How's that for JUSTICE!!!

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Answers

and manually inspect ALL of the under votes in ALL counties.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001208/pl/election_supreme_dc_29.htm l

Friday December 8 4:15 PM ET Florida Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gore

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Reuters) - The Florida Supreme Court (news - web sites) on Friday upheld an appeal by Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) to have some votes recounted in a key state county, keeping alive the vice president's hopes of winning the U.S. presidency.

The court ruled by a 4-3 majority that a lower court ``shall immediately begin a manual recount of the approximately 9,000 Miami- Dade ballots that registered under votes,'' Supreme Court spokesman Craig Waters told reporters.

The court also ordered the lower court to add 215 votes for Gore from Palm Beach County and 168 additional votes from Miami-Dade county established after earlier recounts. It also told the lower court to order a manual recount of all so-called under votes, those which machines indicated voted for no presidential candidate, in any Florida county where such a recount has not yet taken place.

The ruling came less than two hours after two Florida Circuit Court judges had dealt Gore a defeat in a pair of cases involving ballots in Seminole and Martin counties.

Gore's top attorney, David Boies, had told the court the ballots, excluded from a tally declared by the Florida secretary of state to be official and final, must be recounted in order to determine the true winner of the Nov. 7 election.

That tally put Bush ahead of Gore by 537 votes out of nearly 6 million cast and gave Bush the state's 25 electoral votes, which would make him the next president. But Bush attorney Barry Richard had urged the seven justices to uphold a lower court ruling denying a recount.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

AND THE USSC will no doubt ask for a statewide TOTAL RECOUNT (which is only fair). Most likely the Fla. Legislature will end that with their own Electors.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

TALLAHASSEE, Fla., Dec. 8 — Reversing a string of legal setbacks for Al Gore, the Florida Supreme Court voted 4-3 Tuesday to grant the vice president’s request for a manual recount of about 14,000 disputed ballots from two counties and to add votes from previous recounts to Gore’s total, narrowing George W. Bush’s lead in the state to less than 200 votes. Bush was expected to appeal the decision in federal court.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/491164.asp

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Most likely the Fla. Legislature will end that with their own Electors.

If the counts continue though and the outcome is for Gore, isn't it then up to congress?

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Don't kvetch, Charles. Gore is getting what he really wanted, which was absolute proof that Republicans are or are not putting in a faux president.

Odds are very good that Bush will not prevail in a recount, even though he will no doubt become president. Which will be a black mark the Republican party will not erase in a hurry.

I know that you have not approved of the extremists on the right for a long time, if ever. Surely you see that Delay has performed actions in this case that have resulted in a terrible smear on his own party, a smear that a recount will make obvious to anyone able to read.

Don't be mad at me, I didn't do it.

This whole matter could have been resolved without rancor, if Bush had simply called for a state wide hand count at the beginning, and taken the results as they stood. The odds seemed good that he would win such a count, before the absentee ballots came in, and did not produce the results he expected.

Is this game still worth the candle?

And the dates on that election certification can't be held out of the public eye much longer. If Harris had certified EVERYTHING on the date she claimed it was due, her date, Gore won. She extended the date on absentee ballots, and cut short the date on recounts, to give the victory to Bush. Look it up. This is neither fair nor equitable nor even merely distasteful. It is simply making sure the 'right'man wins. No more.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Charlie:

Part of the Supreme Court ruling is that the UNDERVOTES will be counted in all counties in Florida. I thought it was a fair day in court, overall. The SC didn't give in to the desire of Nassau County eliminating those 197 votes [to which I would have objected], and the other court actions didn't disenfranchise absentee voters.

Certainly all these cases will move up the ladder to the Supremer Supremes, but I thought today's outcome was fair, overall.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Anita:

An "undervote" is a ballot where NO candidate was selected. These have been counted, and we know exactly how many such ballots there are. So it's very misleading to speak of "counting undervotes". What you are saying, and what the Democrats have been saying, is "Counting as *votes*, ballots where no selection was actually made."

I think a statewide examination of all undervotes sounds fine in theory. Whether it's fine in practice, of course, depends on WHO is doing the counting, and perhaps even more on WHO decides on the rules. The law says the intent of the voter must be clearly discernable. What does that mean? We're about to find out. At the very least, all undervotes should be evaluated according to the same set of rules. As we've seen, these ballots are fairly delicate and were not designed to be manipulated by hand.

IF this ruling is allowed to stand, and IF Gore wins the re-re-re- recount, then he's my President, and I hope he does as well as Clinton has.

-----------------

As for Paul Davis, his lies really need to be corrected. For shame, Paul!

[And the dates on that election certification can't be held out of the public eye much longer.]

Joke. EVERYTHING has been in the public eye. We have details, Boy Howdy do we have details! That election certification is one of the most publicized documents ever.

[If Harris had certified EVERYTHING on the date she claimed it was due, her date, Gore won.]

What!!!? The law said wait 10 days for absentee ballots. Harris waited 10 days for absentee ballots. The law said wait 7 days for non- absentee recounts. Harris waited for 7 days. BOTH of these dates were stipulated by law, meticulously followed by Harris. None of these dates were "her dates" at all. Bush won.

[She extended the date on absentee ballots,]

She did not.

[and cut short the date on recounts,]

Absolutely to the contrary. The FSC, in their wisdom, decided that (1) when the legislature wrote 7 days, they actually *meant* 19 days! and (2) That when the legislature wrote that Harris had discretion, they actually *meant* that she had no discretion at all and was obliged to wait as long as possible (or until Gore won, whichever came first).

Accordingly, Harris waited the full 10 day for absentee ballots and the full 19 days (per the FSC) for recounts, and THEN certified the results! NOTHING was cut short. Bush won again.

[to give the victory to Bush. Look it up.]

Just did. Bush won the vote. Bush won the recount. Bush won the re- recount. Bush won the re-re-recount after the FSC decided 7=19. Now, depending on who picks the chad rules and who does the counting, Gore might FINALLY win the re-re-re-recount of selected ballots where NO choice (or multiple choices) was made for President. But this is a farce by now.

[This is neither fair nor equitable nor even merely distasteful. It is simply making sure the 'right'man wins. No more.]

Right. We're the mighty FSC. Let's rewrite the laws after the fact. Let's let 7=19. Let's decide that "discretion" really means "no discretion". Let's overrule EVERY lower court judge, only to have our decisions set aside by the USSC with a note that says "Wherever did you GET this authority?" If a finding of facts is uncongenial, let's do a finding by political preference. If we don't like the job done by the Legislature according to the clear words of the US Constitution, let's make our own laws and override the legislature.

Yesterday, I read some law professor saying the FSC really couldn't overrule Sauls, because Sauls was doing a finding on the facts, which the appeals court doesn't even have. So if there's no way to overrule on the law (there being no legal issue, just a factual issue) and no way to overrule on the facts (which is not permitted anyway), what CAN they overrule on?

And here, Paul Davis understands. They can overrule on *purely political* grounds, to make sure the "right" man wins.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

>> Yesterday, I read some law professor saying the FSC really couldn't overrule Sauls, because Sauls was doing a finding on the facts, which the appeals court doesn't even have. <<

Flint, give me a freaking break. This reminds me of your "they're not lying, they're just being intentionally misleading" statement during Y2K.

Stop hiding behind the legalese and use some damn common sense.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

noggin:

I was laughing at the law professor, in his ivory tower, making a prediction of what a court would do on the basis of the LAW. I regarded it as naive. The FSC is AT LEAST as partisan as Katherine Harris, and this was a purely political decision, made *entirely* in the hopes of having their preferred candidate win. The law was not relevant. And that's not legalese at all, that's the real world.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

102.166 Protest of election returns; procedure.--

(1) Any candidate for nomination or election, or any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, shall have the right to protest the returns of the election as being erroneous by filing with the appropriate canvassing board a sworn, written protest.

(2) Such protest shall be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 5 days after midnight of the date the election is held, whichever occurs later.

(3) Before canvassing the returns of the election, the canvassing board shall:

(a) When paper ballots are used, examine the tabulation of the paper ballots cast.

(b) When voting machines are used, examine the counters on the machines of nonprinter machines or the printer-pac on printer machines. If there is a discrepancy between the returns and the counters of the machines or the printer-pac, the counters of such machines or the printer-pac shall be presumed correct.

(c) When electronic or electromechanical equipment is used, the canvassing board shall examine precinct records and election returns. If there is a clerical error, such error shall be corrected by the county canvassing board. If there is a discrepancy which could affect the outcome of an election, the canvassing board may recount the ballots on the automatic tabulating equipment.

(4)(a) Any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any political committee that supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the ballot, or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount. The written request shall contain a statement of the reason the manual recount is being requested.

(b) Such request must be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 72 hours after midnight of the date the election was held, whichever occurs later.

(c) The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount. If a manual recount is authorized, the county canvassing board shall make a reasonable effort to notify each candidate whose race is being recounted of the time and place of such recount.

(d) The manual recount must include at least three precincts and at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue. In the event there are less than three precincts involved in the election, all precincts shall be counted. The person who requested the recount shall choose three precincts to be recounted, and, if other precincts are recounted, the county canvassing board shall select the additional precincts.

(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:

(a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;

(b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or

(c) Manually recount all ballots.

(6) Any manual recount shall be open to the public.

(7) Procedures for a manual recount are as follows:

(a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots. A counting team must have, when possible, members of at least two political parties. A candidate involved in the race shall not be a member of the counting team.

(b) If a counting team is unable to determine a voter's intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter's intent.

(8) If the county canvassing board determines the need to verify the tabulation software, the county canvassing board shall request in writing that the Department of State verify the software.

(9) When the Department of State verifies such software, the department shall:

(a) Compare the software used to tabulate the votes with the software filed with the Department of State pursuant to s. 101.5607; and

(b) Check the election parameters.

(10) The Department of State shall respond to the county canvassing board within 3 working days.

Now what is your problem Flint? How is this LAW in conflict with ANYTHING Al Gore has asked for and the Returds have fought for now a full month????

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

If you are currently watching CNN you will see the DELAY tactics in full glory. Bush lawyer is proposing a "full presentation" to EDUCATE the judge about dimple science.

Gee what would this take? week? and then what?

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

NO for me what is "FAIR" is to recount EVERY LAST BALLOT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

PERIOD. Not the ones that favor either side.

ALL OF THEM.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Has anyone complained that their machine didn't work and they could not poke out their presidential chad? - I haven't heard of any. If the chad is hanging by one or two corners, it should be counted. But if it wasn't poked out at all, only "dimpled", it was not a vote.

Have any machines been inspected and tested to see if the presidential choices could get clogged? I haven't heard of that being done either.

Let tne nonvotes be counted in all precincts with common rules, you've got three days.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

John,

I believe that in the Palm Beach hand recount, the dimpled votes were not counted. I can't site any article but I remember Judge Burton talking about this. He made it clear that he was not including those in the total. He had a hugh problem with the dimpled ballots and was seeking a remedy.

My personal opinon is that the vote should be a clear hanging/swinging or flipped chad...in other words...something that could have been possibly overlooked by the machine recount/s, but could be determined by the human eye.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

John and Peg:

You would both be interested in Chief Justice Wells' dissent, in which he probed this issue in great detail. He asked such questions as, How do we determine voter intent? Who gets to determine? Should this vary by county or be standard statewide? Who gets to oversee these judgments? Who is allowed to protest a decision? Who adjudicates such protests? What is the appeal process? What if canvassers get tired? What if only some counties are finished? Why only count undervotes, when any given machine might have screwed up ANY kind of vote, over, under, or neither. How would we know unless we count them all? How reliable is ANY count when the chad keeps falling out of these delicate ballots, which were never intended to be manipulated by hand?

Now, the standards you two propose (0 corners, 1 corner, 2 corners, etc.) may seem reasonable to you. But are they the RIGHT standards? The FSC has given us no useful guidance to help us answer ANY of these questions, they've simply dumped a 6-month job on us to perform in 4 days of total chaos. And they did this in the interests of *ACCURACY*! Can you believe it?

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

NO for me what is "FAIR" is to recount EVERY LAST BALLOT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

PERIOD. Not the ones that favor either side.

ALL OF THEM.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), December 08, 2000.

Well guess what you dumb fuck? That's just what Gore asked Bush to do two days after the election, and Bush refused. We could have manually recounted the entire state six times by now if it weren't for your buddy Shrubya and the fraud being perpetrating by the Republicans.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

jackass:

As a general policy, winners don't like recounts. If you won and I asked for a recount, would you agree if you didn't have to? You are not thinking clearly.

The key legal issue in this case is that, to have a recount, you must meet some threshhold of probable injury -- there needs to be at least some reasonable evidence of mistake, fraud, etc. You shouldn't be able to conduct unending fishing expeditions in the hopes that sooner or later you might win one.

Even more, if a lower judge makes an evidentiary finding (a finding on the facts), the higher court cannot overrule him simply because it finds the facts unpleasant. The higher court needs a pressing LEGAL reason, and in this case there is none.

We had a fair statewide count initially, and Bush won it. We had a fair statewide recount by law, and Bush won that too. We had some limited recounts *even though* the courts have thrown out the nominal justification for them, and Bush won again. We had the FSC decide to ignore the law stipulating a deadline and impose their own deadline, and Bush STILL won. We have already had "fair" in spades.

And NOW the FSC proposes to count undervotes for no better reason than Gore might end up with enough to "win" the election, after overruling a judge who correctly pointed out that there was no legal basis for doing so.

By now, it seems clear that "fair" has been defined as a Gore victory whatever it takes to engineer one. Nothing else will do.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Flint:

Much of Wells' opinion is hogwah. I just got through the 70 pages of the decision, majority and minority. It is not up to the State supreme court to set the standard for discerning intent. In sweeping election reform in 1999 the Florida legislature stated clearly that the standard was clear intent.

If that is too vague, the Florida legislature has no one to blame but themselves. There is absolutely no reason that these ballots that the machines were unable to register a vote on should not be examined. This is the mistake Sauls made; he never examined the evidence. Can you in good conscience say that EVERY BALLOT NOT READ BY THE MACHINE CANNOT HAVE THE INTENT DETERMINED? Or, to put it in another way-do you think any one of those ballots could show clear intent?

Wells entire opinion centered around how inconvenient it is at this time to be doing this. He flops aroud, saying "so sorry, the statute is too vague about what intent is, so, we should just end this now". And the problem with this is it effectively leaves plaintiff without remedy.

You cannot just tell a plaintiff there is no possible relief because the law is vague. In fact, the Florida supreme DID state a standard; that used by Palm Beach. They did not order the 3,300 contested votes there recounts. So everyone arguing about no standards seems to have missed this point in today's ruling.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

Well, Flint, there was a story put up on MSN yesterday, from the AP news wire, saying several Democrats in Florida had filed before the Circuit Court, asking the certification be nullified for the exact reason I gave. That Harris had extended the date for accepting absentee ballots by three days, but did not extend the date for accepting late election returns from other sources.

They claimed that about 2600 absentee ballots were therefore improperly accepted.

Since the story said the suit was accepted, and not summarily dismissed, I would have to think it was a legitimate complaint.

Unfortunatly, I can't find it again, because the news flood since yesterday evening has buried it.

And there is another suit, contesting results in some Republican counties, where Harris accepted the results of the first count, and not the state law MANDATED machine recount. After all, those results swung the election towards Gore.

And another suit has been won, demanding that the hand recounts from Palm, Dade and Broward be accepted. You may want to check the numbers on Bush's lead. They have diminished in the last couple of days.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

And, I'll say it again, Gore will not be the next president. He knows this.

Right now, I'd say Strom Thurmond has a better chance of being in the White House next month than Gore.

Gore just wants to prove who won.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

Paul:

I know what you mean about the news flood. I bookmark things, and when I go back an hour later it's all different there. I believe I read somewhere that there were currently (at that moment) 45 lawsuits about this election active in Florida. Everyone is alleging everything they can think of. I think most of these suits are being thrown out (the butterfly ballot suit was, for example).

A lot of what you claim here I admit I have not seen anyone say anywhere. I remember you claiming Harris accepted "Bush hand counts" while rejecting "Gore hand counts", for example, but to my knowledge nobody even knows what this claim means. Now you are claiming that Harris is somehow violating the law by exercising discretion. I notice Harris waited until the FSC's "fashioned" deadline before certifying, and if the USSC finds the FSC had no such authority to create this deadline, are you going to claim Harris violated the law by waiting the 12 more days the FSC created? Please.

I'll be happy to agree that Harris has exercised discretion in a slightly partisan manner, by refusing to delay until manual recounts likely to favor Gore are complete. But again, Harris waited an extra *12 days* at the behest of the FSC's "judicial legislation". Now you're complaining because she didn't wait *even longer* in Gore's favor. What do you think she was elected as a Republican to do?

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000