Marcel writes:
"As usual the law being cited by the democrats that makes the ballot
"illegal"
is a canard. The "on the right" issue is a statute that applies to ballots
not part of an electrical tabulation process. Clearly these are being
counted
electronically. So as usual the Demos are obfuscating the issue with
fabricated assertions that they know are invalid. "
Marcel, although I'm no expert on Florida election law, I think it's a
little more complicated than that. From what I've heard from various
pundits on cable news: yes, the law cited by the Democrats refers on its
face to written ballots. However, there is another provision in the statute
stating that electronic ballots should meet the standard created for written
ballots *as closely as practicable,* or words to that effect. One
commentator opined that, since just about every other electronic ballot in
Florida met the written ballot standard more closely than those in West Palm
Beach, then clearly, the latter did *not* do so "as closely as practicable."
Now I'm not saying that I don't fear the Pandora's box that would be opened
if we began examining all ballots in Florida with that kind of microscope,
or that court intervention might not drag this out forever, but those really
are separate issues. The fact is (in my opinion, at least), there *do* seem
to be grounds here for a legal challenge. At least, the claim, if one is
filed, does not appear to be frivolous.
I don't believe the Democrats are "obfuscating the issue with fabricated
assertions that they know are invalid." I believe they think they won the
election, and that they have a valid basis for challenging the result.
Marcel also wrote:
"Jeb Bush
has but a judge refuses. they are stalling for time hopefully to stretch
things out long enough to deliver another "lock box" of bogus votes. "
That's a very serious allegation. Have there been claims of election
*fraud* in Florida? The last I heard, both sides were in agreement that
none appeared to have occurred: although the ballot in West Palm Beach may
have been "confusing," I am aware of no claim that the "confusion" was
engendered by any deliberate action to bring about that result. Ditto for
the 19,000 votes that were invalidated, or any other irregularity. If
representatives of *either* party tampered with votes or ballots, then the
wrongdoers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Finally, Marcel wrote:
"It is just this kind of
tactic that they use to try to parse their way out of every illegal act they
have committed from withholding evidence to lying under oath. They fabricate
an issue and then with the help of their lapdog media try to twist the
argument. Historical precedent is absolute on this sort of objection.
tainted
ballots are thrown out. period. By the way so far the only judge to rule in
the favor of the Dems is a significant campaign contributor married to a
Demo
operative who refused to recuse herself."
To which I reply, WHOAH. *Any* Democrats, Marcel? I've been a registered
Democrat for most of my adult life, but the last time I looked, I've never
tried to "parse [my} way out of every illegal act [I've] committed from
withholding evidence to lying under oath." Neither have those of my friends
who happen to be Democrats, including those who may work in the "lapdog
media."
Your feelings and thoughts about the current U.S. administration are well
known, but I respectfully suggest--and yes, I DO sincerely enjoy the
diversity of political opinion on this list--that generalized attacks of
this type which list few specifics and no names do little to advance a
healthy debate.
Respectfully,
Mary P.
