We might have to wait a little longer for an answer....
Fox News Site says....
Appeals Court Postpones Oct. 7 Recall Vote
Monday , September 15, 2003
SAN FRANCISCO — Leaving room for the nation's highest court to reverse its decision, a federal appeals court in California blocked the state's gubernatorial recall election scheduled for Oct. 7 and then put an immediate stay on its decision.
Three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the vote can't proceed as scheduled - because some of the votes would be cast using outdated punch-card ballot machines. Monday's decision reversed a lower court's earlier decision not to postpone the recall.
"In sum, in assessing the public interest, the balance falls heavily in favor of postponing the election for a few months," the court said.
The decision doesn't mean, however, that the recall can't go forward, but it may not happen on Oct. 7, as originally planned. It's possible that the nation's largest and most liberal federal appeals court might move the election to the next regularly scheduled primary on March 2.
The court stayed implementing its decision for a week to allow time for appeals to the Supreme Court on the recall, California's first voter-driven election to unseat Democratic Gov. Gray Davis.
State officials, who conceded in court documents that the punch-card voting mechanisms are "more prone to voter error than are newer voting systems," were likely to appeal the case.
Ted Costa, head of the Sacramento-based Peoples' Advocate, one of the groups that put the recall on the ballot, said an appeal is certain.
"Give us 24 hours. We'll get something off to the Supreme Court," he said.
"We have already filed the papers, and we're asking for a hearing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court," state GOP Chairman Duf Sundheim said.
Asked what the chances are that the Supreme Court will take the case, election law expert Ken Gross told Fox News: "That's going to be a tough call … they take a very low percentage of cases but then again, many didn't think the Supreme Court would take the Florida case."
"I've got to believe that if this decision stands, the U.S. Supreme Court will intervene for the people of California," added GOP strategist Dan Schnur.
The Candidates Respond
Several candidates have been vying for Davis' seat, including Republican Hollywood actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, independent political commentator Arianna Huffington, Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante and Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock. More than 130 candidates had qualified for the ballot.
Davis, who was spending his second day in a row campaigning with former President Bill Clinton, issued a response almost immediately.
"The governor has always valued the importance of voter rights and will continue to campaign vigorously," read a statement released by the Davis camp.
McClintock said in a statement that Monday's ruling is "simply a distraction and will have no bearing on this election."
"I have every confidence that in a short time the U.S. Supreme Court will allow this election to go forward," McClintock said, noting that the 9th Circuit is the same court that banned the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
"[The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals] has become a national laughing stock. This election is called for by the Constitution and demand by the people of California."
Schwarzenegger called on the secretary of state to immediately appeal this decision.
"Historically, the courts have upheld the rights of voters, and I expect that the court will do so again in this case," Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "I will continue to vigorously campaign for governor. The people have spoken, and their word should - and will - prevail."
Schwarzenegger was already in flight when news of the decision broke. He and his wife, television journalist and Kennedy clan member Maria Shriver, had been in Chicago to appear on "The Oprah Winfrey Show."
Another Case of Florida 2000?
If the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case, it will be the second highly partisan political issue they have considered. Democrats say the case echoes the 2000 election in which the high court declared Republican George W. Bush the winner.
The San Francisco-based appeals panel overturned an Aug. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson of Los Angeles, who wouldn't delay the recall because he said it would be against the will of voters. The suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
In July, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley said more than 900,000 signatures of registered voters were certified to force a recall, and by law, he had up to 80 days to schedule the special election.
Shelley, who learned of the court's decision in a news conference scheduled to address other matters, expressed surprise at the ruling.
"You're kidding," he said. Shelley and his team immediately began reviewing the ruling, and he will meet with state Attorney General Bill Lockyer to decide what action, if any, the state will take.
State law also required Shelley to move from the March ballot to the recall ballot the only two voter initiatives that qualified. Voting on those measures also was delayed.
In what was the last of about a dozen legal challenges to the attempt to unseat Davis, the judges said Monday it's unacceptable that six counties would be using outdated punch-card ballots, the type that sparked the "hanging chads" litigation in Florida during the 2000 presidential election.
"This is not merely about a recall election," Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, said when the group filed the suit. "Right now, the integrity of our state’s democracy is riding on the performance of these outdated, obsolete, and decertified voting machines - the same voting machines at the center of the 2000 Florida election debacle."
The appellate panel agreed with the ACLU that the voting machines were prone to error and that Davis' fate could be decided later. By that time, the counties have promised to replace their punch-card machines under a court order in separate litigation.
The counties include the state's most populous region, Los Angeles, in addition to Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara and Solano. They represented 44 percent of the state's registered voters during the 2000 election.
The original case is Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley.
Fox News' William LaJeunesse and The Associated Press contributed to this report