News Intelligence Analysis
Davis' Lawyers to Sue for Recall Delay
By ERICA WERNER
Associated Press Writer
LOS ANGELES
Gov. Gray Davis will ask the California Supreme Court to delay
his Oct. 7 recall election until March and make him a candidate
to, in effect, replace himself, his attorneys said Sunday.
Voters will make two decisions on the recall ballot: whether to remove Davis, and who his successor should be if he is recalled. Under California election law, the subject of the recall cannot be on the list of replacement candidates.
Attorneys for the Democratic governor's campaign committee, Californians Against the Costly Recall, told reporters in a conference call that voters who want to retain Davis would have their equal protection rights violated if he is not listed as a replacement candidate.
The attorneys also said the October date would disenfranchise voters because counties would not have enough time to prepare, would have to use outdated punch-card machines because new voting systems aren't ready, and would confuse or inconvenience voters by consolidating voting precincts to save money.
The attorneys want the election to be held with the state's March 2 presidential primary, the next regularly scheduled statewide election.
"We want the fairest possible election, and we want the most voters who can possibly have participation in the election to participate, and we want the preference of the voters to be vindicated," said Michael Kahn, one of three attorneys working on the suit, which they planned to file Monday.
Recall supporters said the claims in the suit have "zero validity."
"This is Davis stall tactics to the inevitable," said Phil Paule, director of Rescue California Recall Gray Davis, the committee that collected the bulk of the petition signatures to qualify the recall.
"If he is on the replacement list that gives him an opportunity to lose twice in the same election," Paule said. He added that the recall statute is clear about the scheduling of recall elections.
Davis' attorneys said the suit will name Secretary of State Kevin Shelley and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Conny McCormack. Shelley's spokeswoman did not immediately return a call seeking comment Sunday evening and McCormack did not immediately respond to a message left at her office.
Unless the court acts this week, the Saturday deadline for candidates to file to get on the ballot would not be affected for now, attorneys said. They are asking the court to act by Aug. 31, the date ballot language would be finalized.
Counties reported 296 people taking out nominating papers so far, but none had completed the application process, the secretary of state's office said on its Web site Sunday.
Davis allies have had little success in court so far, failing to get qualification of the recall delayed over their claims that petition signatures were collected illegally.
An attorney who specializes in elections law said Davis probably will not succeed in becoming a replacement candidate but had a better chance of delaying the election.
"It would certainly appear to be easier to convince a court to postpone an election to a later date than to fundamentally change the nature of the election as it now it exists," Santa Monica attorney Fred Woocher said.
Analysts from both parties believe the March date could benefit Davis, as Democrats probably will turn out in large numbers to select their presidential nominee.
The suit has six plaintiffs: Davis, Reps. Xavier Becerra and Tom Lantos, both D-Calif., City Councilman Ben Wong of West Covina, Los Angeles civil rights activist Danny Bakewell and businessman Jorge Corralejo.
There are already four other legal petitions related to the recall pending before the California Supreme Court: two to keep replacement candidates' names off the ballot, one to keep two unrelated propositions off the recall ballot and one over the rules governing how successor candidates get on the ballot.
Copyright Associate Press 2003
Send an email
Send a letter
to the editor
about
this article
Related Article:
Two legal experts
explain why a portion
of the recall statutes
are unconstitutional