Good morning from the LEFT coast, Art:
A bit surprised in the overly partisan nature of your response. Here, I was, beginning to respect your legal skills even though you do not appear to trained in law nor a member of a state bar. But this latest response to me is a clear indication that your frustrations are mounting. Nevertheless . . .
. . . it does seem curious how the Bush people want to do everything to prevent a manual recount when at the same time they want to allow virtually all the military absentee ballots to count.
IMHO, your statement is a great over-generalization. I think you need to focus more on the specific points as to WHY the Bush people object to manual recount. They are multifaceted to specific points, and not necessarily a blanket rejection of manual counting that Florida law provides. These points were argued by Republican lawyers before the Florida Supreme Court, whatever that was worth, as well as discussed by myself in a previous post to you.
Specifically, the Bush campaign rejects the manual counting taking place on three counts: (1) it is being done only in selective counties in which the Democratic hold is quite strong; (2) the process by which voter intent is determined is partisaned by local canvassing boards either entirely or disproportionately weighted Democrat; and the most important objection (3) the inclusion of dimpled or impregnated ballots without any standard.
Equal Protection/Voters
I thoroughly understand the equal protection argument that the Democrats are likely to raise before the US Supreme Court on this issue. I, too, in-fact, question why the Bush campaign did not seek manual recounts in Republican weighted counties. I can't defend that position, but the position I can defend is that equal protection (EP) applies to every voter in Florida to have his/her vote counted FAIRLY, and by fairly, I mean along the SAME STANDARD, and with the SAME SCRUTINY, regardless of the exercise of such rights under Florida law by either political party or candidate. This issue is not that of EP of the candidates, but of the voters in the State. The most obvious remedy to this issue is to conduct a recount in every county, and to do so under a SIMILAR STANDARD. But this is unlikely given that time is running out under the Federal electoral scheme.
Inherent Bias
The Bush campaign has focused less on EP of the voter, but more on the inherent bias built into the manual re-count process. Here election officials are charged with exercising their discretion in determining the intent of the voter by manual inspection of the ballot. Such a process is fraught with bias that is impossible to ignore, coupled with the opportunity for mischief by overzealous advocates of one candidate over another, particularly when the stakes of the political office are so high. It is simply naive to believe that these politically elected or appointed officials responsible for managing the re-count and determining voter intent are going to remove politics from the process, PARTICULARLY when there are NO STANDARDS, or when there are standards, they CHANGE THEM.
Dimpled Ballots
The forgoing is no more evident than my third point, the acceptance of review of dimpled or impregnated chads. To except a dimpled chad as evidence of voter intent is utterly ridiculous without any sort of standard to apply to determination of whether such dimpled chad should be counted or not.
Though, the Democrats argue that the State of Texas allows for manual recounting, it is important to note that (1) Texas law is irrelevant to the instant controversy, and (2) if TX law were applicable, it does set forth an objective standard requiring that no less than 2 corners of a chad be punched out in order for such a vote to count, or if indented "indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote." See Tex Elec. Code § 127.130. Manual Counting.
Here the standard is "clearly ascertainable," which implies to me a relatively high standard. Florida, or Palm Beach or Broward Counties have no such standard that was in place BEFORE the election that could serve as such a guide.
The Voting Machine
I find it incredulous that only now, 3 weeks after the election do we now see a partisan former PBC supervisor claim the voting machines for punch ballots to be worn and defective so as to render a punch in the columns in which voters cast their vote for President ineffective, resulting in a dimpled chad.
I first question I ask is WHO is this woman? Second I ask WHY is she first making this claim NOW? And third, I ask, HOW can she make such claim, yet state that the machines have not yet been inspected for such flaw?
Here's my response: Well, she's a Democrat, a former PBC supervisor. Gee, what a surprise. She is coming forward now at the urge of the Democratic campaign as part of an effort to introduce extrinsic evidence into the case that would support the acceptance of such dimpled chads, principally because dimpled chads, alone, should not count unless there is a sufficiently clear standard that requires the arbiter to conclude convincingly that the voter intended to cast that vote.
The woman claims as evidence that "thousands" of dimpled chads were cast for President but not for other offices or measures. She states how extraordinary it is for "thousands" of Presidential votes to show up like this in the ballots. I would argue, as there are many of us here who probably disliked both candidates, couldn't decide, and when it came to cast a vote may have rested the stylus on the unpunched chad, and decided to NOT VOTE and continue filling out one's ballot. This, IMHO, is a much more reasonable explanation. Again, while thousands may have merely indented the chad, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS managed to punch the chad clearly through and have their vote counted.
Military Ballots
As we now know, the Bush team has withdrawn its lawsuit compelling several Florida counties to count certain overseas military ballots that were disqualified since they have now agreed to be counted.
Every state election law I know of insists on (1) evidence the ballot was postmarked the day of the election or the day before the election (depending on the state), but NEVER after the election, and (2) that the signature on the envelope containing the absentee ballot must look the same as the voters signature on record with the local board of elections.
Art, to apply this standard to the facts surrounding how military votes are cast is disingenuous. You should note that Federal law trumps ANY state law on this issue. So, for you to cite state law here is a misrepresentation of applicable law. The FACT of this matter is that if a serviceman at sea casts his vote and submits the ballot to the proper repository for ballot submission, chances are very great that the ballot will not receive the necessary and timely postmark until the batch of ballots reaches some military port thousands of miles away. You can argue to disqualify military ballots if you wish, but it is this kinda thinking that have gotten the Democrats into deep doo-doo, and you know it.
So now we have the Bush people saying, "don't verify the military absentee ballots; count all of them." My, my, how interesting, considering that they also say, "don't count any more ballots in Dade County."
Who are you quoting here? Where did you pull these statements from? Certainly, not your magician's hat, I hope. I doubt that the official Bush position is to count ALL military ballots, but rather to waive the postmarked date in light of the circumstances surrounding how the military votes are cast and submitted.
Shame on You
Who is stealing the election? After all is resolved, what will be true is that Gore got most of the votes in Florida,. . . . If Bush wins, he will become known as the first president to steal the election, with help from his brother.
Art, have a drink, buddy. Get hold of yourself. Do you see what you are saying? Bush is the PRESUMPTIVE winner in Florida, not only based upon the result of the first vote, but also the mandatory recount. The only candidate doing the stealing here is your man Gore. Own up to it, man.
To see you assert that "Gore got more votes in Florida" is shocking as a retired election official, and reminiscent of Bill Daley's comments from day one following the Election Day. Such a statement can NOT be based upon FACT unless subsequently proven. It hasn't to date, and likely never will be. To make such a statement speaks volumes of MO of the Democratic party in Florida. It, and you, don't want the truth, could care less about the will of the people. All you care about is a voter result that shows Al Gore the winner in Florida.
To claim Jeb Bush had a role in this is utter nonsense. What are you implying here? For starters, if Jeb had ANY role is stacking the election against Gore, the Democrats would have been all over it from day one. I'm sure they done some thorough investigation. There has been absolutely no evidence of voter fraud, vote tampering.
You're grasping for straws, buddy. Quit while you're ahead. |
