🚀 go-pugleaf

You're misrepresenting legal nits and parsing terms - which in no way
support your thesis that Bush took the high road and the Dems the low.  The
truth is the exact opposite.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:z8QPb.61002$Wy7.44429@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:100uq0e88cbo805@corp.supernews.com...
> > --
> >
> > "Michael Dix" <look@sig.please.because.this.is.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:400F5D18.8050900@sig.please.because.this.is.invalid...
> > > Baxter wrote:
> > >
> > > > It wasn't the Democratic Party.  You're attempting to paint the Dems
> as
> > a
> > > > villain.  They're not.  Far more damage was done to democracy by the
> > > > Repuglicans blocking the count than was ever done by anyone's
attempt
> to
> > > > enforce laws on the books.  The specific case you cite is simply a
> > > > difference between Federal and State law that has nothing to do with
> > > > Political parties.  In fact, the ruling points that out.
> > >
> > > All the countable (i.e. machine-readable) votes were counted. Next
> > > time, punch the chads all the way through.
> > >
> > > The "state law" applied to mutilated ballots, not unpunched ones.
> > >
> > State law applies to all ballots where the "intent of the voter" can be
> > determined.  You can turn in a unpunched card with your selection
written
> on
> > it and it is valid and countable.
>
> As Gore's Florida Campaign Chair (Fla Attny Gen Bob Butterworth - D)
> admitted, Florida case law does NOT allow manual recounts for voter error.
>
> "(f) Prior practice before this election, which was not to do a manual
> recount because of the claim that a county's machines were failing to
count
> partially perforated or indented chads. See Transcript of Oral Arg. in
Bush,
> at 39-40 (concession of Florida Attorney General that no county had
> previously done so). For example, in Broward County Canvassing Board v.
> Hogan, 607 So.2d 508, 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), the board recognized that
> "voter error in piercing of computer ballot cards created loose or hanging
> paper chads." But the board declined to do a manual recount even though
two
> machine counts indicated a margin of 3-5 votes. "Such voter errors, the
> board explained, are caused by hesitant piercing, no piercing, or
> intentional or unintentional multiple piercing of computer ballot cards,
> creating what are referred to as overvotes and undervotes. The board
> thereupon declined appellee's request for a recount".  Id. (emphasis
added).
> Thus, before this election, the fact that a request for a manual recount
was
> based on incompletely perforated chads was considered not just
insufficient,
> but an affirmative reason to reject a manual recount because the request
was
> based on voter error rather than on machine or ballot defects."
>
> http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/floridahouse.pdf
>
>
>