While I appreciate the idea that GSN needs to make contingency plans, I'm not holding by breath on that decision standing. This is the ninth circuit, after all. These are the guys that the activist judges run away from because they think they're weirdos.
They had 6 unanimous reversals against them last term. This won't be unanimous, but it will be sent back down in a hurry.
In Bush v. Gore, there was a state-mandated recount taking place, instead of the voting and earlier recounts, which were done county-by-county, as California's gubernatorial recall will be counted. What's more, understand that this decision could kill every upcoming election in the country.
Consider: In the state in which you live, does every county or parish use the same system for casting and tabulating ballots? If not, then upholding this decision would have the national effect of mandating that every ballot in your state be cast the exact same way, regardless of cost and practicality, because it follows that any given balloting system is going to have its own built-in errors, and as such, using two different methods in any election will disenfranchise some of the voters.
Can you imagine the losers of every statewide election in every state saying, \"My voters were disenfranchised\" and having this decision and a subsequent refusal by the SC to back them up? Chaos.
In short, well, I want some of what the justices involved in the injunction were smoking.
One side thing I'm curious about. What will Peter Uberroth think, when he quit last week because \"there wasn't enough time to make up ground\" and they're now trying to push the election back another four months.
