I have not felt like paying for the archived article in the Post, but have preferred to search for the material elsewhere. The article basically said that most localities disallow dimpled chads, and that courts have generally ruled against them, and that they are usually not used in Texas. I will try to further substantiate, but since you continue to dispute Mr. Cummings research, I am not as motivated as I was.
Prior restraint has nothing to do with it, and your invocation of it is bizarre. Prior restraint refers to the attempt to suppress publication. It has nothing to do with the setting of election standards.
No one has the unqualified right to vote. One must meet certain criteria, such as being a citizen and being of the proper age; one must register; one must abide by reasonable time/place requirements; and one must vote according to the rules in place in one's locality. There is no inherent right to have your defective ballot second guessed, and, indeed, it is possible that such a procedure will be unfaithful to your intent. Since there is no inherent right to a manual recount, there is no inherent right to know what a manual recount would show. On all scores, your analysis is flawed.
As for imprimatur, no one in their right mind would hold a governor accountable for thinking through every matter incidental to a piece of paper that had crossed his desk...... |
