Pasting in a post from another thread ..
chess9 - you were fairly sure that it would win when it went to the first judge, but it didn't. Seems like he agree that the Secretary of State does get to make the choice. I read his opinion, there is some wiggle room in there where he cites the possible conflict between the statutes allowing for manual recounts and the statutes for the deadline. Based on the line of questioning he used with the State (tough enough that the Democrats felt they had it in the bag), he was looking for a way out.
In the end, he confirmed that the SoS did have the power to make teh decision and he warned her to be careful with her reasons for rejecting any late counts.
At the end of the day, any appeal to the Supreme Court will have to be made after she makes up her mind. Seems like she doesn't have to say anything until she is actually presented with a changed result. The 2 PM deadline tomorrow is also great, as she is forcing the Counties to spell out, in writing, why wexactly they feel they need to do a manual recount. That means that she gets to fully cinsider there reasons for making a decision.
Let's say she says, sorry your reasons are not good enough. The argument could only be focussed on one person/one vote and that the machines just are not accurate enough.
So she responds:
She agrees that every vote is important and that accuracy is important. That's why the automatic recount exists in law. However, there have been several machine recounts and the results of the recounts are already taken into account. Nothing has been shown that the machines are not performing as designed.
She can also argue that all votes for all voters in Florida count, not just the counties in question. All counties used a machine count except a few. Those few that manually counted finished by the deadline. The votes in the counties that are left are more important, but not more important than all the others. Since the majority of the other counties are satisfied, and there is a bias towards timeliness in the statutes, and since her legal opinion is that there is no need for the manual recount, she has decided that the requirement of accuracy and fairness has been satisfied, and now the requirement of timeliness kicks in full force. Sorry, you didn't make the deadline (which she warned them about last week).
The arguement about the confusing ballot is moot in this case because the votes were punched all the way through and would be counted the same in a manual or a machine count.
The argument that not all chads were fully punched through is the same as all voting systems, ovals not filled out, lever didn't work, etc. It is an accepted fact of voting and the votes in the counties trying to manually are not more special than any others.
So then the Florida Supreme Court would have to decide if she acted in an arbitrary manner. If she lays out her arguments well, it would be hard to say that she is not simply performing her duties as her position requires her to.
This is coupled with the fact that there is a very strong tradition/precident that the evidence of fraud has to be pretty strong to overturn a certified election. Courts reserve the right to make judgements on elections, but the voters are given the final say and there is strong tradition that the election officials get backing when they're performing their duties. Courts typically do not second guess decisions when the reasoning is sound and I think the SoS can build a strong argument. Does the Supreme Court really want to set that type of precident, a precident where any question of the machine count can cause a cascading series of manual counts
I also would point out that PBC has not even started a full manual count yet. Excuses that it would take too long because it is so big hold little weight with me. Big means they have more resources to apply.
If I were the Republicans, I would challenge every ballot. Every single one. Argue the intent of every voter. If the absentee ballots are counted and Bush still is in the lead, it will get harder and harder for Gore's campagin to win the political battle. I would also demand more than one manual count. How can you be sure one manual count is accurate without another to test it against? There will be differences between the first and second count. Well, count again a thrid time and take the average of course.
All my opinion, of course. Not a lawyer, not a Florida resident.
Michael
ps - with just one county left, this gets interesting. Is it arbitrary to exclude the manual recount form one county. A county that hadn't even started before the deadline. A county where one of the canvassing board members is being sued for her ballot design and therefore would benefit from a full recount which would "repair" the damage ...
Facebook
Twitter