Opinion in San Diego suit now online It is here (via Votelaw).

More recall litigation: Brynes v. Bustamante Scott Rafferty reports: "The California Supreme Court this evening issued an order directing the Lieutenant Governor to respond to a petition for a writ directing him to vacate the proclamation setting a special election. The petition was filed by Redwood City attorney Andrew Byrnes and Barry Keene, the author of the recall provisions in the California Constitution. The response must be filed by noon Monday."
Case information is available from the California Supreme Court here.
UPDATE: The petition is available here.

Looks like the punchcard suit (also including some voting rights claims about the number of precincts) may come as early as tomorrow Dan Weintraub again has the scoop.

Ascertaining the meaning of the "if appropriate" language in the California Constitution Dan Weintraub blogs here that former state legislator Barry Keene, who helped draft the 1974 "if appropriate" language that is the subject of one of the recall lawsuits, "has researched his records and refreshed his memory of the 1974 amendment he sponsored that added those words while striking hundreds of others from the recall provision. When [Weintraub] first spoke to him a week ago, Keene said he did not remember why he put the words in there. Now he does. He says they were intended to ensure that the lieutenant governor would become governor in the case of a recall. "

I don't think such after the fact testimony would be admissible. Here is what the California Supreme Court said about the kinds of materials relevant to interpreting constitutional amendments:

Where a provision in the Constitution is ambiguous, a court must ordinarily adopt that interpretation which carries out the intent and objective of the drafters of the provision and the people by whose vote it was adopted. (See Story v. Richardson (1921) 186 Cal. 162, 165, 198 P. 1057; Bakkenson v. Superior Court (1925) 197 Cal. 504, 509 510-511, 241 P. 874; Kaiser v. Hopkins (1936) 6 Cal.2d 537, 539, 58 P.2d 1278; State Board of Education v. Levit, supra, 52 Cal.2d 441, 462-463, 343 P.2d 8; Flood v. Riggs (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 138, 152, 145 Cal.Rptr. 573.) To ascertain the intent and objective of an ambiguous constitutional provision, a court may consider official reports of the Constitution Revision Commission (District Election Committee v. O'Connor (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 261, 270, 144 Cal.Rptr. 442), the record of the debates (see State Board of Education v. Levit, supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 462, 343 P.2d 8; Pitts v. Reagan (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 112, 118, 92 Cal.Rptr. 27), legislative committee reports (see Jolicoeur v. Mihaly (1971) 5 Cal.3d 565, 573, 96 Cal.Rptr. 697, 488 P.2d 1; Miro v. Superior Court (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 87, 99, 84 Cal.Rptr. 874; Arellano v. Moreno (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 877, 884, 109 Cal.Rptr. 421), contemporaneous exposition or interpretation of the provision (Carter v. Commission on Qualifications of Judicial Appointments (1939) 14 Cal.2d 179, 185, 93 P.2d 140), and written arguments in voter pamphlets (White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 775, 120 Cal.Rptr. 94, 533 P.2d 222).

Mosk v. Superior Court, 25 Cal. 3d 474, 495 (1979) (overruled on other grounds).
Keene's statements now don't fall into any of these categories. Importantly, it is not a "contemporaneous exposition or interpretation." A statement made at the time of litigation may be self-serving, and more importantly, and unexpressed statement of intent by a drafter could not have been part of the intent of the voters who have approved the constitutional amendment.

According to the papers filed on behalf of Frankel in the Frankel v. Shelley case, "We have been able to locate nothing in the legislative history of what became ACA No. 29 that comments on the reasons for that amendment. Nor is there any comment on that language in the official ballot pamphlet."

I don't think that Keene's statements add anything. For my earlier views on how the "if appropriate" language should be interpreted, see here.

"In Economic Downturns, Recalls May Spread" A.P. offers this report. I am skeptical. California is unique not only in low signatures thresholds (12% compared to the usual 25%), but also in the extent to which many people dislike the governor. If this recall takes place on October 7 with a ballot containing over 100 candidates whose names are randomly placed on the ballot, I think there will be lots of popular backlash against the use of the recall device any time soon.

President Bush on the recall David Ettinger sends the following along from the President's press conference:

QUESTION: Good morning, Mr. President. Since California is on your mind, I'd like to ask you about the recall campaign.

Since you're not only the leader of this country, but as someone who came into office under extraordinarily partisan circumstances, do you view this recall, which was funded almost entirely by one wealthy Republican who would like to be governor, as a legitimate democratic exercise? And do you have a candidate in this fight, since one of the potential successors is somebody you've backed before?

BUSH: Ed, let me tell you how I view it. I've got a lot of things on my mind and I view it like an interested political observer would view it. You know, it's, kind of, a funny--we're not used to recalls in Texas, for example, thankfully.

I think that the most important opinion is not mine, but it's the people of--the Californians. Their opinion is what matters on the recall.

BUSH: It's their decision to decide whether or not there will be a recall, which they decided. And now they get to decide who the governor is going to be. And that's really my only comment I got.

-- 
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlaw.blogspot.com