Recall legal issue roundup The Wall Street Journal offers "California Ruling on Recall Delay Opened for Review" and this oped by Einer Elhauge. (Thanks to Steven Sholk for the pointers.) Bruce Ackerman offers this oped in today's New York Times to which Mickey Kaus adds these thoughts. The Los Angeles Times offers "Supreme Court May Pass on This One" and this editorial. Copley News Services offers "Campaigns Keep Rolling as Court Ponders Review. The Contra Costa Times offers "Court that Postponed Recall Seeks Reasons to Reconsider." The Boston Globe offers "Full Panel May Review California Recall Ballot." Dan Weintraub offers these thoughts on why Supreme Court reversal could help Davis and the Democrats. The Sacramento Bee offers "Recall Halt May Get Review." Here is a link to my debate with John Eastman on NPR's Day to Day yesterday. And here is Warren Olney's "To the Point," which I believe featured Dan Lowenstein and Erwin Chemerinsky.

More recall litigation-related articles The Boston Globe; the Christian Science Monitor (see also this article about court involvement in the electoral process and this editorial.); A.P. (and this report); Washington Post.

More on en banc question In the post five below this one I asked, who will be on the en banc court. Many of you have written in on that question. It turns out that we apparently do not have enough information to answer the question. We do not yet know the identity of the members of the en banc panel for a case taken Sept. 3, key to figuring out who might automatically appear pursuant to the court's rules.

"California Moves to Appeal Delay of Vote on Recall" The New York Times offers this report. The article states that I had said that the request of a single judge would be enough for a new en banc hearing. What I thought I said (or meant to say) was that the request of a single judge would be enough to hold a vote on whether to have an en banc hearing. UPDATE The article was corrected, changing "would" to "could."

More orders on the 9th Circuit website Accessible here you will find a Ninth Circuit order recusing Judges Reinhardt and Wardlaw from voting the in ACLU recall case; an order accepting for filing my amicus brief and the MALDEF amicus brief; and this electronic copy of my amicus brief.

Erwin Chemerinsky oped on the recall decision It is available here.

Secretary of State cancels news conference regarding whether he will file a request to overturn the punchcard case in the Supreme Court Instead he issued this press release:

Secretary Shelley to File Brief in Response to Ninth Circuit Order

SACRAMENTO -- Secretary of State Kevin Shelley released the following statement in response to today’s request by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for briefs from the parties in Southwest Voter Registration Education Project et al v. Shelley:

“I am immediately complying with the order from the Ninth Circuit for briefs on whether or not this case should be reheard en banc.

“I believe it is in everyone’s best interest that this case be heard swiftly and considered thoroughly, so the court can resolve these legal issues with the finality that the voters expect and deserve.”

The brief will be filed by Wednesday, September 17th at 2:00 p.m.

So it looks like the secretary has put off the decision whether to file in the Supreme Court. Of course, intervenor (and recall proponent) Ted Costa may announce soon his own plans on whether to file a brief in the Supreme Court.

. . .

Who will be on the en banc court? Although it is generally a random draw, someone has pointed out the following to me from Circuit Rule 35-3: " Notwithstanding the provision herein for random drawing of names by lot, if a judge is not drawn on any of three successive en banc courts, that judge's name shall be placed automatically on the next en banc court. " Anyone know who these judges are?

"Editorial: Ounce of prevention; Court decision assures a fair recall election" The Sacramento Bee offers this editorial.

"Editorial: As the Recall Election Turns" See this Ventura County Star editorial. (Thanks to David Ettinger for the pointer.)

Court Faces Stark Choice on McCain-Feingold" Tom Mann offers these thoughts on the BCRA oral argument.

-- 
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