Re-Vote Likely After E-Vote Data Mishandling

davecb writes "A California judge is likely to order a Berkeley city initiative back on the ballot because of local officials' mishandling of electronic voting machine data. A recount was not possible because the city failed to share necessary voting records, a violation of election laws. In a preliminary ruling Thursday, Judge Winifred Smith of the Alameda County Superior Court indicated she would nullify the defeat of a medical marijuana proposal in Berkeley in 2004 and order the measure put back on the ballot in a later election."

Comments

Re:Keep Voting Until It Passes

[stefanlasiewski]

Irrelevant. State & Federal law override the municipal law. But that has never stopped the People's Republic of Berkeley from making a statement.

This isn't just about Berkeley making a statement. There are dozens of Cities in California who have voted on similar regulations. Federal law might override municipal law, but the Feds have not closed down all of the Marijuana clubs in California.

Proposition 215, which allows some Medical Use of Marijuana, passed back in 1996. However, the measure left alot of ambiguity, and the State government has never stepped up to clarify some issues.

Local governments have taken it upon themselves to clarify some of the vague portions. For example, should Marijuana Clubs be allowed only after a public hearing or not? Berkeley's Measure R states that public hearings should not be required. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors recently passed a law requiring Marijuana Clubs be subject to the same health code as many other businesses, in an attempt to remove some of the scam operations.