DASAV     Bibliography     Mayerson    

As of March 19, 2007:

The Hackenblog has moved to http://hackenblog.hackenbush.org/ or www.hackenblog.com.

Please update your links, thank you.
Hello Readers! If you're liking what you're reading here, you can help out with the webhosting bill with a donation, if you are so inclined. In addition to my eternal gratitude, you'll have the comfort of knowing I won't be spending it on frivolous things like food or the electric bill or something.

[Previous entry: "Election Law blog"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Issue 1 - LHLS"]

08/07/2003 Entry: "No help from the CA Supreme Court"

California Supreme Court Takes Action in Recall Cases, Election Law, August 7, 2003, 4:39PM

This is from Election Law, August 7, 2003, 4:39PM, whose links are bloggered.

Recall information
TO: Legal Affairs Editors and Reporters
FROM: Lynn Holton, Public Information Officer
DATE: August 7, 2003
SUBJECT: California Supreme Court Takes Action in Recall Cases

The California Supreme Court today unanimously denied relief in four of the five cases filed before it involving the special recall election set for October 7, 2003. In the fifth case, Burton v. Shelley, the court denied relief by a 5-2 vote, which was accompanied by a “speaking order” subscribed to by a majority of the court, a “speaking concurrence” subscribed to by Justice Joyce Kennard, and a “speaking dissent” signed by Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Justice Carlos Moreno. A list of the five cases that were denied today by the California Supreme Court appears at the end of this advisory.

In an order signed by Justices Marvin Baxter, Katherine Werdegar, Ming Chin, and Janice Rogers Brown, the majority concluded that the Secretary of State’s selection of a 65 to 100 signature requirement for candidates’ nominating papers and a $3500 filing fee was appropriate for placing an individual on the ballot for the office of Governor should the recall election be successful. Justice Kennard filed a separate concurring order in which she relied solely on the principle of affording deference to the exercise of discretion by the Secretary of State.

In their dissent, Chief Justice George and Justice Moreno concluded that there are substantial questions concerning the legality of the procedure selected by the Secretary of State in the context of a statewide recall election, given the history of the recall procedure in the state and the provisions of the current statutory scheme. For the reasons stated in their dissent, they would have ordered the Secretary of State not to take further steps to prepare for the state recall election until the issues could be fully considered and resolved by the court.

The three separate orders in the Burton case are attached, as well as a speaking order issued in Frankel v. Shelley. The other three cases were summarily denied.

The five cases in which the court denied review, in order of their date of filing, are:

1. Eisenberg v. Shelley, S117763. (Asserts that the placement of two initiatives on the recall ballot is inappropriate because the recall election is not a “special statewide election” within the meaning of the applicable constitutional provisions.)

[Denied unanimously.]

2. Frankel v. Shelley, S117770. (Seeks to omit from the recall ballot a list of candidates seeking election to the office of Governor and contending that if a majority vote in favor of the recall, the Lieutenant Governor will automatically succeed to the office of Governor.) [Denied unanimously; see attached order.]

3. Byrnes v. Bustamante, S117832. (Raises the same issue as in Frankel concerning the succession of the Lieutenant Governor should the recall election succeed.) [Denied unanimously.]

4. Burton (Mark) v. Shelley, S117834. (Involves the nomination requirements for candidates to be placed on the recall ballot.) [Denied 5 to 2; see attached orders.]

5. Davis v. Shelley, S117921. (Asserts that because of potential use of punch card ballots and consolidation of polling places, voters in some counties will be denied their equal protection right to have their votes count as much as others; that the California Constitution’s prohibition on permitting the officer who is the subject of recall election from being on the ballot to pick a successor in the event of a recall violates the equal protection rights of such candidate’s supporters; and that California’s recall process violates the federal constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government by frustrating majority rule. [Denied unanimously.]

To find the names of the attorneys in the cases, please see the Supreme Court's online case management system at .

posted by Rick 4:41 PM

 

 

 

Powered By Greymatter

Hello Readers! If you're still liking what you're reading here, you can help out with the webhosting bill with a donation, if you are so inclined. In addition to my eternal gratitude, you'll have the comfort of knowing I won't be spending it on frivolous things like food or the electric bill or something.

One of the best deals anywhere.


Donations to keep us going are very welome!

Donate towards our web hosting bill!

Our webhost, is a really good deal and is probably having a huge sale on something as we speak. If you're looking for webhosting, I recommend them very much.

BugMeNot.com for passwords to online sites.

Who links to me?

Updated: April 8, 2006

Reviews you can use at J LHLS Reviews

This is a page in a larger site called Hackenbush.org. Click here to go there.

© Copyright, Head Designs 2003
All rights reserved.


referer referrer referers referrers http_referer