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: JDN who wrote (104357)	12/7/2000 1:34:32 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Interesting exchange, imho: Justice Barbara Pariente: Just let me — you keep on using the language that there should be a reasonable probability of a change, and you've said that, again, we've got to stick to the statute. My reading of the statute says "sufficient to change or place in doubt the results of the election." "Place in doubt" is a different standard than "a reasonable probability of different result." Do you agree with that? Richard: I'm not sure, Justice Pariente, but I don't think we need to address that issue at this time because there was virtually no evidence in the record upon which one could conclude — there was no evidence of any single voting machine that misoperated. There was no evidence of any voter whose vote was not properly recorded. Pariente: So your position is that, in the contest, that errors or undervoting, as we've been referring to it as — that is, the failure of the machine to read a vote that might otherwise be properly cast for a candidate — that it is not the role of the judiciary in a contest to evaluate undervotes. Is that your position today? Richard: Well, my position is two-fold. The first one is... Pariente: Is that one position, that this election contest statute does not vest within the judiciary the authority to review votes that were properly cast but never counted? Richard: Well, number one, it is not the role of the judiciary to do so when a canvassing board has already done so and has made a reasonable decision, and that happened in Palm Beach County. And I can conceive of no standard that this or any other court would impose upon the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board... Pariente: Let's stay with Dade County, where it's not disputed that 9,000 votes have been the subject of request since November 9 have never been counted. Richard: I think it is disputed, Justice Pariente. All we know in Dade County is that the voting apparatus, which nobody proved was defective, determined that 9,000 votes were not properly recorded by the voter. Pariente: But we know that in the first 20 percent, that 434-something, more or less, legal votes were recovered. We've already said that we shouldn't challenge Palm Beach County. We know that somewhere between, whether it was 174 to 215 votes were recovered. And Broward County, whose certification has been included, has several hundred votes, all with the same type of machine. Pariente: Are you really saying that the votes, the 9,000 votes in Dade County, which were the exact same votes that were looked at in Palm Beach County and Broward County, should not be looked at in a contest action? Richard: Not at this point, Your Honor, for two reasons. The first is that the canvassing board made the judgment that at the deadline that this court set for everybody, they could not conceivably complete their count. And I would suggest to this court that based upon what the Florida legislature has told us, that they did not have the authority to submit a partial count, only a full count. And had they done so, they probably would have violated the federal Voting Rights Act and the United States Constitution. That's the first reason. And this court has no basis in this record to determine that the canvassing board abused its discretion in making that decision.

To: JDN who wrote (104357)	12/7/2000 1:58:12 PM
From: Yaacov	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Hi JDN, I was watching David Boies a while back. He said if Fla. SC rules in favor of Bush, he has other options! He didn't say what are those option! He also said if the Fla. legislator chose the electors he has options! ANy idea what he was talking about?