To: Sabrejet who wrote (8150 ) 11/24/2000 9:47:46 AM From: Bosco Read Replies (2) | Respond to <ot>Hi Sabre! - hope you and your family had a wonderful Thanksgiving. And thanks for the response. First, I must apologize I might have missed some of your previous comments. You said, "I cite many other states that completely ban the "assumed" voter intention angle. Hanging chads etc... are considerred a no vote." Did you give some concrete examples elsewhere I might have missed. Also, I don't see FL SC citing the Illinois case is amateurish . I mean, obviously, it is unprecedented [except maybe the Miami mayorial race, which is consitent to the current court's intent, i.e., the will of the voter is paramount] in FL jurisprudence history, I thought it was perfectly reasonable, if not legal, to use transitive logic if no deductive case is involved. Not being a legal eagle, I am not in the position to say with 100% certainty, but NH and MA have *outlawed* the butterfly type of ballots b/c of the design flaw. In fact, while FL SC is not involved in this particular point of contention, I suspect the plainiff is not too amateurish to cite "Delahunt vs Johnson" case if the case comes about in FL. Obviously, many states have deemed voter intent paramount and manual count may be one way to ascertain such intent.how are you going to challenge a Texas stature --- which is backed by the Texas legislature with the current Texas Governor's signature --- in the Texas court . Whether the FL SC's citing of the Illinois case is amateurish or not seems to be quite irrelevant, since you have already precluded [implied] interstate logic is not a good case of precedent.
