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: sunshadow who wrote (109177)	12/10/2000 8:25:36 AM
From: sunshadow	Respond to of 769670

Has Florida court wreaked havoc on election? By creating — not counting — votes, decision weakens nation, rule of law By Stephen Safranek - Detroit News 12/10 The chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court wrote, “It only stands to reason that many times a reading of a ballot by a human will be subjective, and the intent gleaned from that ballot is only in the mind of the beholder. “This subjective counting is only compounded where no standards exist or, as in this statewide contest, where there are no statewide standards for determining voter intent by the various canvassing boards, individual judges, or multiple unknown counters who will eventually count these ballots.” This justice, a Democrat, well recognized that the next few days would not see a counting of ballots, but a creation of votes for a presidential candidate. The “winner” of this contest and this country will be the weaker for it. A fair way exists under Florida law to count votes. Voters at the polling places are given clear, simple instructions on voting. If they vote on punch cards, they are told to punch through the hole for the candidate they wish to vote for. They are told to remove any pieces of paper hanging from their ballots. They are given a simple and unequivocal way to mark their ballot. When voters fail to do so, no person can later determine what they “intended” to do. One fact that has been largely forgotten in this entire discussion over “counting” all the ballots is the fact that the ballots have been counted. But those persons whose ballot for “president” was not “counted” did not vote for either candidate. Now their ballots are being voted by other persons. Nearly every judge who looked at the Florida situation has recognized that determining the “intent” of voters looks like the exercise of raw judicial power. A review of judicial action during the last month is enlightening. Leon Circuit Court Judge Sander Sauls, after weighing the evidence and considering the relevant law, declined to grant the relief sought by Albert Gore. Two trial judges, after weighing the evidence and considering the law, declined to throw out thousands of votes as requested by Gore supporters. Leon County Circuit Judge Terry Lewis, after weighing the evidence and considering the law, declined to require county officials to “recount” ballots as sought by Albert Gore. And, even the U.S. Supreme Court, after considering the law, wrote a unanimous opinion vacating a decision rendered by the Florida Supreme Court. But a majority of the Florida Supreme Court, four justices, is mandating that the creation of “votes” continue. The latest estimates are that between 40,000 and 65,000 ballots will be voted by judges or election officials. Throughout Florida, election officials and judges have been granted the right by the Florida Supreme Court to select the next president of the United States. Chief Justice Wells wrote, “I also believe that the majority’s decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution.” Justice Wells invited the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the election dispute. As if to prove Justice Wells correct, the U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday stayed the recount pending a review of the Florida Supreme Court decision. During the coming days, the U.S. Supreme Court will provide some guidance. In addition, the Florida Legislature may exercise its right and duty to select the electors from Florida. Finally, even were a dispute to arise over the selection of Florida electors, the selection of the president will be resolved. Our Constitution, recognizing the power enjoyed by the president, and having seen attempts to subvert the selection of the president, wisely provided a means for selection. That process nearly ensures that George W. Bush will be the next president of the United States. But this process will have its costs. The Florida Supreme Court, this country and the rule of law will be weaker. Bush’s role as president, more than any other, should be to strengthen the rule of law throughout the land. If he does so, not only future presidents, but citizens throughout the land will be judged by laws and rules, and not what is in “the mind of the beholder.” Stephen Safranek is a professor who specializes in constitutional law at the Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor.