Recall Followup
After hearing some of the oral arguments today in the Ninth Circuit, I am leaning the other way.
My argument before rested on the fact that the State of California has determined that the punchcard machines wil be decertified as of a certain date, that they will not be used as of March 2004, that they are not adequate for use in a statewide election.
However, one thing struck me today, in regard to that. Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circus^WCircuit (a slip of the tongue made today by ACLU lawyer Mark Rosenbaum) noted that while the Secretary of State did agree to decertify the machines, and replace them for the March election, there was no finding made that there was an unacceptable error rate in those machines. ACLU lawyer Laurence Tribe agreed.
What does this mean, in relation to my argument? I contended that the state said the machines were found to be inadeqaute. That isn't the case. The state never said they are inadequate. The state said that they will not be used as of March 2004.
The ACLU case was pretty weak, I think. I can't see them winning the case. They did argue persuasively that the machines are inadequate, but not at a level where the federal government should step in. They tried to link it to the voting rights act, but couldn't show that this is related to discrimination of minorities, in my opinion. It was a stretch, at least.
My argument before rested on the fact that the State of California has determined that the punchcard machines wil be decertified as of a certain date, that they will not be used as of March 2004, that they are not adequate for use in a statewide election.
However, one thing struck me today, in regard to that. Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circus^WCircuit (a slip of the tongue made today by ACLU lawyer Mark Rosenbaum) noted that while the Secretary of State did agree to decertify the machines, and replace them for the March election, there was no finding made that there was an unacceptable error rate in those machines. ACLU lawyer Laurence Tribe agreed.
What does this mean, in relation to my argument? I contended that the state said the machines were found to be inadeqaute. That isn't the case. The state never said they are inadequate. The state said that they will not be used as of March 2004.
The ACLU case was pretty weak, I think. I can't see them winning the case. They did argue persuasively that the machines are inadequate, but not at a level where the federal government should step in. They tried to link it to the voting rights act, but couldn't show that this is related to discrimination of minorities, in my opinion. It was a stretch, at least.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment