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: Snowman who wrote (77494)	11/16/2000 8:24:20 AM
From: kvkkc1	Respond to of 769669

Interesting post. It will be interesting to see if the courts maintain their supposed non-partisanship.knc

To: Snowman who wrote (77494)	11/16/2000 10:23:49 AM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769669

I usually disagree with Rush, but this time he really missed the boat. No one disagrees that the Legislature imposed a deadline for submitting certifications; the legislative intent is clear. Contrary to Rush's suggestion, however, the Legislature did not intend to adopt an ironclad rule that any results received after that time must be ignored. They could have said that if that was their intention, and they did not. Instead of adopting such an absolute rule, they gave the Sec. of State the discretion to accept such results. That's where we are today: did Harris properly exercise her discretion? That brings us to another question of statutory intent. The Legislature enacted a law that gave candidates 72 hours to request a manual recount of an election. From election Tuesday, you have until Friday to make your request. Then the county must decide what to do, which takes time. And of course, the manual count itself can take days. Yet the deadline Harris is rigidly relying on says that counties must have their results in one week after election day. Doesnt this render the statutory right to seek a manual recount illusory? In other words, if the Sec of State rigidly applies the deadline and refuses to accept results filed afterward, you can never get a manual recount requested and completed in time for the counties to timely submit their results. The intent of the Legislature in creating this right to a recount is rendered entirely meaningless. Judge Lewis was clearly concerned about this untenable result in the intial hearing. washingtonpost.com The issue of whether it is appropriate to look a punchcard to determine whether the voter intended to vote for a particular candidate has been debated to death on this thread. The bottom line is that the same procedures being used in Florida have been used across the US for years wherever punchcards are used. Standards have been adopted by legislatures (including Texas) and elections officials in such states to govern this procedure. To suggest that there is something novel or underhanded about this procedure doesnt wash, particularly since both side monitor the process and can appeal decisions they disagree with, to court if necessary. In the end, I think the Court will conclude that by definition, complying with a request for a manual recount constitutes good cause for accepting late-filed results, and the failure to accept such results is an abuse of discretion, at least where -- as here -- there is some showing that such results could affect the election outcome. Anyway, that is my prediction for the next chapter. And I think that the Bush folks suspect as much, which is why they have have placed their bets on the federal courts.