they were saying that the statute that says "certify after 7 days" is in conflict with the statute that says "you can do a manual recount if the canvassing board approves", because there is not enough time provided to do the recounts.
Isn't that a relative opinion? Remember that the Palm Beach canvassing board took Thanksgiving Day off as a holiday. They didn't set it up to work 24 hours a day recounting votes.
They could have, theoretically speaking, stated that they were only going to work 6 hours a day, had they wished to. Would they still be able to claim they "didn't have enough time"? They could theoretically have spent 24 hours a day, with rotating shifts in order to complete this recount.
Bottom line, they knew the deadline... they should have adjusted their efforts accordingly to meet it. Saying they didn't have enough time is a flawed argument if they didn't spend 24 hours a day recounting those votes. And certainly when they took Turkey Day off. That's like telling my teacher that I couldn't get that term paper in on time because I didn't have the time, and expecting her to grant me an extention. Figure the odds on that happening... :0)
Furthermore, they failed to provide any evidence of extenuating circumstances, such as malfunction, fraud.. etc, to Katherine Harris, that would have justified an extention of the certification date.
No one on the canvassing boards has EVER ASSERTED that the equipment had malfunctioned. Gore may be trying to assert that, but none of the local officials are claiming that.
Harris was facing a MANDATORY certification date 7 days after the election. She had the ability to utilize descretion to permit an extention if the counties were able to meet the precedent criteria (hurricanes, malfunction, power outage.. etc), but none were able to provide a convincing excuse for receiving such an extension. Thus, by law, Harris had NO CHOICE but to certify the election results. But then the FLSC stepped in and arbitrarily extended that time frame until the 26th.
Katherine Harris consulted with her consulting attorneys, several of which are reported to be democrats. She covered her butt very well to avoid any rational belief that she was acting beyond the constraints of her authority.
But the ideology she professes is irrelevant so long as she is able to substantiate her decision within the confines of the law.
And if you believe HER bias is clear, what about those FLSC justices who are ALL, with one exception, nominees of a democratic governor, and democrats themselves?
What about those various judges like Terry Lewis and Burton, who are both democrats? Shouldn't they recuse themselves?
No... clearly party affiliation is not enough to condemn Harris' actions so long as Florida law supports her actions.
Regards,
Ron |
