I love how you accuse me of bad grammar, yet you failed to even notice the two "voting" words in a row. Our Constitution only has one "voting" just so you know.
Listen, as well as being the governor of our region, I'm also the chief election officer that "oversees all elections" according to our Constitution. Our Constitution has several interpretations, and the way I and others view it is the replacement vote takes place in the case the recall is successful. Adam's post sums it up the best:
I've been a part of many a recall in my day - and witnessed plenty of others - and it's always been a scenario of
a) circulate petition; if threshold is reached, a recall vote occurs
b) a vote to recall is held; if threshold is reached, an election occurs,
c) people eligible to run for office compete in separate election
This combined recall/election concept makes zero sense. Clearly, a petition was circulated that has triggered a recall vote. Said vote will be held in a few days, and if 60% of people vote to recall, then there will be an additional vote with all of the declared candidates vying for the office.
"Along" in this case can also mean "in addition to", which can imply two separate votes.
As Buckley would say, "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said."
