Common sense from Miami...
Published Friday, November 24, 2000, in the Miami
Herald
DIMPLES AREN'T VOTES
Different tests to discern intent are patently
unfair.
The best way to determine if a dimpled ballot
should count in the ongoing manual recount of
presidential ballots is generous application of the
common-sense test. Under this standard, if the
voter's intent isn't clearly discernible, the vote
shouldn't count. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.
It is true that by using such a strict standard many
voters' ballots would be excluded from the
presidential contest -- and that may affect the
ultimate outcome of the election. But in passing
laws that make recounts possible, the state
Legislature didn't define standards for counting
votes with punch marks that fail to break a ballot's
perforated edges.
Nor did the Florida Supreme Court clarify the issue
in its ruling Tuesday. In its decision, the High
Court went to great lengths to stress the importance
of protecting the voter's right to vote and to
participate in an election. Voters mustn't be
wantonly disfranchised by the machinery of voting or
by mistakes they or election officials make, the
court said.
Such a standard is terrific in the abstract but
absent clear rules to follow in practical
application, officials in Miami-Dade, Broward and
Palm Beach counties came up with different
interpretations of what it means. In Palm Beach
County, officials first said they would apply a
strict standard of counting dimpled ballots for
president only when other dimples show up for other
candidates on the same ballot. Then a Circuit judge
muddled things by ordering Palm Beach officials to
consider any dimpled ballot. In Broward, dimpled
ballots are set aside for later inspection. And
before Miami-Dade County's canvassing board decided
Wednesday to stop counting, most dimpled ballots
were considered as evidence of voters' intent.
The obvious problem here is that different standards
are being applied in the same election. That is
patently unfair. A common-sense standard, which in
practice would mimic the original Palm Beach County
procedure, would take most of the guess-work out of
the process. A pattern of dimples in more than one
contest indicates a clear voter intent.
No doubt such a test would disqualify many voters.
Their votes may not have registered because they
failed to follow instructions; used a pencil or
needle to punch the ballot instead of the
provided-for stylus; failed to insert the ballot
properly into the slot; lined the ballot up
improperly; or were confused.
But it is the voter's duty to take reasonable care
to record a vote. To correct that judgment after the
fact is unfair. |
