The law wins |

The law wins

A unanimous, 11-member panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has stopped dead in its tracks what a liberaled-up three-judge panel of the same circuit attempted to foist on the people of California — government by judiciary.

The former Tuesday rejected the latter’s contention that the use of “outdated” punch-card ballots in six California counties, home to 44 percent of the state’s voters, potentially could disenfranchise some 40,000 voters, or 0.27 percent of all registered California voters, in the Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election.

But the panel called the assertion — first proffered by the American Civil Liberties Union, rejected by a U.S. District Court, but eagerly gobbled up by the appellate trio — only a “speculative possibility.” Added the judges, “If the recall … is enjoined, it is certain that the state of California and its citizens will suffer material hardship … .” Hundreds of absentee voters already have cast their ballots; no court ever has stopped an election already begun.

That is, the specter of actual damage trumped possible damage.

Sans an emergency, successful appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is not expected, the recall election will be held. As originally scheduled. As per the California Constitution. As originally demanded by the people of California. As per their state charter.

Imagine that.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.