links for 2010-01-12

As for the effect on the Senate race, Campbell will still face the same type of financial struggle that he had in the gov’s race, although against only one rich candidate, Carly Fiorina, instead of two.

The conventional wisdom is that Campbell’s entry will hurt Fiorina because it pulls moderate support from her, while right-wing Assemblyman Chuck DeVore will hang onto the hardcore conservative base. But we’ve reported previously on the counter-intuitive, and possibly anomalous, findings of the LA Times/USC poll that suggest there’s overlap between Campbell supporters and those of the right-wing Assemblyman Chuck Devore.

Guess we’ll wait for the Field Poll to find out.
++++++
The Field Poll may be in the field but there has been NO advertising by anyone yet. So, it is worthless. Try again around March 15.

But Campbell’s biggest problem in a Senate race could be that Senate race. If he made the switch, he’d be saying “Never mind” to all the people who supported him for governor and turning his back on the promises he made to use his years of experience to turn California around. He’d be switching gears to improve his chances of getting back into elective office.

In short, he’d be just another politician
++++++
Tom Campbell will not be able to raise any money and Fiorina will spend another 2.5 million to beat him and DeVore. Just another politician will be Fiorina's theme against DeVore as well.

But I’d expect the Fiorina camp to try and box out both candidates by attacking the 2005 California budget. DeVore, a California assemblyman, voted for it. As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s (R-Calif.) finance director, Campbell helped muscle it through. So the events of today make Fiorina the only female candidate in the race, the best-funded, and the only one not tainted by GOP decisions of the past–probably a better position than she had on Monday.
++++++++
DeVore and Campbell are both unfunded and weak candidates on the California budget. Look for Fiorina to ratchet up the heat on fiscal responsibility.

In the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s interim order yesterday barring Internet broadcasting of the trial, Walker, who evidently remains as fervent as ever in his desire to televise the trial, tried to put lipstick on his pig by purporting “to clarify” a point:

What the Court [i.e., Walker] has contemplated and what the Ninth Circuit pilot project contemplates is a posting on the Northern District of California website. It is not a Google YouTube posting that may be commonly understood. Rather, that service is under consideration as a conduit for posting an audio and visual feed pursuant to a contract that the government has with that service.

(Official Transcript for Jan. 11, 2010, at 10:1-9.)

Set aside Walker’s disingenuous effort to recast his latest change of course as a clarification. The cosmetic change that Walker is now proposing is substantively meaningless. It has zero bearing on the concerns that warranted the Supreme Court’s order.

In addition to its illegality (see Part 2), Judge Walker’s televising order threatens unfair and irreparable—and wildly asymmetric—prejudice to the parties and witnesses supporting Proposition 8. For that reason, his order should be vacated before trial begins next Monday.
++++++
And, the SCOTUS has stepped in and issued a stay.

Judge Walker’s televising order (see Part 1) in the Proposition 8 case is illegal for the simple reason that it violates the version of his court’s Local Rule 77-3 that is lawfully in effect. Consistent with the longstanding policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States, that rule flatly prohibits “the taking of photographs, public broadcasting or televising, or recording for these purposes in the courtroom or its environs, in connection with any judicial proceeding.” Walker has made several stabs at amending the rule, but each of his efforts has been unsuccessful. In particular, his current claim to have lawfully amended the rule under the “immediate need” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 2071(e) is ludicrous: there was manifestly no need to implement immediately the Ninth Circuit’s recently announced pilot program for experimental use of cameras in district courts.

In a series of three or so posts today, I’m going to explain why Judge Walker’s order requiring audio-video recording and transmission (I’ll sometimes use the admittedly inexact shorthand “televising”) of the trial proceedings in the Proposition 8 case should be overturned forthwith. In this post, I’ll review yesterday’s sham hearing and discuss just what Walker has ordered. In the next post, I’ll show that his order is unlawful. And then I’ll discuss why his order threatens unfair and irreparable (and wildly asymmetric) prejudice to Proposition 8 supporters.

Walker’s New Year’s Eve surprise is a critical step in his evident ongoing effort to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Proposition 8’s sponsors. Specifically, Walker is rushing to override longstanding prohibitions on televised coverage of federal trials so that he can authorize televised coverage of the Proposition 8 trial. Televised coverage would generate much greater publicity for ringmaster Walker’s circus. And, whether Walker desires the effect or is somehow blind to it, televised coverage would surely also heighten the prospect that witnesses and attorneys supporting Proposition 8 would face harassment, intimidation, and abuse.

In his eagerness to stack the deck against Proposition 8 and its defenders, Walker has resorted to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality.
+++++++
Show trial indeed but so far stopped by SCOTUS