I urge one and all, particularly my partisan friends on the other side, to go to http://www.flcourts.org and read the ruling.
Pay particular attention to the Chief Justice’s dissenting opinion, which begins on Page 40. It very eloquently points out all the reasons why everyone, regardless of their political persuasion, should be concerned with this ruling and its ramifications.
Reading the majority opinion, it appears that this is a court that has very little trouble with wearing the activist label. It seems very comfortable looking at issues in broad, general ways, and getting into philosophical concepts. Strict constructionists these ain’t.
For the reasons outlined by Chief Justice Wells, however, I would bet dimes to donuts that you will see the U.S. Supreme Court do its version of “WWF Smackdown” on this decision before Tuesday.
If that occurs, it will be the quickest that body has probably ever done anything.
But U.S. Code is clear. Electors must be in place by Dec. 12. Yet another reason why what the Fla. SC has just ordered is so incredible.
These hand counts will be, by necessity:
- Done extremely fast
We’ve moved out of the realm where the Florida Supreme Court can move deadlines willy-nilly. Now we’re coming up on federal and constitutional deadlines.
- Done with the knowledge of what count is needed to overturn the election result
Stop and think about how mind-numbingly unfair that is, in comparison to the way our elections are typically undertaken.
**- Conducted by partisans who have a potential stake in one outcome or another. **
These aren’t just people who voted for one candidate or the other. These are people who are registered members of a particular party. In fact, I believe in all cases canvassars are judges or county commissioners, so they have also accepted campaign funds from their particular party. (Perhaps not the circuit judges, although many in my state are political party members or supporters.)
Why are some so willing to dismiss that on something so important, but accept the appearance of impropriety being an exclusionary concept in other aspects of their lives?
- Done with standards that vary from place to place.
For example, in Palm Beach County, they said if you punched through all the rest of your ballot but only made a dent on or near a presidential candidate, you clearly knew what you were supposed to do, your ballot was clearly positioned properly; that’s not a vote.
In Broward County, their standard was almost a polar opposite. There, the standard was if you voted a straight party ticket, then had any kind of indentation near a presidential candidate of that party, clearly it was your intention, judging by the rest of the ballot, to vote for that candidate. (Apparently canvassars there have never heard of ticket-splitting or not voting in a particular race.)
All of the above is an invitation to inaccuracy. It does not move the process closer to fairness.
Watch MSNBC or whatever network you like that shows these recounts in process. Pay attention to who is doing what for whom. (This means you, wring)
Then come back and give your opinion on whether the process was objective, nonpartisan and impartial.