Not so, Jim. Precedent can always overturned if it is bad precedent. That is
how Brown v Boartd of Education was decided. The fact the segregation happened
before didn't make it right. Something that happened before does not give
legal standing if it was wrong.
The questiuon that I am guessing the Florida circuit court will address is: how
significant is this.
Does this instance of 19,000 spoiled votes out of whatever number were cast in
that county, given the impact of the votes since Florida right now is only 327
votes Bush over Gore, and that has a direct impact on the next president of the
US, rise to the level of signifcance that the court will order a remedy?
Obviously 19 votes or 190 invalidated ballots would normally be not of the
level to have a significant impact. This 19,000, given the circumstances, the
judge will have to rule on: does this rise to a level for the court to take
action?
Remember a few years ago the Florida court threw out the Miami mayoral election
and they had a re-vote because the corruption was so significant.
In my personal opinion, a re-vote here is required, 19,000 invalidated ballots
appears to me to rise to the level of the court taking action. But the
decision is not mine. However this turns out, the court will rule on the issue
of does rise to a level that the court must take action.
(the Rev) Vince, for whom a recount would do no good, I just plain lost my
election on Tuesday.
Jim L'Hommedieu wrote:
> Hi Debra,
> I respect your opinion but I disagree. The fact that they have thrown out
> thousands of ballots in the past shows that they have established a legal
> precedence for accepting the butterfly ballot (the so-called illegal ballot)
> and shows a legal precedence for disregarding the confusion. I'm not a
> lawyer, but this history hurts the dems' case, in my opinion and shows that
> this situation _can_ be compared to something that happened before.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > i just heard that there were 15,000 spoiled ballots in palm beach in the
> 96
> > election with a lower turn out.
>
> Debra Shea said,
> That's a correct report, but in 1996 it didn't matter because there was a
> huge
> difference in the number of votes for each candidate. There was a clear
> winner
> then, whether those 15,000 votes were counted in or not.
>
