The following day, the court (the lower fla court) denied the motion, ruling that the Secretary had not acted arbitrarily and had exercised her discretion in a reasonable manner consistent with the court’s earlier ruling.
as the court saw the matter, there were two principal questions: whether a discrepancy between an original machine return and a sample manual recount resulting from the way a ballot has been marked or punched is an “error in vote tabulation” justifying a full manual recount; and how to reconcile what it spoke of as two conflicts in Florida’s election laws: (a) between the time frame for conducting a manual recount under Fla. Stat. §102.166 (2000) and the time frame for submitting county returns under §§102.111 and 102.112, and (b) between §102.111, which provides that the Secretary “shall … ignor[e]” late election returns, and §102.112, which provides that she “may … ignor[e]” such returns.
With regard to the first issue, the court held that, under the plain text of the statute, a discrepancy between a sample manual recount and machine returns due to the way in which a ballot was punched or marked did constitute an “error in vote tabulation” sufficient to trigger the statutory provisions for a full manual recount.
With regard to the second issue, the court held that the “shall … ignor[e]” provision of §102.111 conflicts with the “may . . . ignor[e]” provision of §102.112, and that the “may … ignor[e]” provision controlled. The court turned to the questions whether and when the Secretary may ignore late manual recounts. The court relied in part upon the right to vote set forth in the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution in concluding that late manual recounts could be rejected only under limited circumstances. The court then stated: “[B]ecause of our reluctance to rewrite the Florida Election Code, we conclude that we must invoke the equitable powers of this Court to fashion a remedy … .” App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a. The court thus imposed a deadline of November 26, at 5 p.m., for a return of ballot counts. The 7-day deadline of §102.111, assuming it would have applied, was effectively extended by 12 days.
There are expressions in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida that may be read to indicate that it construed the Florida Election Code without regard to the extent to which the Florida Constitution could, consistent with Art. II, §1, cl. 2, “circumscribe the legislative power.” The opinion states, for example, that “[t]o the extent that the Legislature may enact laws regulating the electoral process, those laws are valid only if they impose no ‘unreasonable or unnecessary’ restraints on the right of suffrage” guaranteed by the state constitution. App. to Pet. for Cert. 30a. The opinion also states that “ecause election laws are intended to facilitate the right of suffrage, such laws must be liberally construed in favor of the citizens’ right to vote … .” Ibid.
ussc says: as the court saw the matter.(it was hallucinating, stretching, twisting)“error in vote tabulation”- (and we know there was none)
what it spoke of (it was spinning, hallucinating, stretching, twisting) equitable powers -(it had no right, basis, facts, logic-it did what it wanted without any grounds, basis-except amorphous-let votes be counted-ignoring legislature's system for doing just that) fla ct from shall ignore to may ignore to
late manual recounts could be rejected only under limited circumstances.9from shall to can't. PLEASE!)
The 7-day deadline of §102.111, assuming it would have applied, was effectively extended by 12 days. (it changed the law after the election)
There are expressions in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida that may be read to indicate that it construed the Florida Election Code without regard to the extent to which the Florida Constitution could, consistent with Art. II, §1, cl. 2, “circumscribe the legislative power.”
The opinion states, for example, that “[t]o the extent that the Legislature may enact laws regulating the electoral process, those laws are valid only if they impose no ‘unreasonable or unnecessary’ restraints on the right of suffrage” guaranteed by the state constitution. App. to Pet. for Cert. 30a. The opinion also states that “ecause election laws are intended to facilitate the right of suffrage, such laws must be liberally construed in favor of the citizens’ right to vote … .” Ibid.
(in stead of following, construing, enforcing, applying, interpreting fla legislation, fla ct ignored it -said it doesn't apply unless it allows votes cast or not cast to be construed as votes for gore) |
