Is the 9th Circuit Politically Biased?

Forrmer LA Mayor Richard Riordan in a brilliant op-ed piece in the LA Times makes a pretty good case for that assertion.

Having a rule of law that people can rely on with confidence is necessary for democracies to succeed. Unfortunately, three justices of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals put the rule of law aside Monday in favor of their own political ideology when they ruled on the recall.

After all, the rules governing this election were written long before Gov. Gray Davis was even elected. The California Constitution requires the state to hold a recall election within 60 to 80 days after the signatures petitioning for a recall have been certified. When it was determined in July that there were more than enough signatures to qualify, the lieutenant governor had little choice but to schedule the recall vote for Oct. 7.

As the political pundits and pollsters have been noting for weeks, when you hold an election can have a substantial effect on the outcome. Given this opportunity for manipulation and abuse, it is critically important that the rules be followed. The 9th Circuit, however, has chosen instead to rewrite the rules in the middle of the contest in a way, most observers agree, that will benefit the Democrats

The 9th Circuit argued that this state's election rules did not matter because of the risk that certain votes (40,000 to be exact) may not be counted - if, that is, voters fail to follow the proper instructions for using a punch-card machine. The goal of making sure every vote counts - even when the voter does not follow the instructions - is laudable, and it is something every registrar is working hard to achieve. It is, however, ultimately unattainable. Election perfection is not required by the Constitution. No election in this state, or this country, has ever been perfect. If states are required to guarantee that voters won't make mistakes before elections can be held, then no election will ever be held.

In reaching its result, the 9th Circuit ignored well-settled law. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the need to give individual localities the flexibility to adopt voting systems that are best tailored to their unique circumstances, even though some counties will inevitably be better than other counties at counting. This has never been considered a constitutional problem by Supreme Court justices on either side of the ideological spectrum. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Bush vs. Gore by both the majority and the dissent. The majority explicitly held that its decision did not change the right of different counties to use different systems. Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent, reaffirmed the right of states "to delegate to local authorities certain decisions with respect to voting systems," even though there may be "enormous differences in accuracy."

I really cannot add anymore to Riordan's analysis other than to say this. Whenever there is a contest between objective reason and ideology; objective reason wins, every time. The three justice ruling of the 9th Circuit should be overturned and the recall allowed to go forward. It's the right thing to do.