posted on November 17, 2000 12:57:29 PM new
This whole thing has become very muddled, because both the Republicans and Democrats have been very busy putting out emotionally persuasive arguments.
Gore did not try to steal the election by asking for recounts in selected counties. That was perfectly permissible under Florida law, no matter how the Republicans tried to spin it.
The crux of the biscuit was how to do the recounts, by hand or by machine.
Lots of noise was made about the accuracy of hand recounts vs. machine recounts. Democrats said they were more accurate, Republicans said they were less accurate. Democrats harped on Gov. George W. Bush's signing into Texas law the preference for hand recounting. So what? It's not Texas law that controls, but Florida law.
Kathleen Harris has interpreted the Florida law on the methodology to be used by counties which are conducting recounts. Harris reads that the Florida law, unlike Texas law, disfavors hand recounts.
Her interpretation might be correct. Maybe the Florida legislature, in enacting the statues governing the methodology of recounts, did intend to disfavor hand recounts. Why would any legislature favor a less accurate counting method?
These are among the possible reasons:
1. The Florida legislature might have valued speed and efficiency over accuracy.
2. The Florida legislature might have been intending to favor Republican votes.
Studies of voting patterns have shown that Democratic voters have a higher rate of voter error than Republican voters. I'm not talking about in this particular election. That has nothing to do with Palm Beach County butterfly ballots, it's the pattern of voting overall, nationwide, at all levels of elections.
If a voter has voted properly, a machine that was designed to tabulate properly voted ballots, if this machine is working correctly, will correctly tabulate properly executed votes.
What is voter error? Voter error includes voter mistakes such as - Punching votes for 2 candidates for the same race (over-voting), or attempting to place 1 vote, but incompletely registering your preference (undervoting)
Any vote with a chad still in place, a dimple, a circling of a candidate's name rather than a complete punch, a writing of a candidate's name rather than a complete punch, is an undervote, if the voting directions instruct a voter to do otherwise.
Kathleen Harris has pointed to Palm Beach County's clearly posted instructions, inside its votings booths, that chad must be completely dislodged in order to properly cast a vote. Those instructions further advise all voters to check their ballot cards before turning them in, to confirm that the chad are completely dislodged.
Why do Democrats have such a higher rate of voting error than Republicans? Are Democrats too stupid to properly execute their vote according to local voting instructions?
Maybe they are.
But if they are, should that be reason enough to give lesser weight to their voting preference?
Instinctively, we might say "Yes!" People who are too stupid to cast a ballot have no business voting!!
But how far do you take that reasoning? Should intelligence factor into the weight of each person's right to vote? Should a guy with a college degree be given 2 votes, while a guy with a high school degree be given 1 vote? Should a guy with a Ph.D. receive 3 votes? Should someone who dropped out in 8th grade and is functionally illiterate be denied the right to vote completely?
A few years ago, I learned that a 40ish white man of my acquaintance, very articulate, very smart, was illiterate.
He owned a successful small business, and he was a propserous person. He was active in his church, in his community, had grown children. And he couldn't read. He depended on his wife, he told me, to do the paperwork necessary to run his business. I learned this when, at my home, he asked me to make a phone call for him, and read to the person on the other end some information off a card he handed me, saying "I can't read." He said it simply, without embarassment or apology.
On his own, he shared a little about how he functions without being able to read. I didn't ask him why he couldn't read.
Seems to me, if I were him, I might be able to go in a voting booth and recognize the names of Gore and Bush, and yet be unable to interpret a paragraph of voting instructions, no matter how big the letters were.
Anyway, I can't say I like Katherine Harris, and I can't say I trust her. But she might have more of a basis for her position than has been pointed out.
posted on November 17, 2000 01:05:05 PM new
It appears that a couple of people here would benefit from a broadening of their scope beyond mere acceptance of the latest republican raionale, for it seems to give them the leeway to form opinions which are at variance with fact.
uaru,
your persistent claim of votes "counted and recounted" is simply not true. If you will reference another thread here it raises the spectre of ten full counties in Florida who's votes were NEVER recounted as required by Florida law. The initial tally was only resubmitted as-is, as correct.
The judge in this most recent decision did not give "democratic support" or "side with" Ms. Harris, nor did he rule that her actions were "fair and just"; he only specified that she was within her rights to act as she did without any judicial assessment of the action itself.
The text of the ruling is available in media, but I'm not going to hold your hands as you venture out beyond the nice safe world of republican bigotry. Go find it yourselves.
posted on November 17, 2000 01:51:52 PM new
krs...funny, but the way I read it, it states the Judge disagrees with the Plaintiffs, which I take to mean he agrees the Defendant is acting correctly within the scope of her authority.
[i]Text of decision Friday by Leon County Circuit Judge Terry Lewis denying a motion to force Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to accept hand counted presidential votes tallied after the state's Nov. 14 deadline:
"The limited issue before me on this motion is whether the Secretary of State has violated my order of November 14, 2000. The Plaintiffs assert that she has acted arbitrarily in deciding to ignore amended returns from counties conducting manual recounts. I disagree.
As noted in my previous order, Florida law grants to the Secretary, as the chief elections officer, broad discretionary authority to accept or reject late filed returns. The purpose and intent of my order was to ensure that she in fact properly exercised her discretion rather than automatically reject returns that came in after the statutory deadline.
On the limited evidence presented it appears that the Secretary has exercised her reasoned judgment to determine what relevant factors and criteria should be considered, applied them to the facts and circumstances pertinent to the individual counties involved and made her decision. My order requires nothing more.
Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged that the motion is hereby denied."[/i]
edited because italics is not cooperating.
*****************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
[ edited by njrazd on Nov 17, 2000 01:52 PM ]
posted on November 17, 2000 01:54:18 PM newkrbThe judge in this most recent decision did not give "democratic support" or "side with" Ms. Harris, nor did he rule that her actions were "fair and just"; he only specified that she was within her rights to act as she did without any judicial assessment of the action itself.
You beat me to it - I was just about to make the same point. All that the judge in Leon County said was that she legally had the right to make the decision.
And - to go further - he did not say that the decision she made was legal - just that she had the legal authority to make it. World of difference.
posted on November 17, 2000 02:12:04 PM new
And indeed...Mr. Gore will find moral authority somewhere. Damn shame his own state of Tennessee didn't want him. Damn shame his own district didn't want him. They know him best of all...don'tcha think?
On the other hand. Perhaps if they keep counting...someone...somewhere...will think he won.
posted on November 17, 2000 02:21:16 PM new
Discretion is a very tricky thing. Harris (I keep on calling her Kathleen) is hearing much more about that than she probably ever wanted to.
I think the Democrats' blew it in the last Circuit Court case. I saw their oral arguments on TV and they sucked bigtime. They had some Tallahassee Matlock wannabe up there. Boise, the super-lawyer that all the media guys are drooling over, was there, but he didn't make any oral arguments at all.
I read the Democrats' written argument in the same case, and it was better than their oral presentation, but that's not saying much.
Basically, the Democrats' argument, the way I read it, was that Harris couldn't have used her discretion properly because she'd made her decision not to accept the late returns in a matter of mere hours after receiving the counties' petitions for excuse.
What the Democrats should have argued is that she misinterpreted, constructed too narrowly, the amount of discretion (leeway) she had under law to accept late returns.
What the Circuit Court judge said in his decision kind of made me think he wished there had been more evidence presented to him that would give him a basis to rule in the Democrats' favor. But the Democrats didn't give him anything to work with.
Courts are always leery of interjecting themselves too much into other branches of government, and Harris has been arguing an executive branch separation of powers position. It's a strong argument, but not a sure winner, as Richard Nixon found out.
I think what would really be fun is if Harris would stand up tomorrow and declare that she doesn't recognize the Fl. Supreme Court's authority over her, and that she has a duty under law to certify this election.
posted on November 17, 2000 02:24:41 PM new
good god, Donny. This is not for fun. I am not amused. I was at first...not now. I am becoming pissed, at last.
posted on November 17, 2000 02:45:41 PM new
I'm sorry Toke, I don't mean to offend you, or anyone, with my fascination over this whole thing.
As a political science major and former law student, this has all the stuff in it that I love, all together, at the same time, moving at the speed of light, and not only is it all on tv, but on the internet. It's a lot more interesting to watch than Watergate was, which was basically a bunch of stuffy old white guys.
People like me thought that Watergate would be the story of their lifetime. We can't hardly help but be a little thrilled to find we were wrong, this is all that, and maybe even more.
It may even be settled at the U.S. Congressional level, the Republican leader is sending around memos on the authority of Congress to reject electoral college votes. Democrats are sending out an operative to look at possibility of turning electoral delegates to the other side.
There's so much possibility in this, so much to consider, so many scenarios. This might be the biggest story in American history so far. And I'm eating it up.
You're perfectly right to be annoyed by my unconcealed enjoyment, it is unseemly, and I apologize.
posted on November 17, 2000 03:13:48 PM new
Donny is correct---this is living history---the textbooks will all have to be re-written--there are graduate students picking this as their topic for their masters or PHD's--it will be picked to pieces by scholars for decades to come.
Serious--yes--but it is gripping news-history happening right in front of you in your time.
posted on November 17, 2000 03:43:18 PM new
njrazd,
It's too bad that you had to labor so hard to post that outtake from the (now moot) decision of Judge Lewis as we all knew the court's decision already. Denial of a petition does not mean that the Democratic court lends support to Harris, or 'sides' with Harris, as you previously have said it did.
posted on November 17, 2000 03:50:55 PM new
KRS...
I'm sorry you feel you need to work so hard. But here you are...with a totally without merit position. That's ok, though. I know you feel, because of your age...you have a right. Wrong, sweetie.
posted on November 17, 2000 03:55:52 PM new
krs...yes, and I realize I have misspoke. I will change my statement to say the earlier decision today "affirmed" Harris' decision.
I will have to track down a quote I heard on the radio at lunchtime today. The pundit said if the Supreme Court voted using the law, they would affirm Harris. If they voted using politics, they would rescind. I'm sure it will be somewhere on the web by tonight.
******************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 17, 2000 05:09:06 PM new
I just wanted to reiterate what the court (Judge Terry Lewis) actually said, in slightly different words.
Originally K. Harris had claimed that she couldn't accept any late counts because, well, there was this statutary deadline (Tues. 5 p.m.) and well, shoot, she just doesn't have any discretion in the matter.
Judge Lewis's original court order told her that she DOES have discretion about whether or not to accept late counts AND that her dicisions "must not be arbitrary."
Many pundits called it a "Solomonic decision" in that Lewis didn't tell her HOW to do her job, but told her she must exercise the discretion she has and not reject late counts arbitrarily.
So, she takes herself back to her office, she and her staff and counsel research case law on the subject and come up with criteria by which she can summarily dismiss all those counties' late counts. And they knew that.
Some people believe that the judge's original order was hinting to her that she had wide discretion -- at least wider than she ended up exercising. However, when it came back to him for review, he said MERELY that she had used discretion and not ruled arbitrarily.
IMO, she and her advisors failed to consider highly relevent case law emphasizing that voters' rights to have their votes counted is very, very highly regarded in FL (and most states).
Also IMO, Judge Lewis refused to get into any of the merits of her decision (if he was even asked to do so, and I'm not sure he was) because he knew that this case would (and should) go to the FL Supreme Court and so I think he was just sorta passing it along with as little comment as possible.
All he said was, "Yep, she followed my order." And he absolutely failed to say how WELL he thought she followed it.
posted on November 17, 2000 05:18:22 PM new
Donny -- I missed seeing those oral arguments. But even there, don't you think they migh have been just going thru the motions (so to speak), knowing the thing would NO DOUBT make it to higher courts? I mean really, which side would've backed down and dropped their suit depending on what the judge ordered? Neither. Everybody knew, and in fact positioned themselves, to get to the Supremes as quickly as possilbe (esp since time really IS of the essence). Don't you think that possible?
posted on November 17, 2000 07:09:24 PM new
Hi CleverGirl,
Yes, I think you're right, in that each side, as well as the Circuit Judge, knew that whatever happened, it would be going to a higher court. But here's the thing:
When a higher court agrees to hear your appeal, it doesn't mean that you get a chance to make a brand new argument. What you get is a chance to restate, and have a review, of the arguments and facts you managed to bring up the first time.
I'm not sure if I'm explaning that right, but, basically, it's not a free learning experience for plaintiff. He can't say to himself "Gee, I see that the arguments I made to first court to hear about this were sucky and unpersuasive, lemme see what different, better arguments might work the second time around." The position you chose for yourself the first time is the position you're stuck with the next time.
However, I think I heard, in passing, that the Democrats' appeal to the Florida Supreme Court isn't only of this last Circuit Court decision, but of an earlier decision as well. What other, earlier decision that is, I haven't been able to track down, if I even heard it correctly. It gets really confusing trying to keep track of all this stuff
posted on November 17, 2000 09:18:10 PM new
Apologies, CleverGirl, Pedantry R Us.
Here's a few websites to find documents on. All or nearly all of these are in Pdf format, which is ridiculously slow for my computer to load up and read.
Cnn.com's Law Center (I think you'll find at least part of what you want under the heading of "Challenge to Florida's November 14 deadline for election election certification McDermott v. Harris" )
I see that you have chosen to throw up a very unflattering picture of this Kathleen Harris.
I am sooooooo tired of women in the public eye being judged and attacked based on their looks.
Seen a congress session lately? The room is filled to the brim with butt ugly men.
Hardly ever hear a political argument started with a joke about how ugly a man is, yet it is almost always made a point of when the political difference of views is directed at a woman.
I'm sick of it.
BTW I think Bush and Gore both suck and if Daffy Duck was my other choice I would have voted for the duck.
