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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (73089)	11/13/2000 5:21:24 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769669

The Florida Statutes are less than clear on this. While it is true that Section 111 uses the word SHALL Certify, Section 112 uses the word MAY Certify when it discusses this deadline. Couple that with the lawful Procedures in Section 166 for Protesting the count, procedures that can only be judged to be proceeding forward with all deliberate speed but given the scope of such task in some of these larger counties being impossible to conform to and complete in a timely manner and I think you have a basis for an injunction and an order for the delay of the Certification. To cover all of their bases it looks to me like the Gore team has an additional remedy should they fail to stop the partisan effort for certification tomorrow at 5:00pm. Under Section 168, Contest of Elections, they actually have up to 10 days after the Canvassing Board reports to the Secretary of State their final tally to Contest the Election. The grounds for contesting includes any rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election. Not only is an immediate hearing called for in Section 168, but the Judge at his discretion may fashion such orders as he or she deems necessary to ensure that each allegation in the complaint is investigated, examined, or checked, to prevent or correct any alleged wrong, and to provide any relief appropriate under such circumstances.

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (73089)	11/13/2000 6:37:19 PM
From: iandiareii	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769669

You misstate. The Sec. of State recognizes that the statute provides for some discretion, but says not in the instant case. The discretion is clearly there in the statute -- all reasonable parties agree -- but as to its proper application the statute is silent. No mention of hurricanes, earthquakes, snakebite, must-see-TV...nothing. Not even a generic 'acts of God.' Silent. From that silence she infers a lack of discretion here since, on other matters pertaining to recounts, the legislature was something more than silent. That's one reading. However, it will not prevail in court. The Sec. of State's cramped extrapolation from a single, silent sub-section of Florida's election laws won't trump the legislature's expressed guidance of a recount, now being pursued in good faith and without undue delay. An extension will be granted.