SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Qone0 who wrote (112082)12/12/2000 12:44:12 PM
From: donjuan_demarco  Read Replies (2) of 769670
 
"The federal in question is "equal protection." since this is a federal election."

So you are arguing that, by ordering the counting of votes that had been rejected by machines, and never counted, the FSC was denying somebody of equal protection under the law.

That is a novel theory. It is clear that if a state REFUSED to count certain votes, it would constitute a violation of the fourteenth amendment. But, under your theory, the decision to count ALL of the votes is now a violation.

Could you explain who, specifically, would be denied equal protection under the law if the undervotes are counted?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News