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 : The Making of The Presidency: American Thoughts And Essays -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: opalapril who wrote (55)	11/22/2000 1:00:44 AM
From: opalapril	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 134

Footnotes 35-46 35 The grounds for contesting an election are set forth in section 102.168(3), Florida Statutes (2000): (a) Misconduct, fraud, or corruption . . . sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election. (b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate . . . . (c) Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election. (d) Proof that any elector, election official or canvassing board member was given or offered a bribe . . . . (e) Any other cause or allegation which, if sustained, would show that a person other than the successful candidate was the person duly nominated or elected to the office in question. 36 As discussed in Siegel v. Lepore, 2000 WL 1687185 *6 (S.D. Fla. 2000): On its face, the manual recount provision does not limit candidates access to the ballot or interfere with voters' right to associate or vote. Instead the manual recount provision is intended to safeguard the integrity and reliability of the electoral process by providing a structural means of detecting and correcting clerical or electronic tabulating errors in the counting of election ballots. While discretionary in its application, the provision is not wholly standardless. Rather, the central purpose of the scheme, as evidenced by its plain language, is to remedy ‘an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election.' Fla. Stat. §102.166(5). In this pursuit, the provision strives to strengthen rather than dilute the right to vote by securing, as nearly as humanly possible, an accurate and true reflection of the will of the electorate. Notably, the four county canvassing boards [that were] challenged in this suit have reported various anomalies in the initial automated count and recount. The state manual recount provision therefore serves important governmental interests. 37 The statute does not set forth any criteria for determining when a manual recount is appropriate. See § 102.166(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2000) ("The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount."). 38 § 102.166(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (2000). 39 See, e.g., Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Ass'n v. Florida Div. of Admin. Hearings, 686 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1997). 40 See, e.g., Starr Tyme, Inc. v. Cohen, 659 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 1995). 41 See, e.g., Capers v. State, 678 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1996). 42 See, e.g., State ex rel.Johnson v. Vizzini, 227 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1969). 43 See, e.g., McKendry v. State, 641 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1994). 44 See, e.g., Amente v. Newman, 653 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1995). 45 See, e.g., Sun Ins. Office, Ltd. v. Clay, 133 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1961). 46 According to the Secretary, this matter is governed by consent decree with the federal government.