A number of folks have posted that this section is not enforced under a consent decree with the Federal Govt, but I've never seen a link to that decreee.
I haven't seen any one say that this section is not being enforced, only that it shouldn't be.
I can not find a link to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, but will try to provide information to support the statement. Also, I will attempt to belittle the democrats ploys to subvert the military vote.
1.) The originating souce of the claim that there is federal law that precedes state laws in this matter:
Sweeney and Indiana Rep. Steve Buyer argued that federal law trumped state law governing military ballots, and did not require a postmark.
"This is a federal election, and the federal statute is what rules here," said Buyer, chairman of a House subcommittee on military personnel and a Gulf war veteran.
cnn.com
They also called the disqualifications a violation of federal law, which says "balloting materials under the uniformed and overseas citizens absentee voting act shall be carried expeditiously and free of postage."
"The purpose of the federal statute was to enfranchise the vote, not disenfranchise it, so what we have is the state of Florida that did not follow the federal law in a federal election," said Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Indiana.
2.)As I said, I can not find the aforementioned act, but here it is mentioned. I do not think this is the source for Buyer's claim.
The amendment clarifies that nothing in this chapter will affect free mail as currently provided by law for 1) correspondence of members of the diplomatic corps and consuls of the countries of the Postal Union of Americas and Spain; 2) the blind and the disabled, and 3) mailing of balloting materials under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.
house.gov
3.) Kerry has a double standard when he says:
If Republicans want to rethink the votes of "people who were treated unfairly because the rules did not accommodate for their circumstances," Kerrey said, "Are they willing to do the same thing for an 85-year-old who simply did not have the strength to punch through a punch card?"
cnn.com
It is also unbelievable as Tom Watson has testified. But really, only the military has to be responsible? Is that an extra burden being placed on citizens defending out nation? I say that citizens should be responsible as well. I agree with Boortz on this:
Let’s take a look at the way the law has changed in Florida over the years as it relates to the responsibility of a voter to make an informed choice at the polls and to cast their vote properly:.
First we go to the case of Nelson V. Robinson, 301 So. 2d 508, Fla. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1974. This is a case involving a confusing ballot where some candidates claimed that it was difficult for the voters to find their names and cast a proper vote for them. In this case the appeals court actually ruled that the voter has a responsibility to go into that voting booth, pay attention, follow the instructions, find their candidate on the ballot, and cast their vote properly. Imagine that … a court saying that people need to conduct themselves responsibly. Here’s a portion of the ruling from that case:
“… if a candidate appears on the ballot in such a position that he can be found by the voters upon a reasonable study of the ballot, then such voters have been afforded a full, free and open opportunity to make their choice for or against that particular candidate; and the candidate himself has no constitutional right to a particular spot on the ballot which might make the voters’ choice easier. His constitutional rights in the matter end when his name is placed on the ballot. Thereafter, the right is in the voters to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to find it; and as to this, it has been observed that the constitution intended that a voter search for the name of the candidate of his choice … without regard to others on the ballot. Furthermore, it assumes his ability to read and his intelligence to indicate his choice with the degree of care commensurate with the solemnity of the occasion."
So, there you have it. The Florida appeals courts actually had the gall and the audacity to suggest that an informed voter should be able to go into the voting booth, find their candidate’s name, and cast a proper vote for that candidate. The court actually suggested that voting was a solemn occasion and that the voter actually had a responsibility to pay attention.
But, that was then. This is now ………..
We go to yesterday’s Florida Supreme Court decision [Florida Democratic Party, Appellant, vs. Katherine Harris etc, et al.]
I’ve read the entire decision and nowhere do I find any mention that voters have any responsibility to exercise any degree of care whatsoever in casting their votes. All the court says is that they have a right to have their voice heard … little more. No language about the “ .. indicat(ing) his choice with the degree of care commensurate with the solemnity of the occasion."
We shouldn’t be surprised. Democratic activists have been pushing for a complete elimination of all standards of conduct for citizens for some time now. The liberal mantra dictates that people cannot be held responsible for their actions. After all, if you hold people responsible for their actions, then how can you then reward them with government goodies for their irresponsibility?
If this court were to hold that people actually had some responsibility to find their candidate and then to cast a valid vote --- in other words, TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE BALLOT --- it could have a potential devastating impact on the basic liberal mantra. Holy Cow! If people are to be held responsible for casting a valid vote, what else can they be held responsible for? Their inability to get a job? Their lack of job skills? Their lack of a work ethic? Their stupid decision making?
boortz.com
4.)One of the excuses used to reject military ballots is a failure to request a ballot within the required 30 days. How did they get the ballot then?
5.)Retired Gen. Colin Powell, a candidate to become secretary of
state if Mr. Bush wins the presidency, also weighed in on the
issue this week. He told reporters at a dedication at Fort
Hamilton, N.Y., on Monday that he was "troubled" by the wholesale rejection of military ballots.
"We shouldn't disenfranchise our GIs if there's anything we can do to avoid it," Mr. Powell said. "All those GIs in Broward County, Florida, are going to learn that 75 percent of their
absentee ballots were thrown aside. At the same time, we're
trying to divine the intent of dimples on the other ballots."
deja.com[ST_artlink=washingtontimes.com]/jump/http://washingtontimes.com/national/default-20001122225217.htm |
