🚀 go-pugleaf

"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:100lrtj1kbd0ab2@corp.supernews.com...
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:fpqOb.9828$Jz2.8471@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > news:100jvj92rr2ptd7@corp.supernews.com...
> > > --
> > >
> > > "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > news:SLiOb.57904$ri6.50014@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > "Russell Senior" <seniorr@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:86ptdjw92t.fsf@coulee.tdb.com...
> > > > > >>>>> "Brian" == WitchDr  <Witch--Dr@usa.nojunkmail.net.ru>
writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian> Here's a FACT
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian> George W. Bush is the President of the United States.
> > > > >
> > > > > I never disputed that.
> > > > >
> > > > > What I said was that Bush had a disregard for the legitimacy of
> > > > > democratic institutions (like elections).  Bush didn't care who
had
> > > > > more _actual_ legally cast votes, only that he "win".  Well, by
hook
> > > > > and by crook, he did "win".  I dislike him because he didn't care
> > > > > about the votes.
> > > >
> > > > IF Gore really cared about all of the votes, why did he try to cheat
> the
> > > > system, and only ask for recounts in a few heavily Democrat
counties?
> > >
> > > He didn't try to cheat - the "system" told him he was only allowed to
> > > recount under certain conditions - those counties met those
conditions.
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > This theme was carried on by the three dissenting members of the FSC,
and
> > seven members of the SCOTUS. In the 3 courts that this case was argued,
11
> > found problems with the change in they counting standards, while 6 (all
> > Democrats) found nothing wrong with changing the law after the election
> had
> > taken place.
>
> Actually, the law requires the counters to 'determine the intent of the
> voter', and seldom spells out exactly how this should be accomplished.  So
> your "changing the law after the election had taken place" is a Red
Herring.

It is not a "Red Herring" because the "intent of the voter" was spelled out
in Palm Beach County. Using the logic that you have just laid out, you just
made the case that Palm Beach County illegally changed their counting
standards. Here are several references to that fact:

(b) "Any manual recount cannot count dimpled or pregnant chads. If a manual
recount is done, it should not count a ballot as a vote unless the ballot
left a "clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the
canvassing board." FLA.STAT.�101.5614(5). See also FLA.STAT. �102.166(7)(b).
This was previously determined by the only canvassing board to address the
issue before this election, Palm Beach County, as meaning that chads could
only be counted as votes if at least two corners were detatched, and not if
the chad was merely dimpled or pregnant. See: Petitioner Exh. J. Prior to
this election, no Florida county board had ever counted a dimpled or
pregnant ballot as a vote."

The courts called this the "1990 Standard" of the "1990 Guideline".

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/floridahouse.pdf

From Gore v. Harris, 12/3/2000, Judge Sauls writing (notice that Sauls makes
reference to the fact that Gore's Florida Campaign Chair, Fla Attorney
General Bob Butterworth - D, said that the change in counting standards was
illegal)........

"Further, it acted in full compliance with the order of the circuit court in
and for Palm Beach County."

"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
each 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."

http://www.quarterly-report.com/election_2000/sauls_opinion.html

From Gore v Harris (FSC), talking about counting dimpled chad, Chief Justice
Wells wrote:

"Should a county canvassing board count or not count a "dimpled chad" where
the voter is able to successfully dislodge the chad in every other contest
on that ballot? Here, the county canvassing boards disagree. Apparently,
some do and some do not. Continuation of this system of county-by-county
decisions regarding how a dimpled chad is counted is fraught with equal
protection concerns which will eventually cause the election results in
Florida to be stricken by the federal courts or Congress.

From Gore v Harris (FSC), Justice Haring wrote (Shaw concurred):

"Moreover, assuming that there may be some shortfall in counting the votes
cast with punch card ballots, such a problem is only properly considered as
being systemic with the punch card system itself, and any remedy would have
had to be statewide. Any other remedy would disenfranchise tens of thousands
of other Florida voters, as I have serious concerns that Appellant's
interpretation of 102.168 would violate other voters' rights to due process
and equal protection of the law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf

"The record provides some examples. A monitor in Miami-Dade County testified
at trial that he observed that three members of the county canvassing board
applied different standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec.
3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed that at least one county
changed its evaluative standards during the counting process. Palm Beach
County, for example, began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded
counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a
vote to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to
the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to
have a court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This is not
a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment."

AND

"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)."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

Justice Souter wrote that the change in counting standards was "arbitrary".

".....But evidence in the record here suggests that a different order of
disparity obtains under rules for determining a voter's intent that have
been applied (and could continue to be applied) to identical types of
ballots used in identical brands of machines and exhibiting identical
physical characteristics (such as "hanging" or "dimpled" chads). See, e.g.,
Tr., at 238-242 (Dec. 2-3, 2000) (testimony of Palm Beach County Canvassing
Board Chairman Judge Charles Burton describing varying standards applied to
imperfectly punched ballots in Palm Beach County during precertification
manual recount); id., at 497-500 (similarly describing varying standards
applied in Miami-Dade County); Tr. of Hearing 8-10 (Dec. 8, 2000)
(soliciting from county canvassing boards proposed protocols for determining
voters' intent but declining to provide a precise, uniform standard). I can
conceive of no legitimate state interest served by these differing
treatments of the expressions of voters' fundamental rights. The differences
appear wholly arbitrary."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD1.html

Justice Beyer also wrote: "The majority's third concern does implicate
principles of fundamental fairness. The majority concludes that the Equal
Protection Clause requires that a manual recount be governed not only by the
uniform general standard of the "clear intent of the voter," but also by
uniform subsidiary standards (for example, a uniform determination whether
indented, but not perforated, "undervotes" should count). The opinion points
out that the Florida Supreme Court ordered the inclusion of Broward County's
undercounted "legal votes" even though those votes included ballots that
were not perforated but simply "dimpled," while newly recounted ballots from
other counties will likely include only votes determined to be "legal" on
the basis of a stricter standard. In light of our previous remand, the
Florida Supreme Court may have been reluctant to adopt a more specific
standard than that provided for by the legislature for fear of exceeding its
authority under Article II. However, since the use of different standards
could favor one or the other of the candidates, since time was, and is, too
short to permit the lower courts to iron out significant differences through
ordinary judicial review, and since the relevant distinction was embodied in
the order of the State's highest court, I agree that, in these very special
circumstances, basic principles of fairness may well have counseled the
adoption of a uniform standard to address the problem. In light of the
majority's disposition, I need not decide whether, or the extent to which,
as a remedial matter, the Constitution would place limits upon the content
of the uniform standard."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD3.html

> <snip>
> >
> > > <rest of neo-con revisionism snipped>
> >
> > Let me get this straight, you snipped the transcript of Gore's attorney
> > saying that they did not contest all of the disputed ballots because you
> > consider that fact to be "neo-con revisionism". In other words, Boies
> > admitted that they did not want to recount all of the disputed ballots,
> and
> > you can't accept that fact. That is funny.
> >
> The "Gore Strategy" you run on about is entirely irrelevant to the issue
of
> actually Counting The Votes.  The US Supreme Court said the votes should
be
> counted - then inexplicably refused to give time for that to happen.

"Inexplicably" refused to give time? The safe harbor date has been part the
US Constitution for what, more than 200 years?

All 7 members of the Florida Supreme Court and 5 members of the SCOTUS said
the safe harbor date (12/12/2000 in this case) was the ultimate deadline.
The count was 6 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 5 Republicans.

"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. Section 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. Section 102.168(8) (2000)."

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionsup1.htm

From: Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Katherine Harris, 11/21/2000,
all seven members agreed that the safe harbor date was the deadline.

"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.  � � 1-10 (1994)."

The Safe Harbor date can be found in the above US Code.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf

From Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Katherine Harris, 12/11/2000, 6
of the 7 members (Wells dissenting because Bush vs. Gore had not been
settled) agreed that the December 12th was the deadline.

"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."

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346-remand.pdf

> Bush
> filed case after case and employed all sorts of dishonest techniques (like
> the phony "riot") in order to insure the votes were not counted.

First off, Florida Code requires a statewide recount of all ballots. In the
35 day of protest, and contest of the election Gore NEVER challenge all
ballots. Bush had every right to block illegal partial recounts.

As Judge Sauls (D) noted, Florida Case Law required for Gore to challenge
all ballots, statewide. Of course Gore NEVER tried to follow this law.

"As recently stated by Judge Klein with the concurrence of Chief Judge
Warner in the Fourth District Court of Appeal case, of Bedell v. Palm Beach
Canvassing Board, Section 102.168 provides in Subsection (1) that the
certification of elections may be contested for presidential elections.
Section 103.011 provides that, "The Department of State shall certify as
elected the presidential electors of the candidates for President and Vice
President who receive the highest number of votes."

"There is in this type of election, one statewide election, and one
certification.  Palm Beach County did not elect any person as a presidential
elector, but, rather, the election with the winner-take-all proposition,
dependent on the statewide vote."

http://www.quarterly-report.com/election_2000/sauls_opinion.html

Second, as Justice Souter noted in his dissent, Miami Dade had illegally
changed their counting standards. Just like
Democrats, Republicans have a right to protest.

".....But evidence in the record here suggests that a different order of
disparity obtains under rules for determining a voter's intent that have
been applied (and could continue to be applied) to identical types of
ballots used in identical brands of machines and exhibiting identical
physical characteristics (such as "hanging" or "dimpled" chads). See, e.g.,
Tr., at 238-242 (Dec. 2-3, 2000) (testimony of Palm Beach County Canvassing
Board Chairman Judge Charles Burton describing varying standards applied to
imperfectly punched ballots in Palm Beach County during precertification
manual recount); id., at 497-500 (similarly describing varying standards
applied in Miami-Dade County); Tr. of Hearing 8-10 (Dec. 8, 2000)
(soliciting from county canvassing boards proposed protocols for determining
voters' intent but declining to provide a precise, uniform standard). I can
conceive of no legitimate state interest served by these differing
treatments of the expressions of voters' fundamental rights. The differences
appear wholly arbitrary."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD1.html

> I could
> care less about Gore, I do care, however, about -democracy- and actually
> Counting The Votes -- which did NOT happen in Florida.

Then Gore should have followed Florida Code and filed the paperwork to get a
full recount.