Sincere election-related questions

I am just looking for information here, not making a stand about a thing.

But two questions have occured to me in watching all this mess:

  1. Why exactly would the Supreme Court caming down on the side of Bush and saying that the Florida Supreme Court rewrote law make any difference now? The election has been certified. Let’s say the Florida judge calls for a recount for Gore. Can’t the post-Nov 14 totals be used in such a scenario, along with any additional Miami Dade and whatever totals? The counts have actually been done, as we all know. If the judge orders those totals to be included… I just don’t understand why the pundits keep talking about it as though 930 will be the only number that counts and any further battling will completely ignore the additional Broward votes, even in a post-certification recount.

Have I made myself clear? i don’t feel that I have… but I hope so and I hope someone can provide an answer.

  1. Sorta related question, and maybe no one can answer it because it is more about the attorney’s strategy perhaps.

This business of recounts for Miami Dade… the Bush lawyers are, of course, bitching that no counts can commence until they battle out 2 things: should such counts commence as part of the contest, and what would the standard be for those counts?

Seems to me that it would be perfectly legal and appropriate to begin counting in any case, since time is short, while the battle rages. Then, if the court sez the count is to be included, it is ready to rock. If it does not, no harm done. As for the standard, that seems especially simple: since these ballots are being so anally examined and id’d anyway, it seems a relatively simple matter to break them down in the count and id them as follows:

full punch
3 corners
2 corners
1 corner
no corners, dimpled with light
dimpled no light

nothing resembling a vote of any kind

Then, when the judge sez what the standard should be, you count just the piles that fall within that standard. Extremely simple, and the damn ballots are counted.

I thought it interesting when the two minority leaders in Congress gave their press conference the other day and they said that under the Freedom of Information Act someone, sometime, was going to count those ballots by hand and let us know once and for all what the totals were. I hope they do, and I hope they do it according to what I outline above. That way we can all decide, according to what we think is legit, who really won on the votes.

Stoid

The damage that could be done with a re-count is that it could show Gore as the winner, even though the results aren’t legally admissable. That would give Gore a weapon to go to the people, the Congress, the Electoral College, etc. It may be that that’s exactly what he’s looking for.

In other words, if the judge decides to throw out the case (meaning Bush probably becomes President), then it isn’t fair for Gore to pick up ammunition from this case that he can use elsewhere.

I, too, wish it were that simple. But you know that people will disagree on whether or not there’s “light” in the dimple or not… or even what constitutes an “attached” corner (“That corner looks a little loosened, so it should count…”).

Let’s just hope that, in the future, better standards are set and followed (and better methods of voting and counting are developed). If anything, this debacle has been an amazing delving into the realm of subjectivity.

I agree with the prior comments. My understanding is that to allow the counting would be equivalent to ignoring the entire argument of the Bush camp–i.e., that this count would be prejudicial and inaccurate because of how selective the choice of re-count is and the subjective nature of the counting method. SPOOFE said it already–even your guidelines can be subject to interpretation.

Now the judge may very well opine otherwise. But I think it’s consistent (at least to this non-lawyer) to say that they can’t provide the remedy prior to the hearing. From the Bush perspective, the damage will have already been done even if the judge then says, “OK, it doesn’t count.”

Stoidela, I think I agree with your first point, if you mean that the U.S. Supreme Court decision will not, by itself and from a legal perspective, restrict Gore’s efforts to pursue everything he currently is pursuing. But from a public opinion perspective, yet another pro-Bush ruling (on top of the butterfly ballot ruling, on top of the Florida SC ruling not to command the immediate commencement of a recount, and anything else that may break in the short term) could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

As to the first question in the OP, obviously some of the justices on the Court are having some difficulty seeing exactly what would happen as a result of their ruling. Not only did they specifically ask the parties to brief the issue, but the asked questions about it during the oral arguments.

Still, I have opined in another thread that the result of a ruling in favor of Mr. Bush could result in many of the contests filed by Democrats under Section 102.168 being dismissed. It depends on what the Supreme Court does. If the Court agrees that the Florida Supreme Court was correct that Ms. Harris had discretion to accept the manual recounts after Nov. 14, but decides the FSC improperly set its own date limiting the exercise of that discretion, then there may be no actual effect on the cases now being contested. But if the Court decides that the FSC got it ALL wrong, that the plain meaning of Florida election law is that there was no discretion after Nov. 14, then under the rules of Section 102.168, it could be argued that no contest of an election filed after Nov. 24 would be timely. That would wipe out the election contests filed over Miami-Dade County and in Palm Beach County regarding their manual recounts. Since the best legal hope for the Democrats is the Miami-Dade County fiasco (and last night CNN noted that statisticians studying the situation aren’t so certain Dade County would make any difference), the USSC ruling could put the whole thing out of reach.

It will be interesting to see what the Court rules. I think it is clear that Ms. O’Connor is leaning towards the side that argues the FSC went too far, but whether she will go all the way and agree that the law mandated a final result on Nov. 14 or try for some compromise is uncertain. Make no mistake about it, Ms. O’Connor is the key; the four libs and the four conservatives all will try to get her on their side. Justice Ginsburg’s pointed questions about never having told a state supreme court that their interpretation of state law was wrong was directed right at Ms. O’Connor, who is WELL known for her propensity to thoroughly torture logic and ignore precedent to try and reach a compromise result. We are talking about the justice who wrote an opinion released just three days ago that drew a distinction between stopping all cars to look for people without a valid drivers’ license, or for illegal aliens, or for those driving drunk and stopping all cars to look for people carrying drugs or any other ‘regular criminal activity’. :rolleyes:

DS:

Not to open up any worm stew or anything, but I don’t have a whole lotta faith in this court,seeing as they just couldn’t imagine the harm in allowing sitting presidents to be sued. :rolleyes:

I lay the whole impeachment mess directly on their doorstep.

As for the continued subjectivity of ballot sorting… I don’t really buy it. Sure, there will be buttheads, but accepting that argument before and while the decision is in flux is tantamount to saying the recounts never should, never would, never could be done or trusted, and THAT is ignoring Florida (and Texas) law, not to mention fairness, as well as rendering the ongoing court cases moot.

But I do appreciate y’all answering me. I do wonder why the attorneys have not argued for what I outlined, and also about the meaning of rejecting the FSC…

Also: I agree about public opinion. But it makes me sad nonetheless. I just want it to go far enough for the Legislature to lock it up for Bush, that’s all I ask.

Just heard something that makes me even sadder, cuz I think it’s true. Gore has apparantly stopped talking to or listening to anyone on this except Joe L. and his family. That isn’t a good idea. Buton the other hand… whst has he got to lose? He has no future without a win, and not much with one. The only thing on the line at this point is how history remembers him. Unfortunately, I don’t think it will remember him kindly.

stoid

Hey, not to hijack this post for too long or anything…But, do you think that logic is so twisted? Without having read the decision in detail, I personally thought it drew the line in about the right place. I.e., the State has a compelling and directly related interest to the matter at hand (driving) to check on licenses or drunkiness but not such a directly related interest in regards to other criminal activity. (I am less sure about the illegal aliens part.)

I think that is a ridiculous viewpoint, Stoid. The president isn’t some kind of God, he’s subject to law just like everyone else.

monster:

Of course he is. But don’t you think the leader of the free world should be left alone to lead it while he is doing so? It isn’t as if he couldn’t have been sued AFTER he was out of office. If you want to talk what is ridculous, Paula Jones’ need to get pissy with Clinton was hardly of earth shattering importance. Nor would any other private lawsuit be, and apart from partisan glee, I can’t imagine why anyone would want the president to be vulnerable to that kind of bullshit while he or she is president. Don’t you think the job is just a little bit special? A little bit more important than that? I know you do.

There is no rational, reasonable, logical or meaningful argument FOR leaving presidents vulberable to private lawsuits while they are in office. If we didn’t know it intuitively before, we have had it proven to us by now.
Also, do not (in case you might be already or headed that way) confuse lawsuits with criminal actions. There is a big difference. It seems there may in fact be a criminal charge brought against Clinton for the perjury (which is so fucking ridiculous I could scream, but tht is beside the point) AFTER he leaves office. At least whoever is spearheading that effort has the sense and the decency to wait, even though it’s technically more reasonable than bringing private lawsuits. (depending on the charge and context.)

Well, it’s a hijack, but I just wanted to respond one last time…

While I agree that ridiculous lawsuits should not be made (Nobody should have to endure stupid crap we hear people being sued for), if the president wrongs someone, that person has the legal right to sue (How many people do you think try to sue the president? Probably hundreds; we just don’t hear about all the really ridiculous cases).

Criminal cases are a different matter entirely. The perjury charge ISN’T ridiculous. He lied under oath (Albeit in a non-criminal lawsuit, it’s still perjury) which is a federal offense.

So there you go. Hopefully someone could answer your original questions, because while I have my own theories and ideas, I want the legal Straight Dope about this presidential mess.

Since it is my thread, I give you permission to continue hijacking as much as you like. As you see, I’ve joined you.

Sure they do. But they shouldn’t have the right to do so while he’s in office. Members of the MILITARY cannot be sued while they serve…but the commander-in-chief CAN be? Completely illogical.

I disagree. Prosecution of this perjury offense amounts to persecution in my book. People just don’t get charged with perjury in matters such as this, gimme a break. It’s only because he’s Clinton and alot of people hate him, not because he deserves it.

Nixon got a pardon, for christ’ sake.

stoid

The difference is that there is a specific statute exempting members of the military from being sued while they serve. There is no such statute for the president and the president has never been considered a military officer despite being commander-in-chief.

You can agree or disagree with the decision, but it was not “illogical.” Whether a sitting president should be open to a lawsuit is a political and pragmatic issue – not a legal one. If a sitting president should be exempted, it is up to Congress to pass a law.

People can and occassionally do get charged with perjury for lying in a civil case. Holding the President to a strict standard makes perfect sense. The whole thing was an issue not because of persoanl or political disagreements, but because he is the President. A Republican President would have faced the same situation, but from different members of Congress.

Proven? You mean in the way the government collapsed when Clinton was distracted by the lawsuit? I’d say that life went on for most of us.

I don’t see that as having drastic consequences, Sam. The Congress is under GOP control, and the GOP’s EC electors aren’t likely to change their votes. And, AFAIAC, anyone should have the right to make their case in the court of public opinion.

There are a number of things, at this point, that are worth a FOIA request, IMHO. First up, for me at least, is the 19,120 double-punched Palm Beach County ballots, since the confusions surrounding the butterfly ballot, as used there, have kinda been my pet issue throughout this mess.

Second would be the twice-punched ballots in Duval County: according to yesterday’s Washington Post (it’s a long article; look about halfway down), thousands of ballots were disqualified, in large part because voters followed the instructions of voting on every page: the problem was that the list of Presidential candidates was spread over two pages. (Assuming page 2 only listed minor parties, it should be easy to see which major party candidate lost how many votes this way.) Since most of the disqualified ballots were in heavily black precincts (the thrust of the article), chances are that Bush was the primary beneficiary of this problem.

Third would be the ballots that, in the machine count, registered no Presidential vote, yet weren’t counted by hand. In a Presidential election, it’s pretty rare that people don’t have an opinion in the Presidential contest, but come to the polls to vote in lesser races. And in particular, it’s a lot more rare that people’s ballots reflect this, where the ballots are marked by pen and read by a scanner, than when they’re punch card ballots.

There’s some others, but that’s enough for now. My bet is that any one of these three would suffice to show that Gore truly won Florida, and with it, the election. With all three combined, I have no doubt whatsoever. While I think the time for the truth about these questions to be brought forth is now, while it can still make a difference, the truth should still come to light regardless. I expect the political effect of the truth will be minimal if it comes out after the Florida court cases are decided, but whenever the truth can come out, it should. Let’s have no Warren Commission-style burial of the facts about this election, whatever they prove to be.