I may well be misremembering the case, but didn't
the Court in Arizonans for Official English (unanimously) express
"grave doubts" about the article III standing of an initiative sponsor to
petition for certiorari to defend the constitutionality of the initiative?
(I welcome correction if my recollection is faulty.) And, if so, is there
any reason why Costa's situation is different for purposes of article
III?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward A Hartnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:20
PM
Subject: Re: Ninth circuit and the
recall
> postponing the election follows from the conclusion that there is a likely
> equal protection violation in using punch card ballots. Why not simply
> enjoin the use of punch card ballots, leaving it to the state to figure out
> whether to obtain more modern equipment in a hurry or do it the old
> fashioned way, with paper ballots? While counting paper ballots may take a
> while, it won't take until March. Or are paper ballots now
> unconstitutional? Or just unthinkably old-fashioned?
>
> I understand that state officials may prefer to wait until the March
> primary rather than use paper ballots, but should the administrative
> preferences of government officials be the basis for postponing an election
> -- particularly a recall election?
>
> Whether or not the state defendants seek further review, Ted Costa is a
> party to the case. Is there any reason to doubt that he can and will seek
> further review? And shouldn't his (or their) next step be an application
> to Justice O'Connor (as circuit justice for the 9th circuit) to extend the
> 7 day stay granted by the court of appeals into a stay pending a petition
> for rehearing in banc or pending a petition for certiorari or both?
>
>
> Ed Hartnett
> Seton Hall
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Don Crowley
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > cc:
> Sent by: Discussion Subject: Re: Ninth circuit and the recall
> list for con law
> professors
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> v.ucla.edu>
>
>
> 09/15/03 02:43 PM
> Please respond to
> Discussion list for
> con law professors
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tough question. I'm reasonably sure that Scalia, Thomas, & Rehnquist
> aren't fond of this use of the equal protection clause but they won't have
> to explain themselves if they don't hear the case. Thus, I don't think
> the Court takes it.
>
> Don
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Howard Gillman
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 11:24 AM
> Subject: Ninth circuit and the recall
>
> All right, so we've all heard the news. Two quick questions, testing the
> current common wisdom of the list:
>
> * Will the SC intervene?
>
> * If so, how will Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas vote?
>
>
>
> Howard Gillman
>
> USC
>
