| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by Val
Also, for those that think Bush lost Florida, read this. Also, look at who did the study if you don't think it's credible.
That was an interesting read, and certainly seems an impartial study. However, since the number missing ballots equal over 4x the margin of victory (closer to 5x using NORC's recount), I don't really think it offers an answer either way when the totals for each candidate are so close (which, of course, was not the purpose of the study).
As for the non-felons prevented from voting, I didn't say that any particular group were targetted - whether intentionally or not, and regardless of the error rate (which, on its own, gives a misleading picture of what actually happened) the end result was that the majority were black. And we're not talking a small handful here, we're talking thousands of people. Let's forget about which way they would have voted, because as you say, there's no way we can know for sure, but instead lets ask ourselves why this "mistake" happened in the first place. Database Technologies (thanks for reminding me of the name, Val  ) told Katherine Harris what would happen if they used the search criteria she had specified, and she insisted they do it her way anyway. What possible, legitimate reason could there be for disallowing the votes of people who shared a birthdate with a felon? Or had a "similar" sounding name? Or a "similar" social security number? What about all the people who'd only committed misdemeanors? Florida doesn't ban them from voting, yet somehow they were still prevented. What about the additional names sent from Texas? They weren't even false positives from Database, yet this list contained non-felons and others who werelegally entitled to vote in Florida, yet were prevented. With respect, Val, I dispute your claim that the figures you quoted prove the following:
quote:
1. There was no malicious intent to deprive law-abiding citizens their right to vote.
Furthermore, I believe the opposite is true.
What are the reasons for all of these "mistakes?" If there was no foul play, why wouldn't Harris allow Database to do their job as they knew it and use the correct search criteria for the task? Why would Texas knowingly submit additional names that quite obviously should not have been included on their list? Why should the Supreme Court feel the need to step in - why not just let the final recount conclude, unless they had an interest in preserving the most recent outcome? Look at the places and people involved here and think about the relationships between them. I am not a conspiracy nut - I've looked at information about these events from sources at either end of the bias-o-meter and in the middle, and I honestly cannot fathom anyone who says the whole thing was above-board. IMO the recorded facts are simply not compatible with this outlook. If these foul-play stories were about some some South American banana republic or a Middle-East country, we'd swallow them clean, but the thought of it happening to our great nation is too much to bear, and that's when people start burying their heads in the sand and pretending it's OK.
The British government has attempted something similar recently, but on a much smaller and less exciting scale (typical, eh?) - this year they sent out postal ballots in an attempt to combat voter apathy (why trouble all those lazy potential voters with a trip to the polling stations when you can drop a handy pre-paid envelope right on their doormat?). If successful, it should see a noticeable increase in the number of voters, but surprise, surprise, there's a twist - since this is just a "trial" and not currently standard voting practice, it's only been done in certain areas of the UK, and lo and behold all of those areas are Labour (the current gov't) strongholds. Coincidence? Seriously, patriotism is fine, but if you unquestioningly believe that your leaders and representatives are always acting in your interests and regard your rights as sacred, it's time to wake up. They are simply human beings, creatures who have been known to screw one another over to get ahead. Is it that unthinkable that somebody in high office would abuse their station? Has it happened before? Recognise the signs.
quote:
Originally posted by Val
Personally, I think that no matter what happens before election day, we should go on as normal, hold elections and flip terrorists the birdy. Terrorists seek to influence people through fear. If we continue on as normal and don't break when they rattle their sabers, then they have no power over us.
I agree wholeheartedly. I hadn't heard anything of the plans Shrewgirl described, but I believe such a course of action would be a mistake/a move, however distant, towards dictatorship (delete as applicable).
What was the topic again... ?  Sorry. I don't know enough about your gun control laws to contribute sensibly. |
Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:31 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
@Val
I agree with most, but not all of you last post. People would speak of Bush as you indicated wheather or not he had a plan for a terrorist attack. However, Bush has proven that he will cross the line when it comes to using power. So, you can not blame people for at least paying attention when they hear that headline. (That the administration is planning for a possible delay of elections.)
As far as the second paragraph. I agree. We should vote, no matter what.
As far as the article you referenced and the points you made...
Points 2 and 3. 90% of African-Americans vote Democratic. To believe that any significant number of African-Americans will vote otherwise, without having specific reason to believe that they will, is not rational.
Point 1. There is no evidence of racist intent, but note that removing non-felons in a manner that approaches the racial make-up of felons in the state does give a slight advantage the Republicans because black people vote so heavily Democratic. This procedure could be biased against Democrats without being racist. A group of 10 Whites and 10 Blacks will have about 14 Democrats in it.
@Everyone
A lot of coincidences break in Bush's favor. It gets to the point that you have to ask yourself if all these intelligent people are really making honest mistakes. Here are some questions that I have about voter registration in Florida.
Link 1-Why did the legislature not want the public to have this list?
Link 2-Why did the court give the press access anyway?
Link 3-You mean no one in the Florida government realized this? The news media had to sue them to see the list, review the list, then show the government the error before they decide not to use it. Is the Florida government really that incompetent?
Link 4-What happened to those 2200 votes? Did they just disappear? Maybe they got lost? (has the strange notion that he has heard that somewhere before)
@piln
quote:
Originally by piln
Coincidence? Seriously, patriotism is fine, but if you unquestioningly believe that your leaders and representatives are always acting in your interests and regard your rights as sacred, it's time to wake up. They are simply human beings, creatures who have been known to screw one another over to get ahead. Is it that unthinkable that somebody in high office would abuse their station? Has it happened before? Recognise the signs.
I think you hit on a very important point. I see and talk to a lot of people on politics and I am amazed by the people who think that politicians are beyond corruption. As it relates to the current U.S. President, I notice that most of his supporters seem to think that he is incapable of dishonestly and reject any evidence or idea to the contrary. His opponents seem to be inherently distrustful of all politicians and expect them ALL to do what is in their own best interest. I belong to the latter group, and can remember specific instances where I think the last four President have told lies, because they were in their own best interest at the time. I find the notion that a politician can go 4 years without telling a lie to be FANTASTIC.
I am curious. I know most people in the UK oppose the war. What do people in the UK believe is Tony Blair's motivation for supporting Bush on the war in Iraq?
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:55 pm |
|
|
Aram
Village Dweller
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 23
|
I do own a gun, a .22 magnum revolver, but only because it has been in the family awhile and because I heard it is somewhat rare. To those people who hunt or collect guns, I have no problem with you, it's a hobby you can spend time on.
The thing I dont like about American gun laws is that you're allowed to own weapons that are clearly intended for criminals or for the killing of other humans. Last week I was looking at a gun magazine that was actually advertising guns with fingerprint-proof grips and triggers, how is that intended for good use? The hunting rifles were just as bad, you dont need a 20 round semi-auto rifle to kill a deer. I thought hunting was all about sport, a 5 round bolt action rifle can kill a deer just as easily if you show some skill, without posing so much of a risk to the general public.
For home defense I think there is little reason to own a gun, the are so many other ways to protect yourself at home.
1) Buy a big dog. I have a German shepherd at home all the time and I never worry about my safety. Besides a guard I also always have a companion and friend waiting for me at home, if you dont have a fear of dogs, then I suggest this as your best investment.
2) Prevention. Have good locks, plant shrubs in front of you windows, motion activated lights, security systems, etc.
3) Illusion. Place beware of dog signs in easy to see locations, keep a pair of size 16 work boots laying on the front porch, put up a fence around your yard, anything that might make someone think twice about trying to get into your home.
For those who argue for national defense, your not going to pose a big threat. If your serious about portecting your country I suggest you join the Reserves, I hear they are in need of people right now. To me, people in this group just want an excuse to own guns to "protect their freedom" or just to prove they can. I think what it comes down to is that they get a macho sense of power from guns and want to hold onto it.
*On a side note, has anyone else noticed that every time something goes wrong for the Bush admin. the terror alert goes up the next day?  |
|
Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:10 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
I have a relative who was a criminal. He broke into a business one night to steal something. I don't know what he was trying to steal but it's not important. What is important is that they had a guard dog in the building. It was one of those good, professionally trained guard dogs that don't bark when they detect intruders. Well, when my relative gets inside to steal he finds this highly trained, expensive, and very vicious dog before him. What does he do...
He stole the guard dog.
Illusion only works part of the time because burglars and robbers almost always know their victims. Alarms work well, though.
Still, governments foreign and domestic respect citizens more when they know they are all armed.
quote:
P.S. I wonder if people in Communist China, where they can not criticize the government, have the right to keep and bear arms? I do not know the answer but I am going to guess "no." I believe that a billion people with guns can talk about whatever they want to talk about.
Does anyone know the answer to this question?
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:35 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
*sigh*
@piln: The study does offer an answer, you just don't want to hear it.
As for the rest, I don't suppose you have a source for that information?
quote:
Originally posted by piln
What are the reasons for all of these "mistakes?"
How about the most obvious reason, human error. Ever heard of it? It has a tendancy to happen every day. I should know, I work for the postal service.
There is no solid evidence that I have been shown so far to make me think otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
Why should the Supreme Court feel the need to step in - why not just let the final recount conclude, unless they had an interest in preserving the most recent outcome?
1. Presidence. This isn't the first time in U.S. history that this occured.
As for the rest of their reasons:
"Per Curiam.
I
On December 8, 2000, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered that the Circuit Court of Leon County tabulate by hand 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. It also ordered the inclusion in the certified vote totals of 215 votes identified in Palm Beach County and 168 votes identified in Miami-Dade County for Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democratic Candidates for President and Vice President. The Supreme Court noted that petitioner, Governor George W. Bush asserted that the net gain for Vice President Gore in Palm Beach County was 176 votes, and directed the Circuit Court to resolve that dispute on remand. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 4, n. 6). The court further held that relief would require manual recounts in all Florida counties where so-called “undervotes” had not been subject to manual tabulation. The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari. Post, p. ___.
The proceedings leading to the present controversy are discussed in some detail in our opinion in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, p. ____ (per curiam) (Bush I). On November 8, 2000, the day following the Presidential election, the Florida Division of Elections reported that petitioner, Governor Bush, had received 2,909,135 votes, and respondent, Vice President Gore, had received 2,907,351 votes, a margin of 1,784 for Governor Bush. Because Governor Bush’s margin of victory was less than “one-half of a percent . . . of the votes cast,” an automatic machine recount was conducted under §102.141(4) of the election code, the results of which showed Governor Bush still winning the race but by a diminished margin. Vice President Gore then sought manual recounts in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties, pursuant to Florida’s election protest provisions. Fla. Stat. §102.166 (2000). A dispute arose concerning the deadline for local county canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Secretary of State (Secretary). The Secretary declined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by statute. §§102.111, 102.112. The Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26. We granted certiorari and vacated the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, finding considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was based. Bush I, ante, at ___—___ (slip. op., at 6—7). On December 11, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision on remand reinstating that date. ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (slip op. at 30—31).
On November 26, the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission certified the results of the election and declared Governor Bush the winner of Florida’s 25 electoral votes. On November 27, Vice President Gore, pursuant to Florida’s contest provisions, filed a complaint in Leon County Circuit Court contesting the certification. Fla. Stat. §102.168 (2000). He sought relief pursuant to §102.168(3)(c), which provides that “[r]eceipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election” shall be grounds for a contest. The Circuit Court denied relief, stating that Vice President Gore failed to meet his burden of proof. He appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which certified the matter to the Florida Supreme Court.
Accepting jurisdiction, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d. ____ (2000). The court held that the Circuit Court had been correct to reject Vice President Gore’s challenge to the results certified in Nassau County and his challenge to the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board’s determination that 3,300 ballots cast in that county were not, in the statutory phrase, “legal votes.”
The Supreme Court held that Vice President Gore had satisfied his burden of proof under §102.168(3)(c) with respect to his challenge to Miami-Dade County’s failure to tabulate, by manual count, 9,000 ballots on which the machines had failed to detect a vote for President (“undervotes”). ___ So. 2d., at ___ (slip. op., at 22—23). Noting the closeness of the election, the Court explained that “[o]n this record, there can be no question that there are legal votes within the 9,000 uncounted votes sufficient to place the results of this election in doubt.” Id., at ___ (slip. op., at 35). A “legal vote,” as determined by the Supreme Court, is “one in which there is a ‘clear indication of the intent of the voter. ’ ” Id., at ____ (slip op., at 25). The court therefore ordered a hand recount of the 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. Observing that the contest provisions vest broad discretion in the circuit judge to “provide any relief appropriate under such circumstances,” Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000), the Supreme Court further held that the Circuit Court could order “the Supervisor of Elections and the Canvassing Boards, as well as the necessary public officials, in all counties that have not conducted a manual recount or tabulation of the undervotes … to do so forthwith, said tabulation to take place in the individual counties where the ballots are located.” ____ So. 2d, at ____ (slip. op., at 38).
The Supreme Court also determined that both Palm Beach County and Miami-Dade County, in their earlier manual recounts, had identified a net gain of 215 and 168 legal votes for Vice President Gore. Id., at ___ (slip. op., at 33—34). Rejecting the Circuit Court’s conclusion that Palm Beach County lacked the authority to include the 215 net votes submitted past the November 26 deadline, the Supreme Court explained that the deadline was not intended to exclude votes identified after that date through ongoing manual recounts. As to Miami-Dade County, the Court concluded that although the 168 votes identified were the result of a partial recount, they were “legal votes [that] could change the outcome of the election.” Id., at (slip op., at 34). The Supreme Court therefore directed the Circuit Court to include those totals in the certified results, subject to resolution of the actual vote total from the Miami-Dade partial recount.
The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
II
A
The closeness of this election, and the multitude of legal challenges which have followed in its wake, have brought into sharp focus a common, if heretofore unnoticed, phenomenon. Nationwide statistics reveal that an estimated 2% of ballots cast do not register a vote for President for whatever reason, including deliberately choosing no candidate at all or some voter error, such as voting for two candidates or insufficiently marking a ballot. See Ho, More Than 2M Ballots Uncounted, AP Online (Nov. 28, 2000); Kelley, Balloting Problems Not Rare But Only In A Very Close Election Do Mistakes And Mismarking Make A Difference, Omaha World-Herald (Nov. 15, 2000). In certifying election results, the votes eligible for inclusion in the certification are the votes meeting the properly established legal requirements.
This case has shown that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter. After the current counting, it is likely legislative bodies nationwide will examine ways to improve the mechanisms and machinery for voting.
B
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).
The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).
There is no difference between the two sides of the present controversy on these basic propositions. Respondents say that the very purpose of vindicating the right to vote justifies the recount procedures now at issue. The question before us, however, is whether the recount procedures the Florida Supreme Court has adopted are consistent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate.
Much of the controversy seems to revolve around ballot cards designed to be perforated by a stylus but which, either through error or deliberate omission, have not been perforated with sufficient precision for a machine to count them. In some cases a piece of the card–a chad–is hanging, say by two corners. In other cases there is no separation at all, just an indentation.
The Florida Supreme Court has ordered that the intent of the voter be discerned from such ballots. For purposes of resolving the equal protection challenge, it is not necessary to decide whether the Florida Supreme Court had the authority under the legislative scheme for resolving election disputes to define what a legal vote is and to mandate a manual recount implementing that definition. The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right. Florida’s basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the “intent of the voter.” Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 39). This is unobjectionable as an abstract proposition and a starting principle. The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.
The law does not refrain from searching for the intent of the actor in a multitude of circumstances; and in some cases the general command to ascertain intent is not susceptible to much further refinement. In this instance, however, the question is not whether to believe a witness but how to interpret the marks or holes or scratches on an inanimate object, a piece of cardboard or paper which, it is said, might not have registered as a vote during the machine count. The factfinder confronts a thing, not a person. The search for intent can be confined by specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment.
The want of those rules here has led to unequal evaluation of ballots in various respects. See Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 51) (Wells, J., dissenting) (“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”). As seems to have been acknowledged at oral argument, the standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from county to county but indeed within a single county from one recount team to another.
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.
An early case in our one person, one vote jurisprudence arose when a State accorded arbitrary and disparate treatment to voters in its different counties. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963). The Court found a constitutional violation. We relied on these principles in the context of the Presidential selection process in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969), where we invalidated a county-based procedure that diluted the influence of citizens in larger counties in the nominating process. There we observed that “[t]he idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government.” Id., at 819.
The State Supreme Court ratified this uneven treatment. It mandated that the recount totals from two counties, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach, be included in the certified total. The court also appeared to hold sub silentio that the recount totals from Broward County, which were not completed until after the original November 14 certification by the Secretary of State, were to be considered part of the new certified vote totals even though the county certification was not contested by Vice President Gore. Yet each of the counties used varying standards to determine what was a legal vote. Broward County used a more forgiving standard than Palm Beach County, and uncovered almost three times as many new votes, a result markedly disproportionate to the difference in population between the counties.
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.
That brings the analysis to yet a further equal protection problem. The votes certified by the court included a partial total from one county, Miami-Dade. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision thus gives no assurance that the recounts included in a final certification must be complete. Indeed, it is respondent’s submission that it would be consistent with the rules of the recount procedures to include whatever partial counts are done by the time of final certification, and we interpret the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to permit this. See ____ So. 2d, at ____, n. 21 (slip op., at 37, n. 21) (noting “practical difficulties” may control outcome of election, but certifying partial Miami-Dade total nonetheless). This accommodation no doubt results from the truncated contest period established by the Florida Supreme Court in Bush I, at respondents’ own urging. The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees.
In addition to these difficulties the actual process by which the votes were to be counted under the Florida Supreme Court’s decision raises further concerns. That order did not specify who would recount the ballots. The county canvassing boards were forced to pull together ad hoc teams comprised of judges from various Circuits who had no previous training in handling and interpreting ballots. Furthermore, while others were permitted to observe, they were prohibited from objecting during the recount.
The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.
The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.
Given the Court's assessment that the recount process underway was probably being conducted in an unconstitutional manner, the Court stayed the order directing the recount so it could hear this case and render an expedited decision. The contest provision, as it was mandated by the State Supreme Court, is not well calculated to sustain the confidence that all citizens must have in the outcome of elections. The State has not shown that its procedures include the necessary safeguards. The problem, for instance, of the estimated 110,000 overvotes has not been addressed, although Chief Justice Wells called attention to the concern in his dissenting opinion. See ____ So. 2d, at ____, n. 26 (slip op., at 45, n. 26).
Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work. It would require not only the adoption (after opportunity for argument) of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise. In addition, the Secretary of State has advised that the recount of only a portion of the ballots requires that the vote tabulation equipment be used to screen out undervotes, a function for which the machines were not designed. If a recount of overvotes were also required, perhaps even a second screening would be necessary. Use of the equipment for this purpose, and any new software developed for it, would have to be evaluated for accuracy by the Secretary of State, as required by Fla. Stat. §101.015 (2000).
The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State’s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.
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).
* * *
None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 45.2, the Clerk is directed to issue the mandate in this case forthwith.
It is so ordered."
Personally, I like Rehnquist's take on it a bit better, but that's just me.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
and I honestly cannot fathom anyone who says the whole thing was above-board.
True, I'd hardly call Gore trying to sue to become President above-board.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
but the thought of it happening to our great nation is too much to bear, and that's when people start burying their heads in the sand and pretending it's OK.
My head isn't in the sand. The seriousness of the charge does not make someone guilty. If it did, then you could say anything about anyone and make them "guilty". Blind patrotism doesn't lead me to think the way that I do. Nor does hatred, as is so evident in Bush's attackers. Logic and facts are what have lead me to my conculsions.
I also never said that I never question my leaders' judgement or motives. I've questioned Clinton's and Bush's on a number of occations. Your arguement isn't convincing me.
@Darrius Cole: If I was going to speculate on how those missing ballots went missing, then I'd first want to know which counties those ballots came from and who had control over them before I went drawing any conclusions.
@Aram: I don't have to pose a big threat. I'd only have to have the illusion of posing a big threat.
As for my firearms giving me a macho sense of power, I have enough self-confidence that I don't need a firearm to make myself feel macho. In fact, I really don't feel the need to feel macho.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:11 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
quote:
My head isn't in the sand. The seriousness of the charge does not make someone guilty. If it did, then you could say anything about anyone and make them "guilty". Blind patrotism doesn't lead me to think the way that I do. Nor does hatred, as is so evident in Bush's attackers. Logic and facts are what have lead me to my conculsions.
I also never said that I never question my leaders' judgement or motives. I've questioned Clinton's and Bush's on a number of occations. Your arguement isn't convincing me.
This all looks dirty because it is happening in Florida where George W. Bush's brother is the governor. That gives motive for, opportunity to perform, and the appearance of shady dealings. When a person ponders whether there were "shady dealings" committed, the deciding factor is simply whether the person believes in the integrity of the Bush family. Whether they acted inappropriately or not, they had every reason to believe that they could get away it. A person must ask himself, 'DO I BELIEVE THAT THE BUSH FAMILY WOULD COMMIT THIS WRONGDOING IF THEY KNEW THEY WERE NOT GOING TO GET CAUGHT.'
Personally, I define integrity as, "The probability that a person will do something that they know is morally wrong even though they know that they will get not get caught."
I assume no one has any integrity until they prove that they do.
I am curious and I have several questions about the above quote.
1. What makes you thinks that Bush's attackers hate him.
2. What are a few issues where you questions motives? Do you ever question his honesty?
3. What facts make you opposed to voting for John Kerry?
Please feel free to ask me any question about why I believe what I believe. I will answer. Understanding one another is one the forerunner of peace.
quote:
@Darrius Cole: If I was going to speculate on how those missing ballots went missing, then I'd first want to know which counties those ballots came from and who had control over them before I went drawing any conclusions.
I think that people tend to and force themselves to believe what is in their own best interest. I think that people who liked Bush before the election tend to think he won Florida fair and square. People who didn't like Bush before the election tend the think his supporters cheated. I tend to think that some manner of shady dealing went on in Florida, but then I did not support Bush in the first place. Did you support Bush or Gore before the election?
However this is my version of facts. We SHOULD NOT, (and somewhere in Florida there is a person who DOES NOT) have to speculate on how those ballots went missing. Someone knows what happen to them. These are ballots actually do (or did) exist. Now, they can not be produced. THEY ARE MISSING, THAT IS NOT A THEORY. Someone had to move them. My opinion: A simple 'we do not know what happened to them' is not a resonable or acceptable explanation from the government concerning ballots.
There are verifiable facts regarding these ballots. Somewhere there should be a list that tells us that these votes even exist, where is it? Somewhere there should be a list that tells us where those ballots came from, where is it? In that county, district, or whatever unit Florida uses to organize their votes someone is in charge of collecting the ballots, who is that person? That person should have sent someone to take the ballots from his district to the central location where the votes are counted and/or stored, who did he send? Who was handling these ballots? There is a trail. We (government) can find out what it is, if we tried. But, we (government) are not trying to find out.
No one cares about the integrity of the process, people only care about whether their candidate won or lost. Democrats only care because their man lost. Republicans only care because their man needed the state to win.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Sun Jul 18, 2004 9:00 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
You do realize that Florida wasn't the only state that could be contested, right? Iowa and Wisconsin could have also been contested. Gore barely won there. After the first official recount (the automatic one required by state law), Bush had still won in Florida. Even if they recounted the ballots the way that Gore favored, Bush still would have won. The only way Gore would have won is if they used Palm Beach County's method which was pretty much guessing what the voter intended. Or as this little cartoon so aptly puts it:
Frankly, if Bush had lost the initial recount, then I think he would have conceded, unlike Gore. But that's just my gut feeling on the matter.
You have a weird defination of integrity. I prefer the one in my dictionary.
As for your questions...
1. Ever visit moveon.org? The sheer amount of bile they produce is more than enough to convince me that those people hate him. Those people should take their own advise and move on.
2. I didn't care for the Incumbant Protection Act, oh, excuse me, I meant Campaign Finance Reform. Both parties are guilty on that one. Then there was that stupid Prescription Drug Benefit. I questioned his sanity when he let Ted Kennedy write the education bill. I can't understand why he keeps trying to make friends with Democrats when they obviously don't want to be friends. I didn't like the fact that he didn't go to the mat for his judicial appointments, especially in the case of Miguel Estrada after a memo was released showing that Democrats were seeking to block him because he is hispanic. There are a couple of others, but I can't think of them all right off the top of my head.
3. John Kerry's record. John Kerry's flip-flopping on issues. John Kerry has admitted to commiting war crimes during the Vietnam War. And the fact that I don't agree with several things that John Kerry stands for. That is why I'd never vote for John Kerry. He does not represent me.
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
Did you support Bush or Gore before the election?
Neither. I supported Alan Keyes. He's a smart guy who I actually agree with on almost every issue. I've attended two rallies where he was the key speaker. I had the opportunity to shake his hand and look him in the eye. I was impressed.
I'm not "forcing" myself to believe either Bush or Gore.
Until those questions about the missing ballots are answered, I'm not going to buy into any conspiracy theories.
Hmm... I might have to split this topic, we're wandering far from the subject. 
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound= |
|
Mon Jul 19, 2004 9:30 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged Second Edition (boy that's a long name) defines integrity as:
quote:
Integrity - the quality of state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity.
Webster's Dictionary
My definition...
quote:
The probability that a person will do something that they know is morally wrong even though they know that they will not get caught.
...embraces that definition and puts one more constraint on integrity. A person of true integrity will be of sound moral principle, uprightness, honesty, and sincerity even when they know that they can behave immorally with impunity. If they perceive a likelihood of punishment, then their integrity is not making them upright and honest, it is the fear of retribution. Integrity can only be tested when people believe they will NOT be punished for their actions. Whether that definition is weird or not, I think it is accurate. Can you imagine a person of integrity who does not satisfy my definition?
I do recognize that other states could be contested. Both Gore and Bush won some states by razor-thin margins. Any of those states would have been enough to tip the election. But, Florida got all of the press. I think this point supports me when I say...
quote:
This all looks dirty because it is happening in Florida where George W. Bush's brother is the governor.
Without saying that Jeb used/misused his power to influence the election, you can not deny the presence of opportunity, and motive for Jeb to do so. Motive and opportunity always make the police question you.
I went to moveon.org. They definitely do not like G.W. Bush. But 'Hate' is too strong a word to use liberally (pun not intended, but convenient). I would not say it rises to the level of hate. It is socially liberal, too liberal in my opinion, but not hate speech. This is no different from Rush Limbaugh saying that Democrats are terrorists. But if it makes you think that they HATE Bush then that is what is makes you think.
2. I asked two quetions here. The second question was, "Do you ever question his (Bush's) honesty?"
3. Your not agreeing with several things that John Kerry stands for is a good reason not to vote for him. Kerry's alleged flip-flopping is Republican campaign propaganda as is his 'war crimes admission.' I mean the military thought his 'war crimes' were so atrocious that they gave him medals.
When I asked if you supported Bush or Gore before the war, you responded Alan Keyes. That's most likely an attempt to trick me by avoiding the question. Not to say that you don't like Alan Keyes, but by the time the election came around he was completely out of the picture and there were only two 'real' candidates. So, unless you wrote in Alan Keyes' name(a valid possibilty), you either supported Bush, Gore, or you did not choose a side. If you don't want to say, I understand, who you voted for is a personal thing; but, please give me SOME credit for having half a brain a least.
P.S.
About that other stuff that PILN was saying...(you have to read previous post in this thread to understand this paragraph)
A few of his facts are incorrect. Texas did not send the names over; Florida went and got them as well as names from South Carolina. The person who authorized the incorrect database parameters was not Katherine Harris, it was Emmet Mitchell. DBT attempted to correct the problem but, the correction was overturned by Janet Keels.
He was correct in that the administration did know that they would get many false positives. By reasoning we can deduce that they also should have know that the false positives would have approximately same racial make up as the list itself. The source is here
It probably would be a good idea to split this thread.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:37 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:39 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
