Short memories! The punch card thing was all about Florida's botched election count, remember that little thing?

The 9th Circuit of Appeals had conflicting laws to consider. The Oct 7th date was just arbirarily picked by the Secretary of State to comply with the recall; it's not as though there's a big incentive to have it exactly that day. On the other hand, punch cards aren't technically outlawed until March 2004, when the next election was supposed to be. (Ironically, one of the things on the ballot for March is a bond referendum to pay for voting machine upgrades.)

In the court's opinion it was in the people's best interest to have (the best chance for) a fair election instead of the fastest possible election allowed. NOT just because of the punchcards (which almost half of CA voters would be using), but because 1 in 4 polling places would be shut that day.

Why this decision? During the 2000 election controversy, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Bush vs. Gore that it is a violation of the equal-protection law to value one person's vote over that of another. After that case, voting rights organizations challenged punch-card voting in four states, including California.

California settled its suit and agreed to phase out punch-card voting by March 2004. Illinois did not settle, and a federal district judge held that the use of punch-card voting indeed constitutes an equal-protection violation under Bush vs. Gore. (LA Times)

For those overseas, the 9th Circuit is a US federal court. The CA Supreme Court refused to review the case for it's merit under the CA constitution. The federal court can only review it as a US constitutional question under the equal protection clause.

--------------------------

GASP! A constitutional judge who belongs to an organization devoted to upholding the constitution?! How outrageous!

And actually, Common Cause originally started the punch-card decertification movement in California in 2000.