Three justices from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same darling body of judges that deemed the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional, have ruled that California, the most populous state in America, is incapable of being a democracy for at least five months.

The California State Constitution, for better or worse, contains a provision for the recall of an elected official. Should 12 percent of the state’s voting population petition for such an expulsion from office, an election on the matter must be held no sooner than 60 days from the certification of the signatures and no later than 80 days from the same date.

July 23 of this year, a petition to recall Gray Davis, the man who has governed California like Kenneth Lay ran Enron, was certified by the Secretary of the State. Lt. Gov. Cruz “Et tu Brute?” Bustamante scheduled a special election for Oct. 7, in compliance with the state’s constitutional mandate.

But, alas, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals doesn’t believe in democracy. With Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger leading in polls, the mighty liberal court had to find a way to stop the election or, at least, postpone it to a time when Davis might have a better chance.

The official reason given by the court is that too many precincts in California would have to use unreliable punch-card voting machines. The machines are so unreliable, in fact, that Californians have been using them for nearly 50 years without any serious problems. But, alas, a few old women in Palm Beach, Fla. unite behind Pat Buchanan and, several thousand miles away, Davis is deemed to be above California’s constitution.

The U. S. Supreme Court, an institution just a wee bit more respected than the 9th U.S. Socialist Circuit Court of Appeals, has a long-standing precedent of only taking cases that are ripe for adjudication; until a problem actually exists, the court won’t hear the matter. In other words, you cannot sue your neighbor because you think he is plotting to assault you with a garden hose, you have to wait until your rib cage is actually functioning as a sprinkler system.

Similarly, the recall election should not be contested, because some punch-cards might misalign; it should only be contested once chads are dangling. But liberals know that it is better to contest the matter before Davis suffers a landslide loss that no reasonable person would question.

So just when will the new election be held? Well, the appellate court has chosen to delay the matter and add it to California’s next statewide ballot March 2, 2004.

Now, aside from the fact that this clearly violates Californians’ constitution right to expel Davis from office within 80 days of a sufficient petition, it raises two more problematic issues.

First, Davis now has an additional five months to screw up California so badly that no Phillips-head could undo the job.

But secondly and more horrifyingly, the March 2 date set by the court is not some randomly mundane election — it is the Democratic presidential primary. In other words, a disproportionate number of Democrats will be turning out to cast their votes for Howard Dean, Joe Liberman, John Kerry, Curly, Mo or any of the other stooges while Republicans will have no interest in the initiative.

There is no better way to guarantee an overwhelmingly liberal and partisan voting base than to hold the election March 2.

At the heart of both California and America as a whole is the notion of democracy. We sound our voices by voting, and that is the greatest check we have on our elected officials. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has enjoined Californians from voting for at least five months. And that means that until March of 2004, the largest state in the union will be something other than a democracy.

Mac VerStandig ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in rhetoric.