What is a liberal activist to do when faced with the real
possibility of losing the California governorship to a
“right-wing conspiracy”, a.k.a. the recall election?
Why, there’s no reason to fear, all is well when you take the
case to the 9th Circuit Appeals Court. In the case of the recall,
all three panel judges were appointed by Democratic presidents. As
a whole, this court is famous for its courageous rulings that are
often overruled by the Supreme Court — these judges will not let
the law or petty precedent stand in the way of their ideological
quest to make California safe from the influences of God and his
conservative henchmen known as the “GOP.”
With the 9th Circuit’s recent ruling, which put the recall
election on hold, these judges have valiantly stood against the
will of the Californian people and come to the rescue of the
hopeless Gov. Gray Davis who has been busying himself of late
trying to get out of the way of the coming GOP-sponsored elephant
stampede.
And with this ruling, the 9th Circuit is again in the spotlight
due to its controversial stances. The year 2003 is becoming a time
for judges to get their political biases into the spotlight. First,
in a ruling some may call courageous and praiseworthy but others
may call foolhardy and misguided, the judges earlier this year
ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of
the inclusion of the word “God.” And now, as if
protecting the youths of the United States from becoming
indoctrinated with spirituality wasn’t enough, they have
decided that it is once again time to remind the nation that
conservative conspiracies are not safe from the hands of justice in
California. What better way to do this than to postpone the
election — thus going against the Constitution of California,
which states that a recall election must be held within 60 to 80
days after the petitions have been certified?
Yet the 9th Circuit should not get all the glory for this
ruling. Without the help from those gallant defenders of free
speech and justice at the American Civil Liberties Union, the case
would not have been brought to their attention. With this victory,
the ACLU can proudly put another notch on its swords of justice,
along side the ones earned protecting the rights of the North
American Man-Boy Love Association members from parents who sue
because their children’s teachers were allegedly influenced
by their NAMBLA Web sites.
How has this unexpected victory come about, one may wonder?
Well, it has come to the court’s attention that many voting
districts have not yet updated their ballot systems to the
yet-to-be-tested, but super-techno-cool, electronic ballot voting
systems. Thus, districts such as Los Angeles will be forced to use
the hopelessly antiquated punch ballot system which was apparently
reliable enough to get Davis into office twice, yet not
techno-super-enhanced enough to be used in the current
election.
With such an obvious case of disenfranchisement among so many
voters, the court has ruled in all its wisdom and righteousness to
postpone indefinitely the recall election. Though the court
didn’t announce a new date for the election, it suggested a
completely fair date that would ensure the new electronic voting
system would be fully in place, the same date as California’s
Democratic primary election. Thus in a sneaky yet brilliant
political move the recall would be dealt a strong blow since
obviously more Democrats would be inclined to show up at the polls
to support their presidential hopeful and as an added incentive
have the chance to nail the coffin shut on the recall effort.
Thus in a classic tag team line up, the 9th Circuit Appeals
Court and the ACLU have exposed their true motivations in calling
for the postponement of the popular recall effort. We can all sleep
better at night here in California knowing that we have judges who
will protect the people from their own wishes.
Vaszari is a third-year political science student.