Stories on recall preclearance suits See here, here,
here,
and here.
"Judge Could Delay Calif. Recall Election" A.P. offers
this
report.
What do yesterday's recall orders mean? The state suit is the least important
for purposes of the recall (though it may be significant for purposes of
the passage of Prop. 54). Under the state court order, the ballot summary
(often the only thing a voter reads about a ballot measure before voting)
will be changed for Prop. 54 to reflect that there is an exception for collecting
data for medical purposes.
The two federal suits over section 5 preclearance, heard before the same judge,
mean the following: As of now, Monterey County cannot send out overseas ballots,
and it cannot send out absentee ballots, until the Department of Justice
grants preclearance for changes to recall rules and the rules for consolidating
initiatives with special elections. The DOJ must certify that the changes
will have no discriminatory purpose or effect on protected minority groups.
That preclearance request is being expedited, and it could come at any time.
If it comes soon, this suit goes away. People who think the DOJ would have
erred in granting preclearance will have to file a new suit under another
provision of the Voting Rights Act. If the DOJ denies preclearance, California
will have to sue in federal court.
If preclearance does not come soon, there could well be a delay in the election.
The judge has scheduled further hearings. At some point, he will stop further
steps in the recall process unless preclearance is granted.
Perhaps equally significant is the footnote that the judge dropped, noting
that "Monterey County already has missed the statutory deadline for mailing
absentee ballots to overseas voters and that this order will further shorten
the time available for mailing ballots to the voters in question, but it concludes
that it has no other alternative in view of the fact that the October 7,
2003 election cannot proceed in the absence of Section 5 preclearance. The
Court expresses no opinion as to what remedies, if any, may be available to
such voters under California law." Expect such a suit to be filed on the
overseas voter issue, if one has not been filed already.
All of this is apart from the ACLU suit over punchcard balloting. The ACLU's
request for a temporary restraining order will be heard in a Los Angeles federal
district court on Monday. This suit, if successful, would delay the recall
until March.
--
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