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: Ellen who wrote (99524)	12/3/2000 4:25:09 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Ellen, I started to put together some thoughts, interspaced with law passages, and it got rather long. So I'll just start with this article and build on it in future posts. By the way, Lowenstein is probably the leading expert on election law in the country. And here's his article... Nonsense in Seminole A frivolous lawsuit over absentee ballots. opinionjournal.com BY DANIEL H. LOWENSTEIN Thursday, November 30, 2000 12:01 a.m. EST Most of the Florida election lawsuits involve difficult issues with legitimate arguments on both sides. A glaring exception is the suit brought by Harry Jacobs, a personal-injury lawyer, seeking to invalidate 15,000 absentee ballots cast in Seminole County. The press has taken the case seriously, and perhaps it should, since a victory for Mr. Jacobs would hand the election to Al Gore. But unless Lewis Carroll's Queen of Hearts is presiding, no court should take the case seriously. The controversy centers on Florida's requirement that applications for absentee ballots contain voter identification numbers. Both parties sent out many applications with these numbers already filled in by computer. But software error caused the omission of numbers from some sent out by the Republicans. In some counties, the election officials themselves filled in the numbers. In Seminole, they declined to do so. However, they permitted Republican workers to fill in the numbers, sitting in the county election offices--without supervision. Was it wrong for Sandra Goard, Seminole's supervisor of elections, to let Republicans fill in the numbers? Perhaps. Failing to provide supervision was probably a bad idea, though one should allow for informalities typical in rural counties. She has been criticized for not inviting Democratic workers on the same terms as the Republicans. This may be a valid criticism, though there was no similar problem on applications mailed out by Democrats. Let's assume that Ms. Goard was wrong. Perhaps she should be admonished, or disciplined. But that is not what Mr. Jacobs has in mind. Instead, he proposes to disqualify all the absentee ballots. There were fewer than 5,000 on which the Republicans entered numbers. Consider the situation of these voters. They sent in an application with no reason to believe that there was anything wrong. In due course, they received their absentee ballots, which they filled out and returned. Now Mr. Jacobs asks a court to throw out these votes. But what could justify disqualifying--"disenfranchising," to use the word fashionable in election disputes--voters because of an arguably wrong decision by the election supervisor? But that is not the extent of the suit. There is no way to separate the 5,000 ballots whose applications were handled by Republican workers from the other 10,000 absentee ballots cast in Seminole. So Mr. Jacobs proposes disregarding votes cast by people who were not only innocent but who had no connection whatever with the problematic applications. Mr. Jacobs relies on a 1995 case in which a federal court ordered Alabama officials not to count absentee ballots that lacked either notarizations or witness signatures, both required by Alabama law. But the case has no bearing on Seminole. Getting notarization is burdensome, and the federal court pointed out that many more Alabamans might have voted if they had known the rules would not be enforced. In Seminole, a phone call to the elections office would have given voters the information they needed. In most cases, even that wasn't necessary because the parties filled in the information. The Alabama case involved failure to comply with the requirements for a lawful ballot. In Seminole, no ballot irregularity is alleged. The problem relates only to the application. Ordinarily, irregularities with applications that are far more serious than Seminole should have no effect, so long as the voter is eligible to vote and the ballot itself complies with legal requirements. There is one close question in the Seminole case. Should Mr. Jacobs, an attorney and officer of the court, be disciplined for bringing a frivolous lawsuit? Mr. Lowenstein, a law professor at UCLA, is author of "Election Law" (Carolina Academic Press, 1995).

To: Ellen who wrote (99524)	12/3/2000 4:29:39 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 769670

An interesting article from Vanity Magazine. vanity.com The Mythical Seminole County Case The most interesting of Al Gore’s remaining cases is one to which he is not a party, the strange case of Seminole County. The facts are still coming out, but there is enough agreement about what happened to take a preliminary look at it. The Republicans and the Democrats both paid for applications for absentee ballots from the same printer. They both sent them out to party faithful, who filled in the blanks and submitted them to the Board of Elections in Seminole County. Both the Republicans and the Democrats entered the Voter Identification Numbers on each application for the voters. The only difference is that the Republicans put the numbers on the applications after they had been submitted by the voters, while the Democrats put them on before. That’s it. That’s the basis for the suit. The case is not about election fraud. It is not about ballot tampering. No one is claiming that the ballots were filled out improperly. No one is claiming that anyone was illegally denied the right to vote, as the Republicans are claiming about the successful Democratic plan striking some perfectly legal overseas absentee ballots. Rather, the Democrats claim that applications were altered by Republicans, that the Republicans used the Election offices to fill in the omissions, and that the Election Supervisor unfairly favored the Republicans. Most of the answers to these claims are simple; some are not. Using the Election Offices Every day in every active courthouse, lawyers fill out forms and draft orders, agreements, and stipulations using the chairs, desks, tables, benches, floors, and walls of the courtrooms and the clerk’s office. There was nothing wrong with the Republicans using tables in the offices to do their work, if that work was otherwise legal. When I was in active practice, several times clerks gave us good working space to draft orders or fill out subpoenas or other legal documents—and helped us with them. Although voter registration information is usually confidential, Florida law specifically exempts political party officials from these restrictions. Republicans had a right to the information in those applications and indeed had the ID numbers on their own laptop computers. They could reasonably expect to be accommodated by election officials. Adding the ID Numbers Next, was it proper for the Republicans to add the ID numbers after the ballot applications were received by the election board? Yes, it was. The main Florida statute for requesting absentee ballots requires that the electors submit their applications (which was done) and “provide” their ID numbers, which was done by others on their behalf. It doesn’t say that no one else can touch or fill out the applications. The copy of the complaint in the Seminole case that I have seen has a handwritten case number at the top of the first page. Who wrote that on the pleadings? Was it the clerk or a party to the case? In some courts, parties are required by law to put case numbers on their pleadings, but no reasonable judge would strike a pleading where a clerk or other friendly party had written in the number. Such issues are what lawyers call de minimus. But even this gives too much credit to the Democrats’ argument, because it implies that there was some trivial defect in the applications. There was no defect of any kind because they were corrected by people cooperating with the voters. The Republicans arranged for and paid for the printing and mailing of the very applications they helped complete. Obviously, if the voters had not wanted the Republicans to supply words on their forms, they would not have filled out those forms and signed them. They were working together to apply for an absentee ballot. By returning the ballots properly, every single voter ratified the actions of those who filled in the ID number. There was nothing illegal in the slightest about the applications for ballots, which means that the actual absentee ballots were entirely legal. Helping Republicans The last major claim in the Seminole case is that by allowing Republicans to use her office, Supervisor Sandra Goard unfairly helped the Republicans. Perhaps morally she should have notified the Democrats that they could come in and fill in missing numbers on ballot applications as well. But then, I’m an idealist: I still expect Florida courts to follow the law. Goard says that she was never asked by the Democrats to let them add ID numbers. If they had been refused, they certainly would have mentioned it in their complaint. They admit that she informed them that applications missing ID numbers were not adequate. Even when warned, they failed to act. Just as Bush can’t get recounts in counties where he didn’t seek them, Gore can’t correct ballot applications in counties where he didn’t ask to correct them. There is a good reason why Republican voters in Seminole County needed more help this year. Both the Republicans and the Democrats used the same printing firm. The printer discovered that the form it was using for ballot applications left off the ID numbers. Unfortunately, the printer discovered the error after the Republican applications were sent out, but before the Democratic applications were sent out. When the Republicans found out about the error, they called the Seminole election office and asked if they could come in and remedy the omission. The Supervisor agreed. Thus, the problem this year was a predominately Republican problem. What is the Remedy? The Republicans in Seminole County did not prevent any person from voting. They did the right thing. The Seminole ballot applications were perfectly legal. Since some of the voters could have stayed in town and voted in person had they not voted absentee, it would be particularly cruel to punish them after they relied on the Florida authorities that they could legally vote by absentee ballot. Both Democratic and Republican voters submitted their own applications and both political parties supplied the voter ID numbers on those applications. No competent court will allow the Democrats to throw out from 4,700 to 15,000 absentee ballots when not a single one is illegal. The only claim that is even worth arguing about is the moral one, whether the Republican official was sufficiently even-handed. Anyone who has ever worked on contested campaigns knows that to criticize a public official for not volunteering to help someone in the other party (when they haven’t asked for help) is to complain about the usual behavior. If I were to list the most biased Florida officials I’ve seen over the last three weeks, Goard wouldn’t make the top 10. It would be a horrible irony if a Florida court struck fully legal ballots based on fully legal applications, because the Election Supervisor in Seminole County was only slightly fairer than the Florida courts. But such ironies are precisely why Al Gore continues to “put his faith in government”—in this case, to deliver to him the Presidency of the United States.

To: Ellen who wrote (99524)	12/3/2000 4:47:13 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

This Florida case sets an excellent precedent. caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\wk3\beckstrom_vs_vogel_91642&invol=1 Beckstrom v. Volusia County Canvassing Board: a trial court’s factual determination that a contested certified election reliably reflects the will of the voters outweighs the court’s determination of unintentional wrongdoing by election officials in order to allow the real parties in interest--the voters--to prevail. By unintentional wrongdoing, we mean noncompliance with statutorily mandated election procedures in situations in which the noncompliance results from incompetence, lack of care, or, as we find occurred in this election, the election officials’ erroneous understanding of the statutory requirements. In sum, we hold that even in a situation in which a trial court finds substantial noncompliance caused by unintentional wrongdoing as we have defined it, the court is to void the election only if it finds that the substantial noncompliance resulted in doubt as to whether a certified election reflected the will of the voters. Florida State Statutes also say in 101.61-68, there is a criminal penalty for filling out a ballot application, fraudulently. However, GOP election volunteers filled out correct information (Voter ID numbers) on the ballot applications. The law also states that the ballot can be thrown out only if the electors (voters) signature, and witness, are either false (fraudulent) or missing. Therefore, on what basis would the judge throw out 15K votes? Think about this....if you show up to vote without your voter registration card, poll workers routinely look you up in the book of registered voters. After finding your name, and presenting I.D. you are allowed to vote. Seminole County officials did basically the same thing to absentee voters.