Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Halt Gray Davis Recall Vote

Although the state Supreme Court left open the possibility of a successful court challenge to the governor's recall, such a win would probably not stop the Oct. 7 election, a lawyer working on behalf of Gov. Gray Davis said Friday.

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
SACRAMENTO — Although the state Supreme Court left open the possibility of a successful court challenge to the governor’s recall, such a win would probably not stop the Oct. 7 election, a lawyer working on behalf of Gov. Gray Davis said Friday. Paul Kiesel, of Beverly Hills’ Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, filed suit challenging the validity of the signature gathering that helped put the recall on the ballot. Kiesel’s request for an injunction stopping the election was rejected by superior and appeal courts in Los Angeles. On Friday, the California Supreme Court justices declined to review the case. The justices voted 5-0. Chief Justice Ronald George and Justice Janice Rogers Brown did not participate. George was at a conference; Brown was at the University of Virginia, where she’s pursuing an LL.M. degree. The order sends the case back to L.A. County Superior Court, where a hearing is scheduled for Aug. 8. Kiesel is working pro bono for Taxpayers Against the Recall. Although he said he was still evaluating his options, Kiesel all but conceded defeat Friday. “Unfortunately, I believe we have run out of time,” Kiesel said. “It would be very difficult for the Supreme Court to attempt to roll the clock back. I just think that was asking for too much.” Nick Velasquez, spokesman for Taxpayers Against the Recall, said that because the state high court did not rule on the merits of the matter, there’s still a chance it could succeed. Kiesel said he’s considering backing off entirely to avoid giving people the “impression that we’re trying to frustrate voters’ right to express themselves.” The case, Robins v. Shelley , S117661, alleges recall proponents violated state law by using non-residents and people who were not properly registered to vote in California to collect signatures. Kiesel originally wanted an injunction to stop Secretary of State Kevin Shelley from certifying the election until the matter could be sorted out. Even if recall proponents eventually had prevailed, it might have delayed the election until the spring — a benefit for Davis because more Democrats are expected to come out then to vote in the presidential primary. After Shelley’s certification last week, Kiesel amended his petition asking the court to decertify the election. Kiesel said the court wasn’t very likely to do that now. Even so, he believes the case has raised important questions the court will need to answer. A lawyer for recall proponent Ted Costa disagreed. “I didn’t think much of their case before, and I don’t think much of it now,” said Bruce Ericson of Pillsbury Winthrop’s San Francisco office. Election law expert Richard Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said he wasn’t surprised by the Supreme Court’s ruling. He said the requirement that signature gatherers be registered is probably unconstitutional anyway. Still, he thinks there are a few possibilities for Davis proponents to challenge aspects of the election. Kiesel said he wasn’t planning any more litigation. His client, the taxpayers group, said it was now going to concentrate on the election rather than legal challenges. Hasen is keeping close track of litigation possibilities at his Web log, www.electionlaw.blogspot.com.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Trending Stories

 

Featured Product

Global Briefing

A weekly, curated selection of our international content from around the globe, across the business of law, in-house, regulatory, technology and more, with expert insights from our senior editors.

Learn More

More from ALM

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Privacy Policy

About Us / Contact Us / Site Map / Advertise With Us/ Customer Service / Terms of Service/ FAQ / Privacy Policy

Publications

Law Topics

Rankings

More

Law.com

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.