AP is reporting that an 11-judge panel has unanimously overturned the decision to postpone the California recall election.
This leaves the door open for the ACLU to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, which would have to then revisit the Bush v. Gore decision of a few years back. Hopefully, this will not happen. If you're going to have a recall, do it an be done with it, don't let it drag on in a nightmare of partisan legal and judicial wrangling. I had enough of that back in 2000.
Btw, the 9th circuit is notoriously liberal, so put your tin foil hats away.
[Update] The ACLU has decided not to appeal the decision. It is to be noted that the panel's decision did not rule out the possibility of post election shenanigans. So if there are more hanging chads and disenfranchised confused old Jewish women, we can still see a replay in miniature of the post-2000 fracas.
In the meantime, however, we have avoided a potentially very harmful constitutional issue, which Johno so astutely noticed the potential for in the comments. The problem of Court intervention in elections is indeed a big bag of stinking poo looking for a home. Nevertheless, we should remember that the alternative is worse. The last seriously contested election was resolved by a smoky room bargain - you can have the presidency if you end reconstruction. What similar bargains can we imagine today? The mind quails in fear.
An extra, double-plus evil possibility (though unlikely in the extreme) is total disgust in elections, leading to assumption of power or voter repudiation of the results. Court action, however distasteful, is still within the bounds of the system. We all think or even scream out load the Shakespeare quote, "First thing, we'll kill all the lawyers," but I believe that they save us from worse.
[Moreover] the Supreme Court action in Bush v. Gore merely ended the endless recounting, and restored the intent of the Florida Legislature. And Bush won every recount that was made. You can't, in a moderately honest republic, continue counting untill you get the result you want.
While the case in California was expected to result in a test of Bush v. Gore, I think it is a very different situation. Preventing a election mandated by the CA Constitution on the mere possibility of ambiguity in the election results is different than arguing over the results of an election that was actually held.