The 2000 Election Court Battles

Archer 007

Rebirth
Joined
May 14, 2002
Messages
10,687
Location
The Empire State of the South
Who was at fault for the fiasco in Florida?

I'll start with responding to the last point from the Election Map thread.

Originally posted by onejayhawk

Excuse me, but BS. I read the SC decision. It came down on a simple matter of a Constitutionally mandated deadline. Four Justices thought that there was sufficient time, in disputed counties, to recount those counties. The majority said that it was inappropriate to count selected counties, and there was not time to recount every ballot.
J

This in and of itself was an incorrect interpation of the law. Florida law allows for a candiate to request for recounts in specific counties.
 
Originally posted by archer_007
This in and of itself was an incorrect interpation of the law. Florida law allows for a candiate to request for recounts in specific counties.


Minor problem : That's unconstitutional.
A candidate can't ask for recounts only in those areas where
he thinks he has the best chance of getting a good result, which
is what Gore did.

The SC ruled 7-2 on that.
 
My point from the previous thread is that the ballots in question were designed, approved and implemented in counties where the election commission is controlled by the democrats. Each county in which Gore insisted on a recount was democrat controlled at the commission level. Their own ballots were their downfall.

edited for horrible spelling.
 
What does that have to do with your original (in the other thread) accusation of legal malfeasance on the part of Gov. J. Bush?
 
Democrats being mistakened by ballots made by Democrats. It's not unfair, it's poetic justice if you ask me.
 
Just as in the Hayes-Tilden "election", the Supreme Court voted exactly on partisan lines. It's absolutely clear that the Constitution entered into the matter only insofar as Associate Justice Scalia was smoking it.

If we count the intent of the voter, the Dems won Florida by thousands of votes. Unfortunately, the real deciding factor in our modern democracy seems to be the lifespans of Supreme Court Justices.
 
Originally posted by archer_007
Whats unconstitutional about it?
Remember to include a constitutional quote.

Amendment 14, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution (italics added):
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It is therefore unconstitutional for the courts of ANY state to look at some votes to divine their meaning and not others. If you are going to provide everyone equal protection, you either don't look at any of the votes, or you have to look at all of them. If a dangling chad gets counted as a vote in Palm Beach County, and the same dangling chad in Volusia county doesn't get counted, then the laws have just afforded more protection to the voter in Palm Beach County. This goes directly against the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Florida Supreme Court agreed that a statewide recount was the proper way to handle it, and this is what would have happened had the case not been appealed to the US Supreme Court. So, no matter what had happened, all courts involved agreed that, at least, the hand-picking of counties by the Gore team was unconstitutional and wrong. The four dissenters in the US Supreme Court all agreed that a statewide count was proper, and limiting it to 4 counties was wrong and untenable.

If you add that up along with the article that Duke posted, which says that a hand count in all counties would have still resulted in a victory for Bush, what it tells you is that there could have been NO RESULT other than Bush winning the election.
 
There are a lot of things we can never know for sure. But things lean so heavily towards Bush being the winner even without the US Supreme court ruling that dwelling on it now seems rediculous.
 
Originally posted by archer_007
A hand recount was never done, so we can never know for sure.
In so far as was possible outside the official process, it was in fact done. Interestingly Gore lost ground, which may be why you never heard of it. Once the election is certified, IIRC and I stand ready to be corrected, the ballots fall under freedom of information. Regardless, they were actually all counted. Same result.
 
What the article makes quite clear is that the majority of Floridans set out to the polls with the intention of making Al Gore our new President.

I'm not very fond of democracies that penalize stupid voters. Still, even dismissing the obviously illegal ballots, Gore won by at least 42 and possibly by 200 votes.

Use of Palm Beach County standard

Out of Palm Beach County emerged one of the least restrictive standards for determining a valid punch-card ballot. The county elections board determined that a chad hanging by up to two corners was valid and that a dimple or a chad detached in only one corner could also count if there were similar marks in other races on the same ballot. If that standard had been adopted statewide, the study shows a slim, 42-vote margin for Gore.

Inclusion of overvotes

In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes.


A county worker displays an optical scan ballot through a viewing window.
The butterfly and caterpillar ballots

One of the most controversial aspects of the Florida election was the so-called butterfly ballot used in heavily Democratic Palm Beach County. Many voters came out of the polls saying they were confused by the ballot design.

According to the study, 5,277 voters made a clean punch for Gore and a clean punch for Reform Party nominee Pat Buchanan, candidates whose political philosophies are poles apart. An additional 1,650 voters made clean punches for Bush and Buchanan. If many of the Buchanan votes were in error brought on by a badly designed ballot, a CNN analysis found that Gore could have netted thousands of additional votes as compared with Bush.

Eighteen other counties used another confusing ballot design known as the "caterpillar" or "broken" ballot, where six or seven presidential candidates are listed in one column and the names of the remaining minor party candidates appeared at the top of a second one. According to the study, more than 15,000 people who voted for either Gore or Bush also selected one candidate in the second column, apparently thinking the second column represented a new race.

Had many of these voters not marked a minor candidate in the second column, Gore would have netted thousands of additional votes as compared with Bush.

However, the double votes on both butterfly and caterpillar ballots were clearly invalid under any interpretation of the law.
 
Originally posted by onejayhawk

In so far as was possible outside the official process, it was in fact done. Interestingly Gore lost ground, which may be why you never heard of it. Once the election is certified, IIRC and I stand ready to be corrected, the ballots fall under freedom of information. Regardless, they were actually all counted. Same result.

I have heard of it, but you cant really consider it because many of the ballots had already been discarded. We'll never know for sure.
 
Back
Top Bottom