Presumably, the defendants could make a Rule 60 motion to modify the injunction to allow the election to occur on Oct. 7 since the risk of a constitutional violation would have been eliminated. But otherwise, I agree with you that the current injunction forbids holding the election on October 7.
Pam Karlan
At 09:36 AM 9/18/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Professor Tribe writes:
"And keep in mind that the Ninth Circuit didn't dictate any particular remedy. If the state could get the proper machinery in place for an Oct. 7 election, it would be free to proceed on the current schedule."
Can anyone help me reconcile that statement with the following statement from the conclusion (page 65) of the Ninth Circuit's opinion?
"The Secretary of State is enjoined from conducting an election on any issue on October 7, 2003."
Has the court issued an injunction as a separate document from its opinion? Cf. FRCP 65(d) ("Every order granting an injunction shall . . . . describe in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts sought to be restrained . . . .") If so, that might provide additional detail about the precise scope of the injunction. I haven't found such a document on the court's website, but perhaps it exists. Does anyone know?
I note as well Professor Richard Hasen's interpretation of the panel's decision:
"The panel only enjoined the election from going forward on October 7 with selective use of punch card machines in certain counties but not others. The Secretary may hold the election sooner, without violating the preliminary injunction, so long as he does so using voting technology throughout the state that insures minimum due process and equal protection concerns are met. For example, the election could conceivably be held later this month, should the state choose to use technology such as paper ballots in those jurisdictions that had used punch cards."
(9/17/2003, amicus letter).
Ed Hartnett Seton Hall
"Matthew J. Franck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] U> cc: Sent by: Discussion Subject: Laurence Tribe, WSJ op-ed list for con law professors <[EMAIL PROTECTED] v.ucla.edu>
09/18/03 07:45 AM Please respond to Discussion list for con law professors
An article by Laurence Tribe defending the Ninth Circuit runs in today's Wall Street Journal, and can be found at www.opinionjournal.com.
Matt
*************************** Matthew J. Franck Professor and Chairman Department of Political Science Radford University P.O. Box 6945 Radford, VA 24142-6945 phone 540-831-5854 fax 540-831-6075 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***************************
Pamela S. Karlan Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law Stanford Law School 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305-8610 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 650.725.4851
