posted on December 6, 2000 09:50:31 AM newMark090 we will know by the end of the day if entering the numbers was illegal. Judge Clark will decide that issue.
posted on December 6, 2000 10:22:53 AM new
I don't know that simply entering the numbers by republican workers on republican applications for absentee ballots is the issue. That, according to depositions in the case, democratic workers were denied the same facility and that democratic applications were trashed while republican ones were processed is why the thing is in court.
posted on December 6, 2000 10:31:41 AM newI do have a problem with the remedy requested in the lawsuit. To throw out 15,000 babies with the bathwater is extreme
As I understand it, one of the counties kept the resulting ballots separate from the rest, which would seem to indicate a fairly easy fix.
The other county, however, commingled the ballots, muddying things up a bit. Apparently, the plaintiffs will be proposing a solution that doesn't require throwing out all the ballots.
posted on December 6, 2000 10:34:25 AM new
From the testimony I've heard in the Seminole County case, the Democratic ballot applications HAD the voter IDs correctly printed. Only the Republicans had the error on their applications. Did I misunderstand?
posted on December 6, 2000 10:38:51 AM new
Watching the trial now.
From opening statements, it appears that the defense is contending that the Democrat absentee ballot applications didn't NEED to be amended once they reached the county office because the Democrats had already had a chance to tinker with those completed applications in their own office. Apparently anyone who applied for an absentee ballot through the Democrats returned that application not to the county office, but to the Democrat organization - which then got to tinker with that application before it was forwarded to the county.
Testimony will see if that claim has any merit.
posted on December 6, 2000 10:56:16 AM new
Dr. Beetle - I have always valued your views in any topic because you present them in a factual manner with very little hint of opinion. I am in Tallahasse right now and let me tell you. Since 9:00 am this morning, I have been talking with NAACP Leaders, and reviewing some of the matters which will be a part of any suit.
And I agree the irregularities in Florida exist in every State. I know in my home State of Illinois the General Assembly is already meeting to review the election laws and clarify the language of the same. I agree with one part of the NAACP argument. For anyone to assume the position that a machine cannot make a mistake when it kicks a ballot is insane.
Now on the Dimple or partial chad issue. I can see where a machine would kick the ballot. And I question why such ballots are not immediately hand counted election night. It appears to me that it is easier to hand recount the machine kicked votes to ascertain the voter intention at that point than to just kick them to the side unless they become an issue of controversey.
With that said the whole hand count of all ballots in a county was a enormous task. When only questionable ballots not accepted by the machine are really the issue. I would hope that all States take a look at recount procedures and implement recount procedures and language to the same that addresses the issue and accords the proper time to get it done based not on a set time frame for every county but one that sets the time to the volume of the task in a jurisdiction.
Now on absentee ballots both the regular ones and the military. I agree I find it extreme that 15,000 ballots will be thrown away over this issue. However what is a remedy that addresses the problem, corrects the same and preserves the votes. Because it is my understanding that there were a slew of other offices up for election. And in abscence of a remedy that can accomplish that. Judge Clark has two choices, throw out the ballots, or find fault with the process but declare that there exist no remedy under the law that protects the Constitutional Right to vote and remedies the problem in the complaint and vie it over to a higher court for guidance.
I have a remedy that does both. Was discussing it on the Plane last night to Florida with my father. Given the irregularities and the problems they afford to the process. Why isn't it possible to deny the electors to the college from those areas a vote in the electoral college. Looking at a map of Florida and where the Electoral districts are assigned. Florida if you take away the electoral votes of the areas in conflict. Florida loses exactly 12 electoral votes reducing them to 13. Then the outcome switches to the other two States that haven't chimed in as of yet. Which are Oregon and New Mexico. You give Bush all 13 votes from Florida and neither candidate has 270 until Oregon and New Mexico come forward. Between those States you have 12 votes. Gore has 255 and Bush pre Florida has 246 post Florida at 13 he has 259. If Bush wins both Oregon and New Mexico he is President under the 270 system.
If Gore wins both he has 267 to Bush's 259 and in abscence of the full college due to irregularities that would disenfranchise voters in clear violation of the Constitution. Simple majority rules and Gore is President but both have a chance to win and the Florida mess is closed. No legislature involvement, and I wouldn't agree with the legislature nominating a slew of electors along Partisian lines even if Florida as Democrat in the State Legislature. Because it takes the vote from the people. And places it in the hands of politicians voting along party lines.
I can live with that decision and I think most Americans would be able to live with it. No vote is cast out, no Florida recounts, and the system as designed by the forefathers prevails.
Are you folks watching the reading of Goard's deposition?
To this layman's ears...this is BIG!!!
Of course, I'm sure the Republican Party thinks that at the least Goard should have her hands slapped and at the most, removal from her position as Seminole County Elections Supervisor.
It seems to me that Goard allowed herself to be intimidated by her Party and as a result, re-wrote the rules.
Edited to add:
I'm sure someone will come along to set me straight.
posted on December 6, 2000 01:07:42 PM new
Watching here too, femme.
I think the most interesting portion of Goard's testimony was regarding Plaintiff's claim that the Democrats weren't permitted, or notified, or given the opportunity to make voter ID amendations/emendations to THEIR voters' absentee ballot requests.
Goard was shown the absentee ballot request printed by the Democrats. The voter ID # is on it, all right - entered by the Democratic Party. So the Democrats filled in for THEIR voters the same info they're grousing about the Republicans filling in.
Moreover, the return-mail address preprinted on the Democrats' absentee-ballot-request card is NOT that of the County voting office, but of "House Victory 2000," a Democratic organization, which then - after having the opportunity to examine these cards in the privacy of its own offices, forwarded them on to the County. I don't see much difference here with the "access" Republicans were granted to Republican absentee-ballot-request cards. Maybe somebody can educate me on this.
If, however, the Plaintifff alleges - as has been suggested - the Republican "operatives" somehow had both access to the county voting records database AND a county employee's password to somehow ALTER those records, AND there's evidence of any tinkering....then I'd say we have an issue here.
Statistician's on now testifying regarding which proportions the baby should be cut up assuming that we don't throw it out with the bathwater.
posted on December 6, 2000 01:20:18 PM new
I've only been able to catch bits and pieces, but I did see opening arguments, during which a display was shown that contained copies of actual application forms. The Dems' forms had no registration number and were fished out of the disqualified pile. The Repubs' forms had been fixed to add the numbers, and the applicants had been issued ballots.
posted on December 6, 2000 02:17:14 PM new
And this time that good looking lawyer Barry Richards is not going to get them out of this one on principals of the law. The Democrats have the law on their side. They can work over the statistician but it still doesn't change the fact that this all reeks from fraud. Yep, this one is the smoker and sleeper...GW better not be writing his inaguaral address quite yet, cause this is a smoker------I love the atty for Sandra Goard stating what a nice sweet innocent women she is....I am watching all of this in awe---The Bush people are trying to undermind this case,but if the law prevails this is still fraud.
Turn around is fair play,if the voters of W Palm Beach were not allowed a revote, why should these illegal ballots be allowed in...
Note how fast the Fla legislature just called a session. Bush may be the first Prez that is appointed and not elected.
posted on December 6, 2000 02:25:57 PM newBush may be the first Prez that is appointed and not elected.
How quick we forget. Anyone vote for Gerald Ford as president or vice president?
The courts may not finish in time for the Florida legislature to have a choice in my opinion. The entire Seminole county dispute is a bit ridiculous in my opinion, the voters were registered, they applied for absentee ballots, they were never informed there was a problem with their application till after the fact. I can't see any reasonable ruling throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
posted on December 6, 2000 02:37:14 PM new
HCQ - At essence in this litigation isn't that the numbers were added a essence is when the numbersthe were added. Goard allowed to Rpublican party to change the incorrect ones as opposed to disqualifyng the ballots or returning them to the boter for the information.
The essence is should the party been allowed to enter the offices and correct their mistake at the point of qualification. Or should the ballots been returned to the voter to be corrected or should the voter been contacted by the party to make the changes or expedite a complete with proper information form.
IMHO allowing the party to make the corrections to their error on behalf of their members at the point of qualification was improper. The ballots should have been disqualified and the voter notified why. Instead she called the party and said "hey you guys messed up these applications and none of these votes will count".
They said let us send someone down there to make the needed corrections. Which poses another legal question, who has the right to make changes to a form that requires the signature of record of the person submiting the form. When that signature is to validate that the information is correct.
Because in essence those ballots should be disqualified because the corrections were made without the knowledge of the signer of the form. Regardless of whether the signer after the fact accepts the corrections. I hate to see 15,000 voters disenfranchised but another legal question arises were those votes intentionally lumped together to make legal challenege to the issue cause a Judge to have to ponder the Baby with the bathwater remedy which all can accept is too drastic.
Watching how the Bush lawyers have tried to discredit a Statistical solution to avoid disenfranchising 15000 voters. They seem to want to force Judge Clark into the baby with the bath water solution and take the issue up with the Florida Supreme and then the US Supreme. And given the situation that a loss of 1300 votes will lose the election anyway. Judge Clark provided the plaintiff in the Seminole case meet the burden of proof of impropriety is being forced into a decision that undoubtly will be appealed to the Florida Supreme. Which means the Florida legislature will call a special session and name a slew of delegates to appoint Bush.
Which then will cause a motion before the Supreme to discuss the remedy I suggested in another thread to disqualify all the electors to the college from all disputed Florida areas. Which if granted will effectively allow the Florida legislature to act within its Constitutiona right. But limit its ability to finally decide the election. Which will draw everyone's focus to Oregon and New Mexico.
posted on December 6, 2000 02:52:49 PM new
uaru- it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is a lot of fraud in this state. (I live in Fla). Just look at Martin County, Seminole County, and now the disenfranchized black voters and minorities. And I hear more suits forth coming.
Now the Fla legislature is taking away my vote. They have been waiting for Gore to concede or for a clear decision from the courts. With this not happenning Tom Feeney has now decided to appt an alternate slate of electors. Now they are using their muscle to intimidate the courts.
posted on December 6, 2000 02:59:07 PM new
The Florida legislature backed off from a special session earlier in the week because of backlash in public opinion from both Democrats AND Republicans, and because they thought it wouldn't be needed after the circuit court and US Supreme Court rulings. HA! They are determined to circumvent any court ruling which does not find in their favor, and the means justifies the ends. So they will do this. It is political suicide for those members, as it is highly doubtful that they will be elected to any office in Florida again. So be it. Even if they appoint their own electors, eventually it will all come out in continuing court cases, and it will only further DE-legitimize Bush's presidency.
posted on December 6, 2000 03:01:59 PM new
It's really incredible.
The most amazing court thing I've ever seen.
BTW-though the evidence indicating that ballot requests sent by the party were complete, no evidence indicates that any democratic requests not distributed by the party were complete. They had to get those democratic requests which remained in the box to be disqualified from somewhere, and they are there still apparently, because no helpful mystery democrat and his invisible partner were allowed to correct them.
Too much funny business.
"I believe he showed me a business card", so I let him have the run of the place.
"I received a call from the state republican committee" but "I don't remember who it was who called". Oh,....OK.
posted on December 6, 2000 03:21:47 PM new
The whole integrity of the process is being scrutinized.and isn't it ironic that the legislature called this session on the eve of the Fla supreme ct hearing. It is well known that their is no love lost between the courts and the legislature in the state of fla. This was orchestrated to intimidate the court to let them know that if they do not rule in their favor they will step in----
I wouldn't be suprised if this state doesn't go crazy soon!
posted on December 6, 2000 03:40:07 PM newInstead she called the party and said "hey you guys messed up these applications and none of these votes will count".
I believe testimony was that, after Goard was interviewed on a local radio program about the problem, Republican party "operatives" (good catch-all word) contacted HER.
Goard allowed to Republican party to change the incorrect [voter identification numbers] ones
I don't think so. It's my understanding that there weren't any voter ID numbers TO change on the applications - that they were to have been included before they were sent to voters, but the printer erroneously omitted them. So the voter ID numbers were not CHANGED but ADDED.
I do agree with you, however, that the difference between the Democratic and Republican voter-ID-number addition is WHEN, not WHETHER. However, my sense from Plaintiff's questioning is that the Plaintiff's more serious "issue" here is the Republican operatives having had "access" to these cards (for tinkering with e.g. addresses) or the county database (to perhaps delete Democratic voters) in what Plaintiff characterizes as a "secure" area (which apparently had a door directly to the outside which employees used to go out for a smoke break).
I think your solution to "disqualify all the electors to the college from all disputed Florida areas" is an interesting one, but since Florida grants its electors to one candidate or the other in an all-or-nothing fashion, and the electors aren't connected, so to speak, with any particularl county or precinct, I don't see how you can proportionately distribute those electors' votes without circumventing Florida law. Maybe you can clarify this.
posted on December 6, 2000 03:57:25 PM newbut since Florida grants its electors to one candidate or the other in anall - or - nothing fashion
That certainly isn't true. Florida 'grants' nothing. Electors vote in line with the majority vote in the state in most cases, but are not required to do so in law in Florida.
The entire reason for the republican push to certify a new second set of electors is to better insure that they will vote the republican line.
The previous slate of electors , (already submitted and certified to the electoral college) is comprised of 11 republicans and 17 democrats (alternates, I guess, account for the total). With that makeup the republicans feel that there is a risk of some of the state's electoral votes being cast for Gore.
posted on December 6, 2000 04:01:14 PM new
Neat little observation:
POLITEX...This is one of the great ironies of the election. During the Lewinsky hearing, Michael Leach posted an essay on Free Republic.com titled It's The Law,
Stupid. In it he states "A felony is a felony." He argues that Clinton perjured himself and should go to jail. Turns out he's one of the people who added the voter id
numbers to the ballot request forms in Seminole County. And during his deposition he responds (under oath) that he didn't do anything wrong and that he had no idea it
was wrong. He was merely "correcting the ballots." He also cops an Ollie North plea that he's a military man and he was "just following orders." Republican hypocrisy at
his best.
posted on December 6, 2000 05:16:45 PM new
Yes, it got so old during the Monica scandal listening to every Republican with vocal chords proclaiming "You can't bend the rules; the law is the law."
Funny how that mantra's now morphed to "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
I'm still waiting for somebody to tell us how Jeb's going to get away with certifying a *second* set of electors. Seems like that's another little question of law the Fla. legislators are pretending doesn't exist.
posted on December 6, 2000 06:49:57 PM new
You're right, krs. The word "grant" was hardly apt. My intent was to question whether Florida law permits the 25 electors to be assigned proportionally as per networker67's suggestion. I don't believe they can be formally apportioned in that manner - although as you say nothing in FL law (that I know of, at least) prevents a "Republican" elector from switching his electoral vote to the Democratic candidate, but that's the decision of the individual elector.
Am I right in recalling that, as in the case heard by Sauls, to obtain the relief he requests, the Plaintiff in the Seminole matter must prove that the outcome of the election was probably affected by the actions and events of which he complains? Or is his only burden to prove that they actually occurred?
Edited to add:: Found another Michael Leach site - I think it's his home page. His homepage identifies him as "a deputy sheriff, and hold an active law enforcement commission with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement...I began my law enforcement career back in 1990 in the United States Air Force, where I was assigned to the 4557th Security Police Squadron, Keflavik’, Iceland; I served in support of Operation: Desert Shield/Storm....
I am a student at Florida State University....I am very active in Republican politics here in Florida, and I’m officially announcing my candidacy for a seat in the Florida House of Representatives, District 9, Tallahassee in the summer of 2001."
Last sentence: "The Republican case stresses that a voter's right to have his or her vote counted outweighs any technical problems with ballot applications." When the law isn't the law I guess. (Although the remedy requested in the suit is somewhat extreme.) Since the statement reminds me of what the Dems were saying in other instances it cracked me up. Depends on whose ox is being gored, I guess. (No pun intended.)
Also another AP story, "GOP in N.M. Looking For Bush Votes"
posted on December 6, 2000 07:14:27 PM new
[b]Networker67 says: “Why isn't it possible to deny the electors to the college from those areas a vote in the electoral college.
This is actually a harsher remedy than the one proposed by the plaintiff in this case. Instead of disenfranchising 15,000 absentee voters you propose to disenfranchise two entire counties of voters? If my county loses its elector by what rationale can you say that my vote has been preserved? You’ll have to explain how this is a more equitable solution.
On another subject – many posters seem to be using ballots and absentee ballot requests interchangeably, they are not the same thing. Having an absentee ballot request that might have been illegally modified (yet to be determined by the courts) is a far cry from having an illegal ballot.
Another pair of terms being used as if they had the same meaning is illegal and fraud. According to my American Heritage dictionary fraud is: A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Illegal is:Prohibited by law. The court might indeed find that the Supervisor of Elections actions were illegal. That is not the same as finding that the required dishonest intent existed to have those actions qualify as fraud.
Dr. Beetle
Edited to add: For those of you that want to see what sections of Florida law that the plaintiff thinks are applicable in this contest you can read his complaint here
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Dec 6, 2000 07:41 PM ]
Here is the link to the referenced statement:
