fight there. Not sued in court and then claimed the courts had no say in the decision.
Edited to add:
In Florida, the State Constitution was upheld in terms of when a winner had to be declared, regardless of when they could get there state together enough to decide. The whole country can't wait on one group of people. In California the original three panel group went against the State Constitution.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.