California Insider

A Weblog by
Sacramento Bee Columnist Daniel Weintraub

Back to California Insider home page

« Ueberroth in | | "What happens if Gray resigns?" »

August 08, 2003

Chief Justice George says post-election challenge possible

While Chief Justice Ron George's dissent in the ballot qualification case was quoted in this morning's accounts of Thursday's court decisions, it was buried in most stories. Some readers might not have noticed a couple of provocative points. First, George, joined by Justice Moreno, joined those describing the recall as bordering on out of control:

The chaos, confusion, and circus-like atmosphere that has characterized the current recall process undoubtedly has been brought about in large measure by the extremely low threshold set by respondent for potential candidates to qualify for inclusion on the ballot to succeed to the office of Governor.

Then, he all but invited losing candidates or disgruntled voters to file challenges after the election alleging that the Secretary of State's easy qualification rules allowed illegitimate candidates to compete and unfairly altered the result:

For example, in the event the recall is successful, a second-place finisher in a crowded field to succeed to the office of Governor might be able to establish that the presence of dozens of legally unqualified candidates made the difference in his or her losing by a percentage point or two, and that he or she readily could have met the requirement of the much larger number of signatures required for a lawful nomination. Similarily, any voter might be able to bring suit, claiming that the victor's placement on the ballot was invalid and affected the outcome of the election. (See Gooch v. Hendrix (1993) 5 Cal.4th 266,285.) Should the vote to recall the Governor be successful, we may never know who would have been the legitimate winner of the vote succeed him, had lawful procedures been followed.

If we were to conclude after the recall election that the signature requirement for placement of candidates on the ballot set by respondent was inappropriate, we would have to nullify the election and cast our state into far more chaos and confusion than exists presently. Careful consideration and resolution of these issues prior to the election is well warranted despite the ensuing delay in the electoral process. By following the course of action, we would enhance rather than thwart the will of the people in exercising their right to vote at a properly conducted recall election.

To read the whole thing, go here and scroll down the narrow column until you get toward the bottom. The dissent begins with the words "For the reasons that follow..."