October 7, 2003

(1) Frankel v. Shelley.

This case argues that the gubernatorial succession provisions of the state constitution supersede the recall provisions of the Elections Code, and thus there should be no replacement candidates on the ballot. Response by the defendant is due on August 4 at noon. It is unknown whether there will be a hearing.
Ruling: Denied, Unanimous decision.

(2) Byrnes v. Bustamante (filed July 30)

Like Frankel, it argues that there should not be a second part of the recall ballot. It will probably be decided together with Frankel. Barry Keene is one of the plaintiffs. The Lt. Governor's response is due on August 4 at noon. Ruling: Denied, Unanimous decision.

(3) Burton v. Shelley (filed July 30)

It generally challenges the nomination requirements for successor candidates. It is based on Elections Code section 8000, which says the nomination provisions of that chapter do not apply to recall elections. SOS response is due on August 4 at noon.
Ruling: Denied, 5-2 vote.

(4) Eisenberg v. Shelley.

This case argues that the two initiative measures (Prop. 53 and 54) should not appear on the recall ballot because the recall is not a special election. SOS response is due on August 4 at noon. It is unknown now whether there will be a hearing.
Ruling: Denied, Unanimous decision.

Partnoy v. Shelley.

This San Diego federal case challenged Elections Code section 11382 requiring voters to cast a "yes" or "no" ballot on the recall in order to be able to vote on for a successor.
Ruling: The federal court invalidated the law. SOS is not appealing.

Robins v. Shelley.

This case was filed on July 14, 2003 in Los Angeles Superior Court by the Governor’s supporters seeking to enjoin further signature verification and SOS certification of the recall on the ground that many of the circulators were bused into the state are not validly registered voters. On August 8, the trial court will hear the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, which is now moot because the recall was certified on July 23. Plaintiffs are likely to dismiss and end the case.

Costa v. Shelley.

This case is the flipside of the Robins lawsuit. It seeks a declaration and injunction against the counties and SOS invalidating signatures on a recall petition based on the fact that the petition circulator was not a validly registered voter.

(8) Recall Gray Davis Committee v. Shelley (Kaloogian).

Court of appeal dismissed as moot the challenge to SOS’s interpretation of Elections Code section 11104(a) verification of signatures and reporting by counties.