Hi Art:
Trying to catch up here with the discussion. Honestly, I just don't have the time to spend hours upon hours here like many others here.
I think the separation of powers argument here is weak.
Well, at least we now know that the US Supreme Court does not share this view.
Reading the Florida Supreme Court decision closely, the court didn't try to make new law.
This where Republicans and Democrats obviously disagree. The Democratic argument is to look to behind the language of the statute to intent of the voter, which is based in jurisprudence.. The Republican argument is to look to the legislative text, which is expressive of legislative intent and not necessarily based upon Florida law, as in the instant case, on which the Florida Supreme Court is the final arbiter. Rather, the Republican argument is that the US Constitution, and Federal law thereunder, has granted plenary power to the Florida legislature over the manner in which its presidential electors are select, which facially goes beyond the jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. In short, the FL Supreme Ct. is free to change the law to suit its wishes with respect to its own state elections, but when it comes to the presidential election, a Federal matter, there's a higher authority to settle this question, the US Supreme Court.
The first priority came under the constitution in allowing every voter to vote and to be counted. . . .
Yes, Al. We've heard this cry over and over again. Its sounds pure; it sounds uplifting; its sounds to the core of our Democracy. But I don't believe that's the issue here. The issue is NOT that every vote SHOULD be counted, but rather HOW every vote MAY be counted. What is a vote, what is not a vote? There are no standards. Dimpled chads cannot be counted in 1 or 2 counties and not violate the equal protection of other voters whose dimpled ballots may not have been counted in other counties in Florida ,and every other voting district in the country that relied upon punched ballots.
At issue, irrespective of the Florida Supreme Court's ruling that sings to voter intent, is the PROCESS by which such voter intent may be obtained. The process is fraught with partisanship, intimidation from both sides. It is apparent that when the fate of the election rests upon such a small percentage of the vote political forces magnify so as to bring into question the true integrity of the whole hand-count process.
IMHO, the FL Supreme Court is a bit hypocritical in its ruling when it speaks to voter intent, yet leaves it to the discretion of each local canvassing board the decision whether (1) to conduct a hand count, and (2) to consider dimpled ballots. The foregoing implies that the will of the voter, that is whether his/her vote is counted, rests not with the voter, but with the local canvassing board. So when a local canvassing board decides to stop a hand count, and the Democrats protest then sue, or when a local canvassing board decides to count dimpled and the Republicans protest then sue, I ask you, how is the Florida Supreme Court's ruling a correct one, and a good one?
IMHO, the Court's side-stepped the real issue in this case. They chose to overstep their jurisdictional bounds to give the Gore campaign an opportunity to make their case at the local level, but failed to provide sufficient guidance to allow that objective to proceed without further court intervention. What the Court did as akin to opening pandora's box with respect to hand counts, but not close it at conclusion of the hand counting, if carried out, because of the lack of any standards to guide these local canvassing boards whose duty was to follow the Court's ruling.
The Court, IMHO, did a disservice to the people of Florida, the very individuals it claimed to be protecting from the evil Secretary of State. It did so, by rewriting State law, only going half-way for fear than any further re-writing would make so blatantly obvious their over-reaching of their jurisdiction on this particular matter. If the Court were correct to rewrite the statute governing Florida elections law, then I submit to you that they should have set forth Court standards on hand counting, on dimpled ballots. If a court is gonna rewrite the law to fix a problem before it, at least they should carve out a judicial remedy that enables the prevailing party to achieve its goals without further court intervention or review. It obviously didn't.
You know where I stand on the Florida Supreme Court's ruling. |
