To: greenspirit who wrote (99582 ) 12/3/2000 6:21:55 PM From: Ellen Read Replies (2) | Respond to Now that's really interesting and, to my mind, much more significant than an analyst's opinion. Thanks for the link. Great food for thought.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. 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. <
