posted on November 21, 2000 04:42:22 PM new
njrazd, if that is the case, then why can't those lawyers argue that point? It's not unreasonable for a judge to expect lawyers appearing in their courtroom to do the homework so they can answer questions the judges deem relevant. Besides, declaring that pencil marked ballots are simply less ambiguous then hole punched ballots -- that's arbitrary, isn't it?
posted on November 21, 2000 04:55:27 PM new
I think that the Bush lawyers may be setting themselves up for a full recount or full recount of the questioned ballots. There's no use to argue whether one state's balloting is more readable than another's as this case concerns only Florida.
Does anyone know if Florida law has provision for a limited runoff election?
posted on November 21, 2000 04:59:20 PM newThe judges are supposed to be reviewing the information and making their decisions based on FLORIDA law, not anywhere else.
The courts process, hearing argument, taking of evidence, deliberation thereto, etc., etc., may include "persuasive" sister state law and court rulings. While such is not legally binding, it certainly can be a pivotal factor, particulary within the instant case, considering one of the direct parties in this matter is the chief executive officer of said sister state where "pregnant chads" are part and parcel of codified election law.
This is also why I cited the previous Mass. case. Courts frequently look to other bodies, especially when there is no controlling precedent or statute within their own jurisdiction.
posted on November 21, 2000 05:27:16 PM new
Okay, here's my version of what happened and how that Texas law question came to be asked.
Bush's lawyer asserted that the hand counting going on now was unfair because it was only giving attention to the voters in the 4 counties that Gore had selected, and not the other counties.
The judge asked Bush's lawyer, if that had been their concern, then why Bush didn't ask for handcounts in other counties besides those 4 himself, which was Bush's right also under law (i.e. If your client thinks that counting only 4 counties is unfair, why didn't your client remedy that unfairness by requesting hand counts of all the other counties, he could have done that.)
And Bush's lawyer turned red and said that his client's belief was that hand counting in and of itself was inherently inaccurate and unreliable.
The judge looked pretty surprised at that, taken aback, really, since hand counting has long been universally recognized as being more accurate than machine counts. I'd say the judge looked almost shocked. When Bush's lawyer told her it was his client's belief that hand counting, in and of itself, was inaccurate and unreliable, it was as if Bush's lawyer had said that it was his client's belief that the sun rose in the west and set in the east.
And that led the judge to ask Bush's lawyer about the Texas law that specifically favors hand counts. And what could he say then? He sputtered and stammered and said he had no idea what the Texas law was.
Now, I don't know for sure if Texas has punch ballots or what. But if Texas law specifically mentions that pregnant chad are countable, and hanging chad, etc. are countable, that would have to be referring to a punch type ballot, wouldn't it?
posted on November 21, 2000 08:27:34 PM new
On point:
On another key issue, the high court did not specifically address the question of whether ``dimpled'' ballots could be counted - those are the punchcard ballots with indentations but not full perforations - but cited an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that the seven justices said was ``particularly apt in this case.''
``These voters should not be disfranchised where their intent may be ascertained with reasonable certainty,'' the Florida court wrote, quoting the Illinois ruling.
posted on November 21, 2000 08:59:27 PM new"Ignoring the county’s returns is a drastic measure and is appropriate only if the returns are submitted to the Department so late that their inclusion will compromise the integrity of the electoral process in either of two ways: (1) by precluding a candidate, elector, or taxpayerfrom contesting the certification of an election pursuant to section 102.168; or (2) by precluding Florida voters from participating fully in the federal electoral process.55 In either case, the Secretary must explain to the Board her reason for ignoring the returns and her action must be adequately supported by the law. To disenfranchise electors in an effort to deter Board members, as the Secretary in the present case proposes, is unreasonable".
posted on November 21, 2000 09:04:45 PM newAlthough error cannot be completely eliminated in any tabulation of the ballots, our society has not yet gone so far as to place blind faith in machines.In almost all endeavors, including elections, humans routinely correct the errors of machines. For this very reason Florida law provides a human check on both the malfunction of tabulation equipment and error in failing to accurately count the ballots. Thus, we find that the Division’s opinion DE 00-13 regarding the ability of county canvassing boards to authorize a manual recount is contrary to the plain language of the statute.
posted on November 21, 2000 09:21:15 PM new
In citing the same opinion rendered by the Illinois Supreme Court referenced above, the Florida Supreme Court said:
The voters here did everything which the Election Code requires when they punched the appropriate chad with the stylus. These voters should not be disfranchised where their intent may be ascertained with reasonable certainty, simply because the chad they punched did not completely dislodge from the ballot. Such a failure may be attributable to the fault of the election authorities, for failing to provide properly perforated paper,(raising the question of pregnant or dimpled, depending on the non-perforability of the ballot?) or it may be the result of the voter's disability or inadvertence. Whatever the reason, where the intention of the voter can be fairly and satisfactorily ascertained, that intention should be given effect.
