Stubby wrote:
> mishajmo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > *He was defeated in 2000. The Supreme Court ruled ---,
> > 5-4, to the stop attempts to change state voting laws in the middle of
> > an election in Florida.
> > *
> >
> > Fixed your post.
> >
>
> The Supreme Court over stepped it's bounds by stopping the vote count in
> Florida. The Constitution leaves elections up to the individual states.
False. Article II leaves elections up to each elected state
legislature, not the unelected courts.
Article II, =A71, cl. 2, "[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner
as the Legislature thereof may direct,"
> The only authority the federal government has is mandating the date of
> national elections, and setting minimum voting age and some other
> requirements.
>
> Sorry, but the Supreme Court DID vote along party lines,
The 5-4 decision upheld the 7-0 ruling of the Florida Supreme Court.
Further, Gore agreed with this 5-4 decision, i.e. the safe harbor date
is the hard deadline in Florida.
Here is the 5-4 ruling from the USSC, Bush v. Gore 12/12/2000:
"=2E.....Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida
Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. =A7
5 Justice Breyer's proposed remedy- remanding to the Florida Supreme
Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until
December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election
code, and hence could not be part of an "appropriate" order
authorized by Fla. Stat. =A7102.168(8) (2000)."
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
Here is the 7-0 ruling from the Democrat majority of the Florida
Supreme Court, Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Katherine Harris,
11/21/2000.
"Ignoring the county's returns is a drastic measure and is appropriate
only if the returns submitted the Department so late that their
inclusion will compromise the integrity of the electoral process in
either of two way: (1) by precluding a candidate, elector, or taxpayer
from contesting the certification of an election pursuant to section
102.168; or (2) by precluding Florida voters from participating fully
in the federal electoral process." (reference to footnote 55)
"Footnote #55 See: 3 U.S.C. =A7 =A7 1-10 (1994)."
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf
Further, Gore agreed with the 5-4 decision, i.e. he also agreed that
the safe harbor date was the final deadline.
>From Gore v. Harris, 12/8/2000, p67.
"This Court, in its prior opinion, and all of the parties agree that
election controversies and contests must be finally and conclusively
determined by December 12, 2000. See 3 U.S.C. =A7 5"
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf
While it is true the vote was 5-4, with all Repulbicans agreeing on the
deadline. That same vote upheld the ruling of EVERY Democrat on the
Florida Supreme Court, along with Al Gore. I find it hard to believe
that anyone would consider that a purely partisan vote.
> and put a stop to legal recounts, according to FLorida state election
law=
s then in
> existence.
The Democrat majority of the Florida Supreme Court found that the
voting machines had erred, thus they ordered a partial recount of the
spoiled ballots.
>From Gore vs. Harris, FSC, 12/8/2000, Justice Wells writing:
"Also problematic with the majority's analysis is that the majority
only requires that the "under-votes" are to be counted. How about the
"over-votes?" Section 101.5614(6) provides that a ballot should not be
counted "[i]f an elector marks more names than there are persons to be
elected to an office," meaning the voter voted for more than one person
for president. The underlying premise of the majority's rationale is
that in such a close race a manual review of ballots rejected by the
machines is necessary to ensure that all legal votes cast are counted.
The majority, however, ignores the over-votes. Could it be said,
without reviewing the over-votes, that the machine did not err in not
counting them?"
"It seems patently erroneous to me to assume that the vote-counting
machines can err when reading under-votes but not err when reading
over-votes. Can the majority say, without having the over-votes looked
at, that there are no legal votes among the over-votes?"
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf
Florida Code 102.166(5)(c) (2000) says that if the machines have erred,
ALL BALLOTS must be included in a recount. The majority of the court
violated this law and only ordered the recount of the overvote.
102.166">102.166 Protest of election returns; procedure.--
(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation
which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing
board shall:
(c) Manually recount all ballots.
http://tinyurl.com/cenpq
Second, these recounts must use an existing and uniformed counting
standard. Fla. Stat. 101.5609(8)(c) (2000) requires an uniformed
counting standard.
101.5609">101.5609 Ballot requirements.--
(8) The Department of State shall adopt rules prescribing standards
for ballots used in electronic or electromechanical voting systems.
Such standards shall ensure that ballots are counted in a uniform and
consistent manner and shall include, without limitation, standards for
the:
(d) Scoring of ballots.
http://tinyurl.com/93gnm
As Judge Sauls wrote (upheld by 3 members of the Florida Supreme Court
and 7 members of the USSC):
"Having done so, Plaintiffs are estopped from further challenge of this
process and standards. It should be noted, however, that such process
and standards were changed from the prior 1990 standards, perhaps
contrary to Title III, Section (5) of the United States code."
"Furthermore, with respect to the standards utilized by the Board in
its review and counting processes, the Court finds that the standard
utilized was in full compliance with the law and reviewed under another
standard would not be authorized, thus creating a two-tier situation
within one county, as well as with respect to other counties."
"The Court notes that the Attorney General of the State of Florida
enunciated his opinion of the law with respect to this, in a letter
dated November 14, 2000, to the Honorable Charles E. Burton, Chair of
the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, which, in part. is as follows:
"A two-tier system would have the effect of treating voters
differently, depending upon what county they voted in."
"The voter in a county where a manual count was conducted, would
benefit from having a better chance of having his or her vote actually
counted, than a voter in a county where a hand count was halted. As
the State's chief legal officer, I feel a duty to warn that the final
certified total for balloting in the State of Florida includes figures
generated from this two-tier system of differing behavior by official
Canvassing Boards, the state will incur a legal jeopardy under both the
United States and the state constitutions."
"This legal jeopardy could potentially leave Florida having all of its
votes, in effect, disqualified, and this state being barred from the
Electoral College's election of a President."
http://www.quarterly-re****t.com/election_2000/sauls_opinion.html
Further, Florida Case Laws finds that these recounts are at the
discretion of the county canvassing boards, not the courts. Even in a
race that was as close as 3 to 5 votes, the court refused to order a
manual recount.
http://election2000.stanford.edu/borward_hogan.html
What gives the Democrat majority of the Florida Supreme Court to
overrule the state legislature (i.e. Florida Election Code), and the
county canvassing boards, to order a standardless partial recount of
the spoiled ballots? Clearly, it is not Florida Code as you claim.
> Damn conservatives rewriting history again.
In this case, is seems that you are trying to rewrite history.
> --=20
> Annoy a conservative -- Think for yourself.
|
