Each such elector shall be a qualified elector of the party he or she represents who has taken an oath that he or she will vote for the candidates of the party that he or she is nominated to represent.
I see no specific penalties for breaking that oath, however, although there's a general provision for violtions that considers them first-degree misdemeanors. Not sure if it covers this:
posted on December 8, 2000 04:02:51 PM
Believe that all is for the Florida primary election.
103.011 Electors of President and Vice President.--Electors of President and Vice President, known as presidential electors, shall be elected on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each year the number of which is a multiple of 4. Votes cast for the actual candidates for President and Vice President shall be counted as votes cast for the presidential electors supporting such candidates. The Department of State shall certify as elected the presidential electors of the candidates for President and Vice President who receive the highest number of votes.
posted on December 8, 2000 04:39:29 PM
Well they called Gore sore loserman Look how fast they doest protest. As fast as their little republican feet can carry them off, they go to find a judge in Atlanta to file an injunction, and appeal to theSupreme Court No less.....
And what happen to the judge Heehee Oh yes, Here comes the judge ,but wait he just recused himself------This is all turning out to be a comedy of errors What's next I can hardly wait. Jeb Bush signing the legislation, oh yes, thats gonna go over well in the history books isn't it?....And I live in the State of Florida, and what can I tell my grandchildren about all of this?
Well I could have warned all of them.......We have been trying to get gambling into this state for years....The legacy here is the Seminole Indians and the BINGO parlors are thriving------Maybe GW should have used their lawyers.... It's a senior citizen haven here for BINGO-----
And the fat lady keeps singing
Zelda
posted on December 8, 2000 04:47:57 PMHere comes the judge, but wait he just recused himself
Probably a wise decision on at least two counts: on a personal level, it separates him from a reversal he can't help finding repugnant (not that judges haven't bitten the bullet and acted in ways they disagreed with), and it distances him from a count that, since HE didn't order it, would immediately be questioned by SOMEbody because he, whose opinion regarding the count being done has already been known, was involved with it.
posted on December 8, 2000 04:53:43 PM
Gore stole it? If the recount does take place and there are more votes for Gore than Bush, then Florida's electoral votes should go to Gore and he should become president. Gore has about 250,000 more votes nationally than Bush. The nation would be choosing the president instead of the state of Florida.
I continue to read about people believing this election should prove to us how important each vote is. I think it's exactly the opposite. My vote matters very little because I didn't vote in FL.
IMO, whether Bush or Gore is president, he will have very little influence thanks to this election fiasco. I certainly hope the legislators take a long hard look at abandoning the electoral college.
posted on December 8, 2000 05:00:01 PM
Personally, I'm in shock. I always felt that just recounting the votes in Broward/Palm Beach/Miami-Dade was unfair. I thought they should recount *all* the disputed votes in the whole state. But I never thought it would actually happen (because it makes too much sense).
But I was wrong!! Wonders never cease - the Florida Supreme Court made a fair decision!!!
If Bush wins the manual count, I will support him. He will have honestly won. If Gore wins, I feel the same way.
posted on December 8, 2000 05:05:18 PM
That's the way I'm taking it, HCQ, that Judge Sauls recused himself because he disagrees with the direction the Court has given. As for distancing himself from a "reversal", the reversal of his decision will stand on the books, so really there is no way he can "distance" himself from it. It is what it is. I find it interesting that there haven't been the howls of protests of judicial partisanship coming from the Democrats every time a decision is rendered against them. Yet that is what I continue to hear from the Republicans. It deeply disturbs me. They constantly deride and attack the judiciary as partisan for each and every decision that isn't in their favor. It's very distasteful and unseemly.
The Department of State shall certify as elected the presidential electors of the candidates for President and Vice President who receive the highest number of votes.So what does this mean in light of the doings of the special session of the Florida Legislature, krs. If the Florida Legislature appoints its own slate of electors, doesn't that act over ride that section you quoted? I'm interested in this because you brought up an interesting question the other day about how Jeb Bush goes about "decertifying" the 1st slate and certifying the new slate of appointees. Can this be done? Certainly he had plenty of time to certify the electors, yet there was a rush to do it. Is this something that's going to come back to bite them on the ass?
posted on December 8, 2000 05:13:23 PMkatyd, when I said by recusing himself Sauls could distance himself from the reversal, I referred to his not having to involve himself in an action (the recount) he clearly strongly felt was not supported by FL law, not that he could separate himself from the case on which his name appears.
Excerpts from Judge Wells's dissenting opinion. FoxNews is characterizing it as "scathing," and I can't disagree:
I could not more strongly disagree with their decision to reverse the trial court and prolong this judicial process. I also believe that the majority's decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution. My succinct conclusion is that the majority's decision to return this case to the circuit court...has no foundation in the law of Florida as it existed on November 7, 2000, or at any time until the issuance of this opinion....Directing the trial court to conduct a manual recount of the ballots violates article II, section 1, clause 2 of the United States Constitution....I must regrettably conclude that the majority ignores the magnitude of its decision. The Court fails to make provision for: (1) the qualifications of those who count; (2) what standards are used in the count–are they the same standards for all ballots statewide or a continuation of the county-by-county constitutionallysuspect standards; (3) who is to observe the count; (4) how one objects to the count; (5) who is entitled to object to the count; (6) whether a person may object to a counter; (7) the possible lack of personnel to conduct the count; (8) the fatigue of the counters; and (9) the effect of the differing intra-county standards.
Here's the link to the transcript (you need to read it with Acrobat):
posted on December 8, 2000 05:17:13 PM
This is in regards to the 'closeness' of the Florida Supreme Court in this decision (i.e. the 4-3 split). CNN says that two of the three judges that dissented did it because of the time factor. Here is the quote itself (feel free to check it out on www.cnn.com):
"In the dissent, two justices said it was too late to act. Chief Justice Charles Wells said the case has reached the point where "finality must take precedence over continued judicial process."
"The margin of error in this election is far greater than the margin of victory, no matter who wins," Wells added, quoting a mathematics professor from Temple University.
Another dissenter, Justice Major B. Harding, quoted legendary football coach Vince Lombardi: "We didn't lose this game; we just ran out of time." "
On a side note, I never thought I'd hear a (Supreme Court!!!) judge say that 'finality takes precedence over continued judicial process'!! Remind me that - if I'm ever on death row and time is getting short - I don't want this judge on my case!!
posted on December 8, 2000 05:22:10 PMkrs Hahaha! I am too old to be pregnant!
Actualy I am not excited at all, except that I get to see more of that good looking lawyer Barry Richards ,cause this is not ending too soon.
BTW KatyD. I'd like to punch that Tom Feeney right in the nose! After the announcement he called the judges a bunch of renegade justice's
It will be my pleasure to vote in Fla. in the next election, and this time when I vote them all out of office, I will check and make sure my chad went all the way through LOL!
posted on December 8, 2000 05:27:57 PM
lol, Zelda. No pregnant chads for you! Yes, the contempt the Republicans show for the courts just amazes me. No matter whether one agrees or disagrees with the legal decisions, at least show some respect. What kind of message are they sending our children now? Hypocrites.
posted on December 8, 2000 05:56:13 PM
KatyD - I too am amazed at the contempt shown by the Republican Party. Bush may become President of the United States Government yet he hates the government? How can he show any leadership when he fights the courts and his people actually call Judges names.
But, I am so happy with this decision to count all of Florida. If they just would have done it in the first place we wouldn't have had to go though all this.
I like Bush even less then I did before, but if he wins by this recount I feel at least it's more honest and I'll accept it. There were just too many inconsistencies which made me think of fraud and Florida being bought by the Bush family. I just want to know the count. It's so simple to me, just count the damn ballots.
posted on December 9, 2000 03:18:02 AM
Y'know, the way I see it, the only way anyone can lose here is by winning the election.
Whoever wins will have zero credibility in terms of looking at the legitimacy of their election to the post, both from the disputed vote counts and each candidates' actions/reactions to it.
The House and Senate are so close that no one will necessarily have much of a majority to work with anyway, so this will be one of those instances in which a president begins his term as a virtual lame duck.
If Bush wins, people will look to his brother and his cronies in the Florida state government and wonder about the possible conflict of interest and possible corruption that aided his election there.
If Gore wins, people will remember the recounts and the suits brought forward by the Gore team to ensure the recounts, and the childish "Sore-Loserman" epithet will stick for four years.
What I would do if I was supporting either of these candidates would be to petition them to concede now...they might have a chance again in four years. Whoever wins now will NOT get anything done. They will only be leaving a legacy worse than Clinton...he just had a lotta fun while in office. He didn't involve himself in such public shenanigans to get there.
BTW, I myself voted for Ralph Nader. I am not an active supporter of him, but I admire his platform and the things he has accomplished in his life. I am registered as a Libertarian and am not politically active in any sense of the term. I only see that there is NO difference between "Democrat" and "Republican" in current US society...just like there is no real meaning to the term "opposition politics" or "third party" here.
----
TRC
A life spent in politics is a truly wasted life.
posted on December 9, 2000 04:13:18 AM
Wow a total recount of the complete undervote Statewide. What's so hard about that seems to me they just have to count the ballots that didn't get read by the machine.
But wait we have counties saying they just mixed the ballots together when they are done counting. Okay somebody explain to me what logic exists in mixing counted ballots with ones that couldn't be counted. And I wouldn't get too excited if I were Gore. The Bush team has ran to Atlanta to the Federal Court. And ran to Justice Kennedy whom happens to be the Supreme that day to day matters in Florida fall under.
I wonder if Christmas retail sales are suffering while we sit glued to our TV's and computers keeping up with this stuff.
I've edited to add this:
Seems to me this statement from the absentee case might actually hurt the Bush Legal team in thier new appeals.
Bristow said no vote should be tossed out for a “hypertechnical computer glitch fix.”
And I say no vote should go uncounted if a hypertechnical computer can't count it. I hope the courts look at that stance on the absentee cases and apply it to the recount cases. Bush can't have it both ways, he can't say in one court ignore a computer glitch and in another say, The computer did the right thing.
Now this standard in Florida, the voters intention can be established. That very language invited confusion in a recount. makes you wonder who proof rereads legislation before they pass it. The more I look at this and other totally confusing laws on the books in all States. The more you are glad that the founding fathers took the time to consider the future and future changes when they wrote the constitution.
Yes, the contempt the Republicans show for the courts just amazes me. No matter whether one agrees or disagrees with the legal decisions, at least show some respect. What kind of message are they sending our children now? Hypocrites.
What's this world coming to...