Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (36508)	11/11/2000 10:50:02 PM
From: Tim McCormick	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Here is the meat of the injunction. I find it a compelling argument. 44.Defendants' actions have violated the Voter Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by arbitrarily denying them the effective exercise of their right to vote and to have that vote counted in an equal and consistent fashion with all other voters in this election. The citizens of Florida cast their votes on November 7, 2000. These votes were counted according to the processes prescribed by law, with no allegation of fraud, error, or other misconduct in the conduct of the counting. In accordance with a vote count conducted pursuant to the laws of Florida, Governor George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were determined to have received the most votes. Pursuant to Fla. Statute 102.141(4), an automatic recount was conducted with the participation of local officials of both political parties. Again, there was no allegation that the counting was infected by fraud, error, or other misconduct, and Governor George W. Bush and Dick Cheney once again received the most votes. Pursuant to requests by certain individuals and voters, county officials in Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Volusia counties have begun or will shortly begin yet a third count of the ballots cast, this time manually. 45. Florida law, as applied to these circumstances, threatens to inflict irreparable injury on the Voter Plaintiffs and on all similarly situated voters by arbitrarily denying full effect to the votes that they cast on November 7, 2000. It does so in the following ways. First, the provisions of Florida Statute 102.166 provide no standards to guide the discretion of the canvassing board in determining whether a manual recount is warranted in the first place or, if so, what the scope, nature, manner, and method of such recount should be. For example, one county canvassing board has been asked to and has apparent discretion to grant a recount for three precincts only; three others have been asked and has(?tense) discretion to grant a recount for the entire county. There is nothing in the statute to constrain the county canvassing boards' discretion as to how many precincts (beyond a minimum of three precincts) to recount. There is no rational basis for distinguishing which counties or precincts to recount, other than the unconstrained determination of the applicant that he may get more votes from those precincts selected. 46. Second, Florida Statute 102.166 establishes no criteria to limit the discretion of the canvassing boards in determining how to conduct the tally of votes. One canvassing board may decide to count votes that are not fully punched; another may not. One canvassing board may decide that a stray mark indicates an intent to vote for a particular candidate; another board may not. One board may try to determine the intent of voters who marked multiple candidates on a ballot; another may not. Florida Statute 102.166 authorizes the county canvassing board to determine the subjective 'intent' of a voter, without setting forth any standards for determining how to discern that intent. This creates arbitrariness in the implementation of a process that concerns the fundamental right to vote. 47. Third, if a manual recount gives effect to partially punched ballots, or counts ambiguous ballots based on the canvassing boards' subjective interpretation of voters' intent, it has the effect of unconstitutionally diluting the votes of the other voters both in the affected county and in the counties not subject to recount. 48. Because of this arbitrary and unconstrained decision-making authority conferred upon the county canvassing boards, a disappointed candidate in a close election can seek rccounts in successive favorable jurisdictions until he is satisfied with the results, and thereby arbitrarily deny the force and effect of the votes cast and validly counted (and verified on recount) for the winning candidate.

To: Ilaine who wrote (36508)	11/12/2000 12:56:25 PM
From: UnBelievable	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

As you are aware, one of the critical requirements in being granted injunctive relief is showing that in the absence of such relief the petitioner(s) will suffer IRREPARABLE HARM. While the complaint raises a number of issues, it seems to fall short with regard to this critical requirement. I would have expected an argument that the process of hand counting will alter the ballots so that once the court reaches a conclusion on the most appropriate way in which to tabulate the votes, that the hand counting process has significant risk associated with it of making it impossible to tabulate according to that criteria. They need an affidavit from an expert in the technology used in these machines stating that the ballots can be rendered less reliable through manual counting. In its current form the request for injunctive relief seems very weak. I doubt the court will take on any of the issues raised and refuse the injunction based on this weakness alone.