ra: Aren't those the same voting machines Davis got elected with?
As much as I would sympathise with the California Recall if it was any of my business and not their private state matter, the lies and misrepresentation the conservative mouthpieces pile up about the court's decision are embarrasing.
The court ruling was not that that the "punchcard" machines are too inaccurate.
The court ruling was that some counties will vote on (allegedely) much more accurate voting machines while others would use less accurate ones and their votes would not be equally counted - thus violating the Equal Protection clause.
When that scoundrel Davis was elected for his second term, all californians used the same machines and eqial protection principle was not violated.
I am surprised that nobody raised another issue.
The cali government undertook to replace all the old voting machines over the period of two years to be ready by the spring 2004 elections.
They could have supplied the new machines to all the counties and only then removed the old ones. Instead, they chose tp phase them out gradually.
If using machines of differing accuracy is unconstitutional, it means that California government seriously violated californians' constitution rights by denying them an ability to hold elections untill the machines were replaced.
If that government choses to delay the re-equipment indefinitely, no elections will be possible in the state of California and the government stays in power forever. Also, the governour will have to appoint the cali senators (but not house reps. - those are voted for within counties, so there will be the same machines used in each electoral district).
The government that cannot be re-elected is not a democratic government. The government that violated the Constitution to cause such situation - which equals to a coup - cannot be recognised as a legitimate government.
Could there be a clearer case for a federal government taking direct control of California untill their constitutional issues are sorted out?
miko
