At 10:38 PM 11/15/00 -0800, Doug wrote:
>Al Gore's proposal to abide by a recount of either the three counties or the
>entire state of Florida is bound to appear fair and equitable to most
>Americans. Further, his suggestion to meet with W. in order to tone down the
>rhetoric and to unite behind the winner whoever it seems wise and prudent.
>His proposal's give a clear alternative to the court battles that are sure to
>decide the election otherwise.
We'll see if it works..... in my humble opinion, however, interrupting the
evening news with a press conference to challenge your opponent is hardly a
serious way to tone down the rhetoric. It is more of a way to score
political points - perhaps in retaliation for Baker's "offer" made two days
ago.
Despite Gore's offer, it is questionable whether or not the Courts would
uphold conducting recounts in counties where they were not requested before
the deadline.
Moreover, Bush's concern about the arbitrariness of hand recounts seems to
becoming validated:
1) In Palm Beach County the Republicans have sworn affadavits that
Commissioner Carol Roberts engaged in fraud during the counting. My
understanding is that a sworn affadavit is an allegation made under penalty
of perjury.
2) Courts in Palm Beach County and Broward County have upheld different
standards for what constitutes a "legal vote." In one, a "pregnant chad"
must be considered as a possible vote. In the other, it is not a legal
vote. In both counties, a ballot with a "pregnant chad" for one
candidate, and a punched hole for another candidate, would not be
considered double punched, but rather a vote for for the cadidate with the
punched hole.
3) In Gadsden County, election officials manually removed hanging chads
from ballots, something not done in other counties.
>I have little doubt that the hand count will continue and that it will be
>certified. The Republican position is (legally) tenuous at best. I believe
>they have lost every court ruling so far, and I don't see them winning any
>time soon.
Not so fast, in most case, the Court has simply passed the buck.
1) Judge Lewis of the Florida Circuit Court essentially said that Secrtary
Harris would have to "consider" them. Harris did consider manual
recounts, and rejected them. Now, it will go back to the Circuit Court.
It is entirely possible that the Court will decide to stay out of it by
ruling that the Statutes clearly give the Secretary of State discretion on
this matter.
2) The Florida Supreme Court rejected a request to hear the case "without
prejudice." In other words, they are passing the buck back to Secretary
Harris to make her make *her* ruling *first.* The Court simply prevented
Sec. Harris from abdicating her discretion, and hiding behind a Court.
Now that Sec. Harris has ruled, the Supreme Court, may decide to be
consistent, and decline to hear the case, deffering to Sec. Harris.
3) The US Federal Court ruled that they had no jurisdiction. I read the
Bush camp's presentation, and felt that it was fairly weak. A better
formulated petition might stand a chance. The US 14th Amendment requires
each State to provide "equal protection under the laws." In a manual
ballot recount of punch cards, however, a voter has a greater chance of
their vote being "counted" (by subjective discretion) than under a machine
count. Thus, Florida's statute of permitting only county by county manual
recount requests could easily be ruled Unconstitutional.
The reason for this, is that in a very close election, a "sore loser" (for
ease of talking, lets call the loser "Gore") could request a manual recount
in heavily Democratic County. This would boost the number of Democratic
votes counted. It is completely irrational, however, the expect that the
"winner" of a very close election would _protest_ the election results, and
thereby obtain a manual recount in counties which heavily favored the
winner. In any case, Gore could manipulate the system by not filing the
protest in the heavily Democratic conuties until one minute before the
deadline for protests, thus leaving Bush with no recourse.
This system is clearly unequal.
(As an aside, the Democrats could launch a Federal counter-suit arguing
that the differing balot systems are unequal, and thus, unconstitutional.
That would be *very interesting.*
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 *******************
