At 11:16 PM 11/14/00 CST, Dan M. wrote:
>"John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>At what point do we say that more recounts are pointless? There has to be
>>an end, and at some point there has to be a loser. As it >is, we have laws
>>for that, which ensure an outcome to our elections.
>
>
>We do indeed have laws, and conflicting interpretations of the laws given by
>the two top people in Florida charged with interpreting those laws for the
>state of Florida.
Actually, that is unclear. It is my understanding (which could be wrong)
that the Florida Secretary of State is the single person responsible for
interpreting election law. (In fact, in Florida, that is pretty much the
only job of the Secretary of State.) The Attorney-General, however, is
the lawyer for the Secretary of State, and thus is not charged with
interpreting the Law. Rather it is the job of the A-G to represent the
State of Florida, as directed by the Secretary of State. Finally, in a
most technical sense, interpretion of the law actually resides with the
Courts. Once the Secretary of State announces how she will enforce the
law, that interpretation can be challenged in the Courts.
Of course, the Florida Statutes *are* contradictory. Consider the following:
Section 102.111 -
If the county returns are not received by the Department of State by 5
p.m. of the seventh day following an election, all missing counties shall
be ignored, and the results shown by the returns on file shall be certified.
Then, the very next Section, 102.112 -
Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary
and general election nd by 3 p.m. on the 3rd day following the second
primary. If the returns are not received by the
department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the
results on file at that time may be certified by the department.
So, which is it? *Shall* or *May*?
I have actually read the decision upholding the 5pm deadline, and I find
that I agree with almost everything the judge has to say. Very notably
missing, however, is an attempt to resolve the conflict be sections 102.111
and 102.112. Nevertheless, I think the judge has a very strong case that
Secretary Harris must use her discretino on these matters, and that a
simple argument that a hand recount lasts beyond the Tuesday 5pm deadline
would not be valid.
The ruling:
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/mcderharrisopinion.pdf
Thus, the Bushies have three possible arguments:
1) The hand recounts must be finished by midnight on Friday when the last
absentee ballot from overseas must arrive.
2) The hand recounts are invalid since they aren't being conducted in all
counties, thus denying equal protection of the laws. This is the basis of
the Bushies Federal lawsuit.
3) Finally, the Bushies may support Secretary Harris' interpertation of the
following statute:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Searc
h_String=&URL=Ch0102/SEC166.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0102->Section%20166
This is the section which provides for a manual recount. Yesterday,
Harris interpreted point #5 of this section as applying only to errors in
the voting software.
Point #5 -
If the (test) 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.
By examining the *structure* of this article, Harris believes that it
creates an ordered set of procedures for dealing with errors in vote
tabulation mechanics or software. The first step is to note the error,
and then recount all ballots mechanically on the corrected system. The
next step is to get the official copy of the tabulation software on file
with the Florida Dept. of State. The final step is then a manual recount
of all ballots.
I must say that this is an interesting, and compelling, yet tenuous
interpretation of this statute. I would have to see opposing arguments
before deciding what I think about this.
JDG
_______________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Now is not the Time for Third Chances,
It is a Time for New Beginnings."
- George W. Bush 8/3/00
******************VOTE BUSH / CHENEY 2000 *******************
