Hi Carl - I ve not seen the affidavit, but the point is quite irrelevant, if Sec Baker thinks the FLSC was wrong based on his reading of the court's opinion [I admit I ve not read the whole thing, is the affidavit included? But I did do a search of the buzzword 'dimple', I couldn't find any reference of it] b/c the ruling is based on the challenge of SoS Harris's discretionary cutoff. The Gore camp challenged it on the ground manual recout is needed to ascertain voter's intent, to support its claim, it cited the IL and MA cases etc etc. Sure, did it try also to snick the chad determination factor in? Possibly. However, the court has not made a ruling on that issue, not explicitly anyway [maybe b/c it is peripheral, or maybe it is too hot a potato, or maybe it meant what it believes in - it's the duties of the local canvassing board :).] Rather, it said the determination of the voter's intent is paramount and thus an allowance of the manual recount and thus the overruling of the deadline.
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the ramifications. In your opinion, if this allegation [dimple] were true, do you think it is ground for a *mistrial*? Even if it is not the central point of contention?
best, Bosco |
