Almost two million registered California voters signed the petitions to initiate the recall (the timing of which is set by the California Constitution, to wit:

SEC. 15.  (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer
and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the
Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from
the date of certification of sufficient signatures.
(b) A recall election may be conducted within 180 days from the
date of certification of sufficient signatures in order that the
election may be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled
election occurring wholly or partially within the same jurisdiction
in which the recall election is held, if the number of voters
eligible to vote at that next regularly scheduled election equal at
least 50 percent of all the voters eligible to vote at the recall
election.
(c) If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer
is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives
a plurality is the successor.  The officer may not be a candidate,
nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to
subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.

(emphasis mine)

So the election can be postponed up to 180 days, so long as it is consolidated with “the next regularly scheduled election” (which will be on November 4th), but the ACLU is claiming that because some counties are still going to be using the punchcard ballots (which were sufficient to elect Gray Davis this last time, and no one filed a law suit - maybe because they knew that a Democrat would win). Those counties are required to shift to computerized touch-screen ballots before the March primary, but that was because of the hassles during the last Presidential election in Florida.

I have already called the ACLU office is Los Angeles and told them they really need to get their act together, because they are concerned with neither Americans nor with civil liberties. They are concerned with the raping of young boys (which they call “Protected Free Speech"), and with eliminating manger scenes open to the public (which they call “Freedom of Religion"), and with eliminating gun ownership, among all of the other “liberties” they are “protecting”, it just must be a coincidence that their legal arguments in this instance exactly mirror Gray Davis’ complaints about the recall.

If the election methods aren’t good enough for the recall, can Bill Simon claim that the election of Gray was invalidated on the basis of today’s ruling?

Asshats. But that’s not the end of it, and we’re going into the final weeks. Stand by, because now it gets rough.