Sorry to be unlcear: I don't assume that Davis is recused, Sandy. I was just asking whether recusal is required by California law. (I won't be surprised if the answer is "no.") Even if it is not, if I were Davis I think I would pass the buck here -- both because it's probably the right thing to do (I say "probably" because I don't know enough about California law and historical practice), and because from his perspective no option is a good one. On the other hand, Davis's greatest liability in the eyes of many Californians is that he too readily passes the buck, so . . .
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sanford Levinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:42 PM Subject: Re: Appeal Decision > At 02:37 PM 9/15/2003, you wrote: > >Under California law, who has the power to make the decision whether (and to > >what court) to appeal? My understanding from last Term's Hason litigation > >is that the ultimate decision is the Governor's to make (even if, as a > >matter of historical practice, the California AG, like the federal SG, makes > >the vast majority of all such decisions). If so, is Davis recused in this > >instance? Would the decision then be Bustamante's to make (and if so, is he > >recused)? Who's next in line to make the decision? > > Why does Marty assume that Davis even might be recused? Presidents and > governors make self-serving appeals all the time. Especially since there > are in fact meritorious reasons to suspend the election (and, as I > suggested a moment ago, invalidate the law as lunatic). >
