Reply #28: (Wow!) Thanks!

[TahitiNut]

I felt I was struggling to be clear, and failing miserably. :dunce:

I'm somewhat nonplussed by the opinion stated in the FindLaw article that an 'Equal Protection' challenge would probably not succeed. I don't know whether that opinion was based solely on the merits, solely on cynicism of the current USSC, or some (unquantified) combination of both. It seems to me (IANAL) the merits of such a challenge are very clear. Further, despite the Bush v. Gore decison, it's not clear to me that a majority of the USSC would reject such a challenge, even on the basis of their partisanship. I'd have to see a lot more discussion of that perspective before I would understand its basis.

Another way I'd be interested in seeing the 'recall' election posed to the voters, a way that'd make the 'equal protection' argument even clearer in comparison, would be if every replacement candidate were required to get a majority of favorable votes in a ballot question of the form:Should (insert name here) replace the current Governor of California, Gray Davis, for the remainder of his current term?
Merely considering the difference between this approach and the approach being taken would seem to me to highlight why the 'equal protection' argument is valid.

Does anyone really think there'd be a majority 'yes' vote on any one of these ballot questions? More than one of them? If so, then why not just have a new election in which all candidates are afforded an equal chance?

Even again, what if the 'recall' were follwed immediately by another 'recall'? Is there any doubt about the high probability that the 'winner' of the first 'recall' would certainly fail if subject to the 'recall' in the second? Unless one could answer 'yes' with absolute certainty, the 'equal protection' basis would seem to be clear.