2003 California recall

The 2003 California recall was a special election permitted under California law. It resulted in voters replacing sitting Democratic Governor Gray Davis with Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. The recall effort spanned the summer and fall of 2003.

Court challenges

On July 29, 2003, Federal judge Barry Moskowitz ruled section 11382 of the California election code unconstitutional. The provision required that a voter must first cast a ballot for or against recall before voting for a candidate for governor. The judge ruled that a voter could abstain in the recall election and still vote for a candidate. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/6404985.htm

Related Topics:
July 29 - 2003 - Judge - Unconstitutional

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In August, a federal judge in San Jose announced that he was considering issuing an order postponing the recall election. Activists in Monterey County had filed suit, claiming that Monterey County, and other counties of California affected by the Voting Rights Act were violating the act by announcing that, because of budgetary constraints, they were planning on hiring fewer Spanish-speaking poll watchers, and were going to cut back by almost half the number of polling places. On September 5, a three-member panel of federal judges ruled that the county's election plans did not constitute a violation of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Related Topics:
San Jose - Monterey County - Counties - Voting Rights Act - Spanish - September 5

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In addition, another lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), claiming that the use of the "hanging chad" style punch-card ballots still in use in six California counties (Los Angeles, Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara, and Solano) were in violation of fair election laws. U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson in Los Angeles ruled on August 20 that the election would not be delayed because of the punch-card ballots. The ruling was appealed against and the appeal heard by three judges in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and on September 15 the judges issued a unanimous ruling postponing the recall election until March 2004 on the grounds that the existence of allegedly obsolete voting equipment in some counties violated equal protection, thus overruling the lower district court which had rejected this argument.

Related Topics:
Los Angeles - American Civil Liberties Union - Hanging chad - Los Angeles - Mendocino - Sacramento - San Diego - Santa Clara - Solano - 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - September 15 - Equal protection

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Recall proponents questioned why punch-card ballots were adequate enough to elect Governor Davis, but were not good enough to recall him. Proponents planned to appeal the postponement to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, an 11-judge panel, also from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals quickly gathered to rehear the controversial case. On the morning of September 23, the panel reversed the three-judge ruling in a unanimous decision, arguing that the concerns about the punch-card ballots were outweighed by the harm that would be done by postponing the election.

Related Topics:
U.S. Supreme Court - September 23

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Further legal appeals were discussed but did not occur. The ACLU announced it would not make an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Davis was widely quoted in the press as saying "Let's just get it over with." Thus the election proceeded as planned on October 7.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~