No, Doug. A vast number of Seminole and Martin County Republicans did not follow the instructions included on the absentee ballot request form. Those instructions clearly stated the applicant must include their Voter ID. The applicants didn't include this, the GOP operatives included the numbers after the documents became offical documents of the county, in effect, altering official documents. Consider the following:
"Normally, a state court must follow a state constitution. But in presidential elections, the United States Supreme Court indicated, federal constitutional and statutory law make the state legislature the supreme authority, so that statutory requirements must be strictly complied with. The state courts have no power to depart from the legislature's commands on the basis of either equity or the state's constitution."
What was in the statutes deriven from the Florida Legislature was not followed in both Seminole and Martin counties, and apparently, we're now learning, in other counties as well with respect to absentee ballots.
The above quote comes from the following:
December 9, 2000
Opinion
A Setup for a Seminole Surprise
By JED RUBENFELD
New York Times
EW HAVEN -- Two Florida judges refused yesterday to disqualify absentee votes in
Martin and Seminole Counties, despite technical violations of state law. They made good,
sound decisions, comporting with common sense and Florida case law. There's just one little
problem — a problem that Florida's State Supreme Court will have to deal with if and when it
hears an appeal. The two circuit judges committed the very same error that caused the United
States Supreme Court last Monday to vacate the Florida Supreme Court's decision, on Nov.
21, extending a deadline for manual recounts.
In that case, the federal justices demanded clarification from the state justices to ensure that the
state court had not relied on Florida's Constitution, instead of following the directives of
Florida's Legislature, in its ruling.
Normally, a state court must follow a state constitution. But in presidential elections, the United
States Supreme Court indicated, federal constitutional and statutory law make the state
legislature the supreme authority, so that statutory requirements must be strictly complied with.
The state courts have no power to depart from the legislature's commands on the basis of either
equity or the state's constitution.
But this seems to be exactly what the circuit judges unknowingly did in their decisions
yesterday. The two judges ruled that the issues were governed by a 1975 Florida Supreme
Court case, Boardman v. Esteva, which held that absentee voters need not "strictly comply"
with the "technical" requirements imposed by the Florida Legislature.
"There is no magic in the statutory requirements," the court had said in the Boardman ruling,
because the people's right to vote, guaranteed by the State Constitution, was paramount. "By
refusing to recognize an otherwise valid exercise of the right of a citizen to vote for the sake of
sacred, unyielding adherence to statutory scripture, we would in effect nullify that right."
The Boardman ruling was also a good, sound decision. In an ordinary case, the two Florida
circuit judges would have committed no error by following it. Indeed, in an ordinary case the
circuit judges would have been required to follow it. But when it comes to presidential electors,
the Boardman decision is obviously infected with the same error the United States Supreme
Court just identified in its decision on Monday.
The Boardman ruling, in a case concerning an election contest over absentee ballots,
unequivocally rejected "strict compliance" with "statutory requirements." It held that the people's
right to vote should not be sacrificed to the "technical" requirements imposed by the Florida
Legislature.
But this line of reasoning is just what Mr. Bush's lawyers objected to in the Florida Supreme
Court decision. That decision extended a statutorily designated seven-day deadline for
certifying the results of the Florida counties' presidential votes. In reaching this result, the
Florida justices, citing the Boardman case, stated that people's right to vote, guaranteed by the
Florida Constitution, superseded mere "technical" requirements imposed by the Florida
Legislature.
These were precisely the statements that caused the United States Supreme Court to set aside
the Florida Supreme Court's decision. "Adherence to statutory scripture" is just what the
federal justices have apparently demanded.
It appears the circuit judges committed a clear error by following Boardman. When the Florida
Legislature expressly changed Florida law in 1998 to say that absentee voters must themselves
supply their own registration information, it made its will and its requirements clear. These
requirements may seem hyper-technical to an equitable judge. They may seem the sort of thing
that should not stand in the way of people's right to vote. But under Monday's United States
Supreme Court decision, the Florida courts are bound to apply Florida statutory law regardless
of these considerations.
As a scholar of constitutional law, I am obliged to say that I do not agree with the proposition
that federal law somehow prevents Florida courts from upholding the Florida Constitution when
applying state election laws to a presidential election. But the supporters of Mr. Bush earnestly
wished to convince the United States Supreme Court of that proposition, and they apparently
got what they wanted. Perhaps they should have been more careful about what they wished for.
Jed Rubenfeld is a professor at Yale Law School. |
