Re: 2000 Elections

"Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
>
> "Such is the complacency these great men have for the smiles of their
prince
> that they will gratify every desire of ambition and power at the expense
of
> truth, reason, and their country."
>
> - John Dickinson, 1771 -
>
> "Mark Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2000) 1
> STEVENS, J., dissenting
> SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
> _________________
> No. 00-949
> _________________
> GEORGE W. BUSH, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
> ALBERT GORE, JR., ET AL.
> ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
> [December 12, 2000]
> JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG AND
> JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.
> The Constitution assigns to the States the primary
> responsibility for determining the manner of selecting the
> Presidential electors. See Art. II, §1, cl. 2. When questions
> arise about the meaning of state laws, including
> election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions
> of the highest courts of the States as providing the
> final answers. On rare occasions, however, either federal
> statutes or the Federal Constitution may require federal
> judicial intervention in state elections. This is not such an
> occasion.
>
> ...
>
> The legislative power in Florida is
> subject to judicial review pursuant to Article V of the
> Florida Constitution, and nothing in Article II of the Federal
> Constitution frees the state legislature from the
> constraints in the state constitution that created it.
> Moreover, the Florida Legislature's own decision to employ
> a unitary code for all elections indicates that it intended
> the Florida Supreme Court to play the same role in
> Presidential elections that it has historically played in
> resolving electoral disputes. The Florida Supreme Court's
> exercise of appellate jurisdiction therefore was wholly
> consistent with, and indeed contemplated by, the grant of
> authority in Article II.
>
> It hardly needs stating that Congress, pursuant to 3
> U. S. C. §5, did not impose any affirmative duties upon the
> States that their governmental branches could "violate."
> Rather, §5 provides a safe harbor for States to select electors
> in contested elections "by judicial or other methods"
> established by laws prior to the election day. Section 5,
> like Article II, assumes the involvement of the state judiciary
> in interpreting state election laws and resolving
> election disputes under those laws. Neither §5 nor Article
> II grants federal judges any special authority to substitute
> their views for those of the state judiciary on matters of
> state law.
>
> ...
>
> We must remember
> that the machinery of government would not
> work if it were not allowed a little play in its joints." Bain
> Peanut Co. of Tex. v. Pinson, 282 U. S. 499, 501 (1931)
> (Holmes, J.). If it were otherwise, Florida's decision to
> leave to each county the determination of what balloting
> system to employ- despite enormous differences in accuracy4
> - might run afoul of equal protection. So, too, might
> the similar decisions of the vast majority of state legislatures
> to delegate to local authorities certain decisions with
> respect to voting systems and ballot design.
>
> ...
>
>
> Even assuming that aspects of the remedial scheme
> might ultimately be found to violate the Equal Protection
> Clause, I could not subscribe to the majority's disposition
> of the case. As the majority explicitly holds, once a state
> legislature determines to select electors through a popular
> vote, the right to have one's vote counted is of constitutional
> stature. As the majority further acknowledges,
> Florida law holds that all ballots that reveal the intent of
> the voter constitute valid votes. Recognizing these principles,
> the majority nonetheless orders the termination of
> the contest proceeding before all such votes have been
> tabulated. Under their own reasoning, the appropriate
> course of action would be to remand to allow more specific
> procedures for implementing the legislature's uniform
> general standard to be established.

Of course 3 (2 Democrats and 1 Independent) of the 7 members of the FSC said
they should not ordered the recount

> Indeed, in 1960, Hawaii
> appointed two slates of electors and Congress chose to
> count the one appointed on January 4, 1961, well after the
> Title 3 deadlines. See Josephson & Ross, Repairing the
> Electoral College, 22 J. Legis. 145, 166, n. 154 (1996)

Since you posted the Stevens Dissent saying that the SCOTUS should not
interfere with the orders of the FSC, then there is no arguement, the Safe
Harbor date was the ulitmate deadline. The FSC ruled that Florida Code said
that all disputes must be settled by that date.

> > The State Legislature does not allow:
> >
> > 1) The FSC ordered a partial recount of ballots, yet there is no
provision
> > in the Florida Code the certification a partial recount.
> >
> > http://www.quarterly-report.com/election_2000/sauls_opinion.html
> >
> > ......."Secondly, there is no authority under Florida law or
certification
> > of an incomplete manual recount of a portion of, or less than all
ballots
> > from any county by the state elections canvassing commission, nor
> authority
> > to include any returns submitted past the deadline established by the
> > Florida Supreme Court in this election."\
>
> Nor does the Florida Code allow for a judge to arbitrarily toss out legal
> votes, or to cause them to remain uncounted.  So what is a judiciary to
> do?  Follow the intent of the law, and the 14th Amendment, which is to
> determine the outcome of the election, this judge's opinion
notwithstanding
> (which is exactly what the FSC rules, BTW).

If as you say, Florida Code does not allow for a judge to cause ballots to
remain uncounted, then you have just made my arguement that the order of the
Florida Supreme Court on 12/8/2000 was unlawful.

>From the Bush vs Gore (12/12/2000)...."In addition, the recounts in these
three counties were not limited to so-called undervotes but extended to all
of the ballots. The distinction has real consequences. A manual recount of
all ballots identifies not only those ballots which show no vote but also
those which contain more than one, the so-called overvotes. Neither category
will be counted by the machine. This is not a trivial concern. At oral
argument, respondents estimated there are as many as 110,000 overvotes
statewide. As a result, the citizen whose ballot was not read by a machine
because he failed to vote for a candidate in a way readable by a machine may
still have his vote counted in a manual recount; on the other hand, the
citizen who marks two candidates in a way discernable by the machine will
not have the same opportunity to have his vote count, even if a manual
examination of the ballot would reveal the requisite indicia of intent.
Furthermore, the citizen who marks two candidates, only one of which is
discernable by the machine, will have his vote counted even though it should
have been read as an invalid ballot. The State Supreme Court's inclusion of
vote counts based on these variant standards exemplifies concerns with the
remedial processes that were under way."

Gore admitted to the court that there were some 110,000 ballots that were
not going to be recounted.

> > 2) to go past the Safe Harbor Date.
> >
> > From Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris (12/11/2000)
> >
> > http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346-remand.pdf
> >
> > ............."However, in this case involving a presidential election,
the
> > decision as to when amended returns can be excluded from the statewide
> > certification must necessarily be considered in conjunction with the
> contest
> > provisions of section 102.168 and the deadlines set forth in 3 U.S.C. §
5.
> > Therefore, in this case involving a presidential election, we conclude
> that
> > the reasoned basis for the exercise of the Department's discretion to
> ignore
> > amended returns is limited to those instances where failure to ignore
the
> > amended returns will: (1) preclude a candidate, elector, or taxpayer
from
> > contesting the certification of an election pursuant to section 102.168
> 20;
> > or (2) in the case of a federal election, will result in Florida voters
> not
> > participating fully in the federal electoral process, as provided in 3
> > U.S.C. § 5."
>
> THE FSC action did not interfere with any rights listed above.  See above.
>
> > From Bush vs. Gore 12/12/2000, the majority wrote
> > http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
> >
> > ......"Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional
> > problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that
demand
> a
> > remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer,
> J.,
> > dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the
> Florida
> > Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain
the
> > safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 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. §102.168(8) (2000)."
> >
> > The SCOTUS did not change any of the Florida Election Code, they upheld
> it.
> >
> > > Thus my statement.
> >
> > Is incorrect.
>
> Sorry.  I respectfully disagree.  The fact that the SCOTUS, in their
action,
> delayed the legally ordained process says something as well.

The Florida Supreme Court moved the contest of the election under 102.168
from November 18th to November 27th. This decision was struck down 9-0 by
the SCOTUS on December 3, 2000. I wonder why the dissenters in Bush vs. Gore
thought that it was ok to rule in this case?

> The fact that other, Constitutional, remedies were available at the time
also speaks to
> the purpose of the Court's interference with lawful process.

And as you noted, the FSC should have the final word on these matters,
December 12th was the ultimate deadline (6-1 decision). What exactly would
the other Constitutional remedy?

As to lawful, you made the argument that the order of the FSC was unlawful.

>  What they did was unprecedented, unConstitutional, and just plain wrong.

What is wrong is trying to steal the election by not recounting all of the
ballots. Gore asked for 4 Democrat Counties to be recounted. Once this
started, the Democrats in control decided to change the law as to what
constituted a vote. That is wrong.

> Space and time prevents my posting much more supporting material.
>
> The fact is, George Bush resides in the White House, and Al Gore showed
> infinitely more class than George or Richard Nixon.  The fact that people,
> in general, do not know or understand the actual case, means George gets
> a free ride.  So it goes.  And this doesn't even cover the massive fraud
by
> the co-chairwoman of Bush's Florida campaign, nor the felonious
> interference with elections by Republicans bused across state lines.

The Democrat led USCCR could not find any evidence that there was fraud on
the part of Bush or Harris, I fail to see your point.

There is a first amendment that applies to both Democrats and Republicans.
If they want to protest the illegal change in the courting standards in
Miami-Dade County, they have every right.

> In the next election, we won't have to worry about recounts...

Right, Bush is going to win in a landslide against Dean.

> Dan