calgov2002:
 calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
Posted on 07/02/2003 11:21:19 PM PDT by LdSentinal
California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley will soon be under the microscope, as his office is tasked with determining how the Gray Davis recall signatures are tallied. And perhaps in the process we’ll all see one of Shelley’s classic meltdowns. You see, the secretary has a bit of an anger management problem.
Back in 1998, when Shelley was the Democratic leader in the California Assembly, his temper "terrified employees in both his Capitol and district offices," reported Robert B. Gunnison of the San Francisco Chronicle. At the time Shelley openly admitted: "I’m talking to people who are helping me with both my demeanor and my anger and to the extent that it gets misdirected. I’ve always been a hothead and had a temper, and I’m trying better to control that."
After a number of informal complaints about Shelley’s behavior, the Assembly rules committee had to resort to hiring a private $160-an-hour lawyer to evaluate the assemblyman’s performance.
Now the stage is bigger. For the sake of the survival of Gov. Gray Davis, Shelley would be well advised to conduct himself like a Boy Scout.
Seeking a Ruling That Favors Davis
A critical juncture in the movement to recall California Gov. Gray Davis is mounting in Shelley’s office. The issue is this:
Will the recall vote be held this year (September or October) or next year in March, a tactical delay certain to favor the governor in his effort to survive?
The issue is over the tally of signatures.
Recall proponents want an expedited procedure, meaning a continuous tally and verification of signatures as they are received, and as is stated in the elections code.
Recall opponents are looking to Shelley and his crack team of lawyers, perhaps the same beagles who concocted the "triggered" tripling of the vehicle license fee, to interpret the code to say that county registrars need verify only the first batch of signatures they receive by June 16, and then set aside all signatures received after June 16 until the next reporting period on July 23. This second batch of signatures will then be verified, but following Shelley's approach, the signatures are not required to be reported until Aug. 22.
If Shelley’s interpretation passes legal muster, the recall vote will likely be in March, where typically a higher number of Democrats go to the polls. However, should lawyers backing the recall obtain a court ruling that supports a strict interpretation of the code, the signature tally will be conducted on a continuous basis, and the vote will occur this fall.
Even then, a judge sympathetic to Democrats (a familiar sight to California voters) could delay the ruling, giving Shelley the additional time he needs to stall the tally.
Additionally, Davis and Shelley want to deny recall proponents a momentous public relations opportunity to announce on July Fourth, their symbolic "Independence Day," that they have enough signatures to qualify the measure for a vote.
What Does the Elections Code Say?
The critical sections of California’s Elections Code are:
11104. (a) The elections official, 30 days after a recall has been initiated and every 30 days thereafter, or more frequently at the discretion of the elections official, shall report to the Secretary of State all of the following:
(3) The number of valid signatures, verified pursuant to subdivision (b), submitted during the previous reporting period, and of valid signatures verified during the current reporting period.
(4) The cumulative total of all valid signatures received since the time the recall was initiated and ending five days previously, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
According to Daniel Weintraub of the Sacramento Bee: "Those last five lines [subsections 3 and 4] seem pretty clear: the registrars are required to notify Shelley on July 23 of the number of valid signatures received during the current reporting period, and the cumulative total. And that would be as of July 16, when the recall organizers say they intend to have submitted all the signatures they will need."
But Shelley’s spokesman says that’s not the case.
"They’re required to provide us the number of verified signatures received through June 16, for the next reporting period (on July 16). If they want to verify signatures received after June 16th, the law does not address that issue. They’re not required to do so."
Whatever that means.
Weintraub continues: "The problem is that the statute on signature verification seems to clearly require a continuous verification process, but the detailed rules for the process itself (elections code section 9030) are the same as for a ballot initiative, where the signatures are normally turned in all in one batch. That conflict is what gives Shelley the opening he appears to be exploiting to delay the count."
The Legal Battle With History
On Monday, June 30, an opinion from a California elections official instructed elections supervisors in the state’s 58 counties to keep a continuous count of submitted recall signatures, but more importantly, said that they "can wait a month before validating those signatures."
So, the legal battle is on, in the courts, in ways that will remind many of the 2000 presidential election. The biggest question for Californians revolves around the whole concept of a recall. A recall is an expedited procedure.
Hiram Johnson, the father of the state’s recall law and former governor of California, said in his inaugural address in 1911:
"The precautionary measure by which a recalcitrant official can be removed is designated the "Recall." And while I do not by any means believe the initiative, the referendum, and the recall are the panacea for all our political ills, yet they do give to the electorate the power of action when desired, and they do place in the hands of the people the means by which they may protect themselves."
The power of the electorate now lies squarely in the hands of Kevin Shelley, a classic liberal with a history of having never met a tax increase he didn’t like. California voters would be wise to understand more about the people who are making huge decisions that affect their quality of life and their wallets.
His father was a longtime labor leader and mayor of San Francisco. He served six years on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He was elected to chair the Democratic Caucus soon after he arrived in the legislature, and was then elected by his Democratic colleagues to be Assembly Majority Leader.
He also has a short fuse. Various news reports describe him as "bullying," "mercurial," "abusive," "belittling" and "a tyrant."
When he fired a female worker during his stint as an assemblyman, he pursued the woman down the hallway and, according to the Chronicle, "stood in front of her as she tried three times to get on the elevator. The incident was recorded by a California Highway Patrol security camera, and the tape was reviewed by the Chronicle."
"I’m intense. It is the very thing that achieves great success for me, but I’m so myopically focused on it that the downside of it is it creates an unpleasant environment," said Shelley.
The recall situation appears to be a perfect fit for the secretary. Intense and unpleasant.
calgov2002:
|
calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
August 22 + 10 days = September 1, more than 180 days before March 2, 2004.
Even with Shelley's tortuous logic regarding verification dates, and assuming the counties don't maintain the continuous count that many have pledged to do, the recall election must be held this fall. He has only ten days to certify the recall, so certification should occur more than 180 days before the March primary election; then, Bustamante must call an election this November (60-80 days from certification), if they follow the law. The recall election should be consolidated with municipal elections on November 4, 2003.
Of course, that would assume that everyone followed the law, there weren't any lawsuits, etc.
Hahahaa, I heard about this on talk radio a couple of days ago. The guy is a real asshole. Too bad he probably won't see the email I sent to him:(there is another thread around here somewhere about him subverting the recall) Dear Mr. Shelly, So far the effort to recall Gray Davis has garnered over one million signatures. By the time the deadline comes up, expect to see another one million unhappy Californians sign this petition. If you think you and Gray can stall this action, think again. Even in California, you can't find a judge that politically suicidal to help you thwart this effort. After Davis is recalled, we'll come after your job and anyone else who helps subvert the will of the people. Dude, just give it up and save yourself...(have a nice day) Sincerely, Boy I wish he'd read some of the email he is getting over this...
Sounds like Gub material to me, if you look at how GraYout treated some of his own staff in the past.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.