Agreed, but one must, however, beardown on the language of subpart "3)" itself:
Although, you are correct, when you state, the section itself must be read in the disjuctive (1 or 2 or 3...) It is to be noted that "3)" is internally conjunctive:
3) an indentation on the chad from the stylus or other object is present and indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote...[emph. add.]
Read alone, a mere dimple is NOT enough, but must be also accompanied by a "clearly ascertainable intent of the voter"
Parsing the statute, as it were, one could come to the conclusion that one dimpled chad, standing alone, is NOT sufficient under Texas Law to be counted as a vote.
Parsing the statute, thusly, would, of course, mean that Ellen has, infact, preserved her otherwise unblemished record of incorrectness. :))
Wouldn't you agree? :))) |
