Well, the courts will do what they will do, and they aren't likely to ask my opinion. LOL
As for the 7 day straightjacket, I'd have to agree that it does seem a bit tight to me, but should the court make up its own timetable? If so, what should it be? Maybe I am too constrained by black-and-white thinking, but that is my nature.
As for the 4700 ballots, my problem is that I don't see how you can un-do what is done. Why didn't someone complain about this before the election when it could have been fixed? If someone had raised the issue before the election they could have told the 4700 voters that they wouldn't be allowed to submit absentee ballots and that they would have to show up and vote in person. Or perhaps they could have told them that they would have to re-apply for absentee ballots. But instead the complainers kept quiet at the time and now seek to use this to deprive those 4700 voters of their right to vote. For whatever reason in this election season I keep ending up back at the Doctrine of Laches, which says that if you don't complain in a timely manner you can't complain later. This could have easily been fixed prior to the election, but now that it is too late for these people to vote in some other way, how can you fix it? No one tampered with their actual ballot, just the application that allowed them to vote absentee instead of in person. If we can attempt to ascertain the "intent" of a voter who made a pregnant chad, why can't we ascertain that the "intent" of these voters was to vote absentee? To be perfectly honest, I don't see why the standard policy isn't for the election officials to complete these things if they can be completed that easily. I wonder if some states don't already do that. After all, our general principle as a country is to make voting as easy as possible.
One problem I have with this whole election litigation process is that neither side limits their arguments to a logically consistent position. Rather both argue each point based on which is favorable to their desired outcome. Since I didn't vote for either one, and since I don't think it will matter in the end which becomes president, perhaps I can be a bit more cavalier about the whole thing and stick to what I see as equitable legal principles. In general I seem to find myself on the Bush side, probably because he won in the count and recount. Since I generally favor the status quo, that favors him. If the roles of the candidates were reversed, I would still favor the status quo.
As for allegations of fraud in the Palm Beach recount, I'm opposed to fraud of course. On the other hand, unless it can be proven conclusively there isn't anything that can be done about it. Chads punched out, chads taped back in, chads eaten, what are we coming to? Maybe we do need those Russian election supervisors after all. LOL
Carl |
