As always, Marty makes perfectly good sense (unlike the California procedure :) ) Another question: What happens re the lieutenant governorship if Butamante were to become governor. Is it vacant? And who succeeds if something happens to the Governor while the lieutenant governorship is vacant? (Does the lieutenant governor have to be a Californian? What if Bustamante pledges to name Bill Clinton to the vacancy (assuming the governor has that power)? I know this is silly, but....
sandy
At 02:49 PM 9/15/2003, you wrote:
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). >
