The Military Ballots, et al

Great Debates
21

Sorry, ExTank. Didn’t mean to give the impression that I was responding to you. Also, I was wrong to presume that military mail was required to be postmarked. My military experience is limited to four years of ROTC, where we use the regular mail.

I figure that at this point we just all have to be patient to see what the courts and everyone in authority says. I’m not even going to try playing lawyer, especially with so much misinformation flowing around. I will say that any chance of a revote in Palm Beach County is getting slimmer by the day, which I think is good, as it’s a dangerous precedent to set.

22

Are you refering to posts in another thread? I just can’t read that into the OP in this thread.

23

I’m willing to let the hand counts finish, too… since they’ve already begun. However, I am wary of the fact that, if the election swings in Gore’s favor, the word “chad” will be drummed into our skulls for the next four years, along with the phrase “vote tampering”, despite the accuracy of these claims.

I think we can all agree that this has been a majorly effed-up election.

24

ExTank said:

I would hate to go that far, but, like I said, that will be up to a panel of judges.

As to how it could be illegal, well, just because it’s approved by some politicians doesn’t make it legal. Politicians approve illegal things all the time – that’s why we have the courts.

Dunno.

Agreed. All of these things should have been caught before the election. They should have been known about before it came to this (I’m talking about both the format and the military postmarking business). Florida screwed the pooch big-time here.

One thing that would have solved this problem is to have absentee ballot deadlines like many other states (such as Illinois) where you don’t worry about postmarks – you just require that they are in by the date of the vote, period.

25

Gee, I guess I missed the fact that this is the first election where the military overseas voted.

It isn’t?

So what has changed this time since the last vote? What new wrinkle in military operations has changed how their mail is handled? nothing?

Then why wasn’t this issue hammered out several years ago?

See the real problem is that, if Florida State Law has remained unchanged for some time (and the one in question has been in effect for years), this means that for the last several years, military votes were either improperly (according to Florida law) counted or they’ve been tossed out unbeknownst to us.

If it’s true that the great bulk of military mail does not have post marks, I think it’s deplorable that NO ONE mentioned this, complained, attempted to change it BEFORE this election.

26

If the butterfly ballot is illegal, then the people who designed and approved it are liable. The people of PBC can sue them. If Gore loses he can sue them.

Dammit, this is a country founded on the right to litigate, isn’t it?

27

Actually, Scylla I recall some stuff about how those might have been illegal, but think the final consensus was they were allowed under law. I could be mistaken.

But even if it’s not, I doubt that any court challenges to these will go anywhere in the future. If Gore challenges them in court, he’d be foolish. If the individual voter challenged them, they’d have to prove damages, and I don’t think it would be able to be proved (how do you prove yours was one of the votes thrown out? etc.)

It is my sincere hope that:

  1. The Florida Supreme court should rule on the issue of SoS Harris’ decision to reject the recounts. Their decision on this should stand.

  2. That the investigation into the military ballots discover how often military ballots fail to have postmarks, and determine a means in the future to correctly validate military ballots (without the potential for fraud on either side).

  3. That there be an investigation into the allegations that police road blocks were set up around polling places in predominately minority areas. This hasn’t recieved a lot of talk here or in the press, but if it happened, it’s frightening (FTR I do not believe that anyone at a high level in the campaign would have authorized such an action).

  4. That the folks using the punchcard ballots figure out a different way to vote. A suggestion for PBC in particular, have a panel of elderly folk try out samples of the ballots in real conditions before approving them.

28

Apparently, Butterworth (the AG) has advised the local boards to count the military ballots, even without postmarks. I’m not sure if this represents a shift in Democratic strategy, realizing the bad press and possible contradiction in their positions, or if he may have been unaware of the previous Democratic efforts. Also, it’s unclear if the local boards are required to (and will) heed his opinion. My impression of Joe Lieberman calling for all military ballots to be “reconsidered” was that of someone looking to head off criticism after the issue was safely settled in his favor. So we’ll see what happens. Unless the Dems get a liberal ballot interpretation from the Florida SC, they are going to have a difficult time making up the difference as it is.

29

It seems to me that any law which invalidates a ballot due to a sitution beyond the voter’s control violates the 14th amendment, and therefore should be ignored.

30

I think that what is ‘going on’ is that Lieberman and Butterworth both have character, and won’t allow personal ambition to get in the way of what is right.

The other possibility is that we’re seeing rats jumping from a sinking ship. At this point, I’ll bet there are a lot of guys in Al Gore’s corner going, “Jeez, if Al loses this could sink my career.” Remember, Lieberman will still be in the Senate if Al loses, so making a bunch of enemies among Republicans (and the public) would not be a good thing for him.

The same thing happened today with Katherine Harris, who’s statement to the Supreme Court condemned a number of Republican actions. She may have been acting ethically all along, or she may now be trying to develop an air of impartiality to limit the damage to her career.

31

???

I watched it from start to finish and I wouldn’t characterize anything coming from her camp this way.

Of course, alot of what was going on seemed more than a little convoluted.

Did anyone else watch the whole thing? I have to say… I think the Bush camp came off badly overall. They stumbled a lot, they couldn’t answer questions, and the heart of their argument seemed to be " it’s the law!" re: the 7 days, while the judges were asking them “but it’s not in stone, and the SoS had it within her discretion to change that,didnt’ she?” and the response continued to be: “It’s the law!”

I also was glad to see Boise make the point that there was a great deal of effort made to stop the recounts BEFORE the 7 days was up, thereby making it very difficult to even hope to get them done in time, and that “if everyone would just get out of the way!” they could be finished.

It was a fascinating process, in any case, to see what they could and could not argue.

stoid

32

wring:

It’s probably the first one that has come down this close, making it an issue now where it wasn’t previously because they would have had no substantial effect on the election.

IzzyR:

I would like to believe that he did so for the right reasons. Since enough partisan BS has been slung, I will elect to do so.

Sam Stone:

At this point, I will choose to believe the former. Enough is enough.

33

I hate to disillusion you, Ex-Tank, but when I came home from work and tuned into CNN I saw that the Republicans consider the AG’s words to be so much window-dressing. The ballots have already been counted, first, and second, the AG has no authority over anything that’s done concerning the counting of the ballots, because that’s the SOS’s job.

Personally, I’ve evolved from getting 'em counted, to letting Bush win, to being embarrassed about this attempted exclusion of the military ballots. I was looking forward to whipping some Republican butt in '02 preparatory to going into '04 with some major momentum, but Gore has hung on too long now, and is giving Bush more legitimacy every minute that he continues with this recount stuff. Somebody has to grab him by the collar and make him realize he’s destroying the village he meant to save.

34

Stoidela: <<<the heart of their argument seemed to be " it’s the law!">>

Well, of COURSE that’s at the heart of their arguement, and that’s why they won at the circuit court level.

In order for the Democrats to win, they will have to convince the FL Supreme court find that the Secretary of State broke a law in upholding the deadline.

So I ask you, what law did she break?
Failing that, the Democrats don’t have a legal leg to stand on, and will have to rely on a breathtaking act of judicial interventionism, which 1.) overrules a circuit court, which courts do NOT like to do, and don’t do lightly, and 2.) runs roughshod over the concept of “administrative deference,” in which elected officials who act within the law are generally allowed to perform their duties as they see fit, so long as they can articulate some reasoned policy. The lower court has already upheld administrative deference in the Secretary of States’ case.

3.) The courts will have to not only strike down the deadline as unconstitutional, but will ALSO have to write a new, equally arbitrary deadline, over and above the will of the legislature and executive branches.

4.) The Democrats are also asking the court to overrule administrative deference at the county level, by imposing a “statewide, uniform standard” for the counting of ballots, which is clearly the province of the county election boards.

So it DOES come down to “It’s the law, stupid,” to borrow a phrase from Paul Begala in the 92 campaign.

And if the court does its job, the side that argues “it’s the law” against the side that argues AGAINST the law, is the side that wins.

35

pantom:

:ExT covers ears with hands, closes eyes:

LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!

I don’t care what “Republican” advocates are doing down there anymore, or “Democrats” either.

At this point I’m willing to take people at their word, as long as that word is consistent with their actions.

Not that Butterworth had a whole lot of official say, unless and until such time as evidence indicates that laws were broken. Then he can exercies the power of his office to investigate and possibly prosecute such violations.

Having not heard of any partisan activity on his part, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, in the interest of moving forward from this mess towards some kind of resolution.

36

Tank I hear ya. I agree that in prior years the overseas ballots weren’t an issue. I guess that was my point. Either in prior years they ignored the law and counted them anyhow and didn’t bother correcting the law, or in prior years, they tossed the ballots, too, and just didn’t care about the military vote.

In either case, the military vote was discounted, dismissed or didn’t matter. Just as I was suspicious about Dems’ crying about the PBC ballots trying to get them allowed in, I reject these as well. It’s the same arguement, with a slightly different population, and a different percieved winner of those votes (assumptions being the PBC voters would have gone more for Bush, PBC for GOre - in both cases the votes were not counted under terms of the law, in both cases, the statement was “but it wasn’t the voter’s fault”). shrug.

Again. I think it’s awful if there were conditions known before the election and the situation was not remedied before the election.

37

We don’t need to wait for the next election. Federal law provides that soldiers stationed in certain places overseas have franking privileges, and do not have to pay postage. Very regularly, their mail will bear no postmark.

If someone somewhere has imposed a law that takes away their right to vote with correctly-cast ballots, they are violating these soldiers’ Constitutional rights. The law will be struck down, and the votes counted. In this election.

I can’t imagine the U.S. Supreme Court declining to hear or fast-track this matter.

BTW, your logic in comparing this to the incorrectly cast ballots in Palm Beach County is flawed. Keep saying it, but it’s still wrong, every time.

38

Furthemore, who will defend the case? Will the Gore people go to court arguing against accepting the military ballots? I’d like to see them do this, especially after all their arguments about “the will of the people”.

39

It should be noted, for purposes of clarification, that Florida AG Robert Butterworth is apparently telling these county canvassars that the properly signed, dated and witnessed overseas military absentee ballots without postmarks are legal under Florida law.

40

Gee Milo it’s so nice that some one else found cites that supported your position for you. Neither of us are lawyers, there’s conflicting laws here state vs. federal, plus some question about the federal regulations. I believe that it might end up in court. So until that’s been cleared up, assertions probably should be avoided. Any constitutional lawyers out there?

Please, however, if you’re going to attack an argument that I’ve presented, do more than by saying “it’s flawed”.

For clarification, my arguement is "Some military ballots were excluded because of a lack of postmark. Florida law requires it. This fact was known before the election and no one did anything to change the law. (we don’t know at this point how the court rulings about federal vs. state laws will come out, so it’s not part of my comparison). Therefore, under current Florida law, much as we may deplore it, the ballots shouldn’t be counted. The PBC ballot apparently confused some large number of voters. The ballots were known before the election as were the basic voter pool, nothing was done before the election to prevent this problem, therefore the ballots shouldn’t be counted.

Some military ballots were disqualified since the voter failed to fill out the forms correctly. Some PBC voters failed to fill their ballots correctly. Each should be disqualified." These are the comparisions I’ve made.

If a court rules that the Federal law supercedes the state law in this case, then the circumstances surrounding my comparison would be changed (at least for the former). so, please, where’s the problem?