Saturday, January 24, 2009
So, the Judicial Council ruled in a 3-1 decision that the recall petition is sufficiently specific to go forward.
I will point out something odd from the majority opinion, though:
We believe that it is entirely within reason to assume that Senator Moghtader could provide empirical evidence against the charges brought against him. Indeed, he could have provided a fact sheet of times and events in which he did not undermine the physical safety of others. This is without a doubt, a "reasoned response to general charges."What would that fact sheet look like?
4:00 am: Was asleep, not intimidating anyone...
5:00 am: Still asleep...
In fact, the Judicial Council ruled that a "specific statement of reasons" is different from a "statement of specific reasons." And so while the reasons weren't specific, the statement was. I might buy this line of reasoning, except they don't seem to explain why it is correct, or what it has to do with this case:
The petition in question fulfills the requirement to provide a "specific statement of reasons" because it does more than simply make a statement without reasons supporting it. For example, it does not simply state "We wish to recall Senator Moghtader," a statement that is completely void of reasons all together. [recall text] This does, in fact, constitute a statement of reasons.While it does do more than just say "we wish to recall Moghtader," there's no explanation for why this makes the statement specific. Indeed, the word "specific" seems to disappear entirely from the analysis.
The dissent argues that "specific" is there in order to provide due process and equal protection.
. . .
. . .